
I think that HCI people honestly believe that passing more gun control
laws will be in the best interests of public safety.  Why do I think
this?  Because I used to buy the HCI line.  During my freshman year (1987),
their line made so much sense -- only people who "need" guns should be
able to get them, and the people who "need" them are the police and
other elites.  Unfortunately for us, this position is highly emotional
and not well thought-out.  They never stop to think that HCI's position
basically says that the non-elite are incompetents (that's you and me,
folks!) and that the Second Amendment has absolutely nothing to do with
hunting or other "legitimate" uses (which excludes overthrowing tyrannical
governments and defending yourself when the police have proven they
can't protect you).


Every pro-control person I've talked to is always left  stumped when I
simply argue the facts of gun control (that it has yet to be proven to
lower crime rates) and weapons terminology (and I'm no expert -- but
explaining exactly how an "evil" semiautomatic weapon really works
does wonders).

I hvae personally found well-reasoned arguments to be most effective
against the emotional pro-control people.  The trick is to get them to
realize that the Second Amendment exists not for hunters but for the
oppressed and the terrorized.