Inflammatory rhetoric to the contrary, there has not been any large or coordinated push to take guns away from Americans. That s not what responsible gun owners have to fear. What they should be concerned about is the fact that their own peers resist common-sense efforts like those of this organization, and by doing so, force their opponents to take ever more radical approaches in attempting to enact safeguards. Polarization on this issue means that a group that actually would be satisfied by legislation requiring locked gun safes or trigger locks on firearms in households with small children may begin its bargaining by positing that all firearms should be banned. That, unfortunately, diverts attention from debating safeguards for children to debating safeguards for constitutional rights.
More children die, and another push is mounted.
All that political maneuvering could be avoided if we could agree that safeguards don t necessarily equal controls and don t necessarily infringe upon anyone s rights. It s difficult to understand why the gun lobby, funded as it is by people who believe they need guns for their own personal safety, cannot understand that other citizens fear for their safety as well. It s not unreasonable for them to seek assurances that they won t be shot with stolen handguns, or that their children won t be shot with guns their playmates found in their own homes. Those are assurances gun owners, and the organizations that represent them, could aid in providing. In doing so, they could deflect many of the criticisms they perceive as attacks on their Second-Amendment rights.