Well, the opposition's ostensible point of view is compromising between gun rights and safety (the right to life)--the idea is that we ought to give up some portion of our gun rights in exchange for fewer innocent lives lost, not for nothing. These panels only touch upon the idea dismissively, which could be construed as narrow-mindedness or even callousness. Sure, WE know that "gun control" does NOT save lives in practice, and that some prominent anti-gunners have ulterior motives (they must because they should know better by now), but not everybody sitting on the fence on the issue, so to speak, does.