The problem, Jasper, is that human motivation is not an easy, clear thing in all cases. It is very easy to wish to control a thing for its own good. We do that with dogs and leashes. Licensing for drivers, as another example. The goal in those cases is not control as an end in itself. Rather, the goal is the safety of the dog, or the safety of the drivers on the road. So it is possible to desire control without the control being the desired end.
Part of the problem, too, is the usual and frequent violation of a set of rules. These are not rules in the sense of laws or manners. Rather, they are helpful guidelines for how one thinks. The First Rule is that "People are Stupid". They will believe anything they fear to be true, or that they wish to be true. Violations of this rule happen on both sides of the aisle.
The Second Rule, for the present purpose, is "Passion Rules Reason". This one is relatively self-explanatory, but it is harder to keep than it would seem. It is very easy to allow one's passions to overrule reason without realising it. It is an insidious, creeping thing. So in the end, this rule is often violated by those who think their cause is just and obvious. And again, this violation is not limited to one side of the aisle.
Violation of these rules does not make an opponent evil. We are human, and errors of thought will happen.
It does not serve our ends well, as LowSci and others have noted, if we simply dismiss those who wish to ban guns as evil, tyrranical, authoritarian, or stupid. Therefore, we should give a good faith evaluation of what the "antis" really want, and their motivations. And this good faith hearing means that we take them at their word that they wish to make a safer world. It also requires us to recognize that their passion is at the least the equal of our own, and that they are as easily ruled by their passions as we are.
But LowSci and some of the others are right, I think, in their assessment of the overall desire of the anti-gun movements. They want safety for their children and loved ones, just as we do. We do disagree about the means, and there is room for that, especially in our society. While I agree that the idea that banning guns will not be the solution, it serves us better in our work toward our goals if we allow that there are arguments to be made for the bans, and address them in a calm, reasoned manner.
The hard part is cutting through the fear and passion without becoming caricatures of ourselves. That is part of why the High Road was repaved of late. It does not serve us to reason by Argumentum Ad Hitlerum. While it is useful to note that the first gun control laws were purely racist in nature in the US, the point does not go farther or have much more weight when Hitler is added into the equation. Especially as the new laws lack those explicitly racial elements.
The ideal of beating swords into plowshares, I think, is a thing that we all would agree to be a good thing. As many of the signatures say, the hope is that you never have to resort to the use of a weapon in defense of yourself or others.
It is helpful to recognise too, that the Anti-Gun movements have more on their agenda than simply the banning of firearms. There is sweeping social reform that is hoped to make such things unnecessary. While I do not deny the socialistic nature of such programmes, I do understand their appeal, both to reason and to emotion.
