to the law-abiding gun owners

Law-abiding gun owners will not accept blame for the acts of violent or deranged criminals. Nor do we believe the government should dictate what we can lawfully own and use to protect our families.

Nobody is blaming law-abiding gun owners. They’re not facing charges, they’re not going to jail for anything. Law-abiding citizens in general don’t want to accept the consequences of the acts of violent or deranged criminals, which is why limiting access (via control) to firearms will reduce the number of these acts by violent and deranged criminals.

Let’s consider the second sentence.  If you think it’s necessary to have your own personal nuclear weapon arsenal, just in case you don’t agree with your government’s stance regarding Iran or North Korea, and want to have the means to protect your own family, would that be okay? The people you and your fellow countrymen elect to govern your country should certainly be capable of examining evidence for necessity and risk, and making sensible decisions about how to protect society in general from yet more unnecessary acts of violent or deranged criminals. Given that all the evidence shows that there is less violent gun crime in countries where there is more gun control, surely if you genuinely care about the safety of your family, you would be supporting gun control!

I think it’s fair to say that empty statements like this appeal to some strange base instincts without having any need to make sense. If you declare ‘we will not accept the blame!’, ‘we will not be dictated to!’, ‘we want to protect our families!’ anywhere, about anything, no-one would disagree, and, in fact, we may feel the urge to join in. The fact is that the context round about these statements makes the base ‘justified’ emotions totally and utterly meaningless.

(My opinions are based on common sense.  If there are any studies out there that demonstrate that the possession of firearms reduce the likelihood of death by firearms, I would be very interested.  And eat my hat.)