Double Stakeholder

I have been informed that I oppose "common sense" restrictions on firearms ownership entirely because I own guns that "common sense" says that I shouldn't be allowed to own.

True, I do object to and oppose gun control on that basis.

But it's not the only basis for my objections.

First, any safety measure proposed must actually work before I endorse it.  Gun control has a proven track record of failing to provide any safety at all.  See Chicago and Los Angeles for the classic examples.

Second, any safety measure proposed must be Hitler/Stalin/Mao/Pot/Castro proof!

Not one gun control proposal passes both tests, and I am not sure of any which pass even one.

Things that I know work:

Arming teachers works.  Israel has retired the trophy on this win.

Letting people carry in the target areas works.  I can remember at least two church shootings that were stopped dead when a parishioner had their gun with them.  I can think of a prominent one where the flock was forbade their guns and it took outside assistance (with an AR no less) to get the shooter to break and run.

The arrival of good guys with guns who actually shoot back stops these massacres in their tracks.

Knowing that there are good guys with guns who will shoot back prevents them from starting.

Did you notice that mall shootings kind of stopped once CCW people started shooting back at the nuts?  That's not a coincidence.

The nuts aren't stupid, they're nuts.  They don't get their moment in the sun by getting preemptively killed back.  That's why they don't shoot up gun ranges or police stations.  The odds of perforation before accomplishing their goals approaches certainty.