And aren't they missing the point that we don't even care about hunting with them? It's about protecting our 2nd amendment rights. I personally want larger magazines and firepower than any criminal might use against me. And I'd prefer to have the same weaponry our government might use against its own population...
Unfortunately none of those three points will change anyone's mind about the issue.
Generally (a huge generalization here), people that are anti-gun (or pro gun-control) tend to think of themselves as pragmatic, socially progressive, educated and they believe society has advanced beyond the need for guns and other such barbaric devices. I try to appeal to their pragmatic side. Surely they believe in the scientific method... ? I find the lack of scientific approach to the problem the most outrageous part of this whole situation. The very people that are the first to chastise someone for eschewing science are the ones that are completely ignoring science on this issue.
It all boils down to a fundamental human trait: We are emotional creatures. Some of us fight vehemently to protect a set of completely non-scientific ideals (e.g. religion), while others among us will do the same to keep scary looking things away from us. The hypocrisy is deafening.
Politicians know this all too well. They utilize our emotional weaknesses against us with every hot-button issue, from abortion to guns to welfare to healthcare to war.
I digress. I'm rambling. :rock: