To be fair, the big problem with the debates are the NRA and GOP groupies using their scare-tactics and spreading lies that the left is wanting to take away all guns from everybody in the country, when that's not what gun control is about: the left has been trying to share the facts and set the record straight, but of course, the "silent majority" keeps spreading their lies.
That, and the fact that these mass shootings are increasing to practically a once-a-week thing, and many innocent lives of children have been lost, because they were murdered by someone who shouldn't have been in possession of a military-grade weapon of mass destruction in the first place . . . that's the big issue here, that's why the left wants gun control: mentally unstable loonatics shouldn't be in possession of these kinds of weapons, because **** like this keeps happening . . . and when the lives of children are at stake, the price is too high. Unfortunately, the right seems to believe that's a price we have to pay for some ammendment they're taking way too far.
Nobody's saying anything about taking guns away from responsible owners, or even the "dumb rednecks": if they're competent enough, has all the necessary training and experience to handle firearms, then all would be well with them. They're not the ones gun control proponents aren't even going after anyway . . . it's the mentally unstable "lone wolves" they're trying to prevent from obtaining guns.
But even so, if that was the case, then what's the big deal anyway? I mean, thanks to terrorists, we can't get on planes without being molested or having nude scans taken of us. Thanks to bombers, we can't get into a concert, theater, or other public events without having to take off our shoes, empty our bags or pockets, and such. Thanks to crackheads, little old people can't get certain medications for their aches and pains. So even so, why shouldn't gun owners just suck it up like the rest of us have to if these mental cases mean they can't have their guns anymore?