Something to keep in mind: the phrase "common sense" means that the
reasoning behind something is so obvious and simple that it generally
need not be explained. That being said, it also indicates that whatever
it is describing can be
easily explained by anyone who puts their
mind to it.
For example, it's common sense to wear a selt belt while in a moving
car. The reason? The seat belt keeps you from being hurled from the
vehicle in the case of a collision. Having been in 4 car wrecks myself,
I can assure you that yes, seat belts are a good idea. It's also common
sense not to run with scissors. Why? Running increases the likelihood
of falling, and falling with a pair of sharp scissors in your hand can
be a dangerous prospect.
I'm sure you know where this is leading... where is the reasoning
behind the so-called "common sense" gun legislation? After all, if that
phrase can be properly applied to the proposed laws, then the logic
behind them should be plainly obvious and simple to explain. Right?
Yes, it's common sense not to leave an unlocked gun (loaded or
otherwise) accessible to an unsupervised child. But what about the guy
who lives alone? In a dangerous neighborhood? Why should someone like
that be required to "protect" children that don't exist and sacrifice
his own safety in the process? But that's what "common sense" mandatory
trigger locks require. It's an across-the-board regulation that applies
to everyone, whether it makes sense or not. How can something that's
"common sense" not make sense?
The real trick is to try and find the reasoning behind gun registration
and gun owner licensing. By definition, if these proposals are simply
"common sense" as they're often labeled, the explanation should be
elementary and obvious. Yet, the only reasoning you're going to manage
to extract from gun control proponents is "Safety" and "Well, we
register cars, don't we?" Neither of those actually explain how these
laws will actually prevent intentional misuse of firearms, the source of
more than 95% of all gun deaths.
Trying to minimize accidents truly is a laudable goal, one that's been
pursued by the NRA for over a hundred years, but seeing as how gun
accidents are at one of the lowest rates in history, what is the real
push behind getting these laws passed? We face a continual deluge of
words like "epidemic" and "out of control". Gun accidents are an
epidemic and are out of control? No, those terms are being used to
describe gun violence, something that gun registration and licensing
simply have no effect on. Don't believe me? Ask a gun control
supporter exactly how licensing and registration will cut down on crime
or suicide. Take a look at the effects of licensing, registration, and
bans on New York City, Washington D.C., and Los Angeles. Considering
that the overwhelming majority of guns used in crime are stolen,
smuggled, or delivered by crooked dealers, how are licensing and
registration going to affect criminals one bit? "Common sense" says
that they can't.