It's all about what the meaning of "IS", is .....

When school shootings are anything but:

Well, we’re all for whatever allows people to sleep at night. But the bottom line is that every parent in the world is really only interested in the likelihood that their children are walking around near people bearing arms.

well ....
 we've got people on both sides of the fence talking about what constitutes a "School Shooting".

The Gun Grabbers are hollering that "74 School Shootings This Year", and the Gun Rights folks saying it's "Only 15" or "Only 3" or whatever number you choose to use to present your side of the argument.

 It doesn’t matter to them whether an incident was an accident, an assault, a homicide or a suicide. All they know is bullets are flying, or might fly, near their children. To some small extent, we can empathize with the gun lobby’s desperation. 

Both sides are in agreement ... sort of ... that there's a Semantic element involved; most of us agree that it would be nice (but perhaps not necessary) if we could agree on terms.  Such as: "What Defines A "School Shooting"?

 That's not likely to happen, because there's too much chatter and most of it is vituperative.  It's a Zero-Sum Game here, and nobody is willing to say "you're right" because that means the same as "I'm Wrong", and that is NOT going to happen today.  (As much as both sides, occupied by responsible and reasonable adults, would dearly LOVE to find a middle ground .. this week, there ain't No Such Thing"!)

The Left Side (anti) goes on to say about the Right Side (pro):

It doesn’t have much to stand on, from a morality standpoint, and that’s why we’re seeing these attempts to control the ethical environment. From a practical standpoint, however, don’t expect anything to change, because they’re also sitting pretty on a pile of craven politicians and lobbying organizations. 

Did I forget to mention that it gets ugly, down there in the Trenches?

It's pretty clear that the "Progressive, Liberal, Democratic, Near-Sighted 'if it saves just one child' (and 'never mind our Constitional Rights') folks consider the Right-Wingnuts to be immoral and selfish and not socially responsible.

On the other hand, the "Right-Thinking Americans Who Want To Preserve Our Constitution Regardless of the Liberal Progressive Pap-thinking Leftests" are not entirely unable to sling a few stones.  ("If It Saves Just one Child" misses a lot of important stuff in the middle!)

Gets confusing, doesn't it?

Maybe we can forget the sides for a minute?  Lord knows *_I_* can't keep track of who's slandering whom!

To continue:

 But, unlike the gun lobby, we don’t believe the occasional slaughter of children is an acceptable price to pay for unfettered access to firearms. Unlike politicians who take money from gun lobbyists and the gun industry, we don’t believe that dead or traumatized children are worth extra votes on election day.

That's the real Money Quote, isn't it?

It comes down to 'the slaughter of children', every time.

The Right says: " hey, you're talking about Gang-Bangers in Chicago".
The Left says: "no, we're talking about children who have access to guns in their home and shoot themselves and others by accident or ignorance".

What we're really talking about is .... both issues, and ignoring each other.

I've got my own opinion, and I can quote statistics with the best of them.
Statistics don't tell the whole story, though.

We probably will never find a common ground between the people who are "afraid of guns", and the people who are 'afraid to be without guns'.  (And you can be outraged about either description ....for or against either position ... but that ain't helping.  So just STFU and listen for a minute, dammit!)

I don't know if it's possible to find a Common Ground between the two groups.  I DO know that there are less people in every demographic who are killed by guns via suicide or accident (defining 'accident' as somebody shooting themselves or others with no understanding that the gun may fire) than are killed by deliberate homicide.   And you know that's true, so let's just talk about the folks that shoot other folks for a while, okay?

And I know that "accident" may also be defined as "knowing the gun may fire, but not intending to shoot the person who is hit". (Which strongly suggests "Shooter Negligence" more than "Shooter Inexperience" .. if it becomes a Talking Point.)

But if we can define a common ground, let's talk about something which is "Do-able".  Not something which is pie-in-the sky unfeasible, such as taking all guns away from everyone except for Police of Military.

Those two groups are (forgive me for saying so) not necessarily all that competent; and suggesting that they're more responsible than your average citizen is also not necessarily true.  Can we agree on that?

Probably not. and that may be the crux of the issue.  So, we're basically talking about possession of firearms by private citizens, okay?

What about if you have a group of private citizens who have proven .. by whatever means you choose to measure competence (training, whatever) that they are responsible and competent to own a gun.

Not only are they 'competent' and 'reliable', but they are 'experienced' (by another debatable measure.)

Would everyone agree that this group might conceivable be "allowed" to possess a firearm, under whatever restrictions we might agree on?

That's the REAL crux of the question.

Because, you know, we can't wave a magic wand and make all guns disappear .. however much you might wish so devotedly that it was possible.

Ain't gonna happen.  We will never get rid of all the guns in the country.

And there will STILL be unstable people in possession of firearms.

So .. why don't we quit farting around with the petty crap, and start talking about what WE can do when unstable people start shooting people?  Rely on the police, who aren't there?  Or rely on the stable responsible that we've decided are "okay" to own a firearm"  (Or haven't we agreed that there are some people, even if they are a minority, who can be trusted?)

The NRA has a very unpopular saying: "The Only Solution to a Bad Guy with a gun is a Good Guy with a gun".

The Left has a real problem with that.

Does The Left have a better solution to offer?  (And remember ... I am NOT going to give my guns to The State:  Didn't work in Australia, didn't work in England, and didn't work in Canada!)

Anyone?

I'm running out of steam.  Pushing a rock up hill here.  Can I get a "Well ... maybe ..." from someone on the side that wasn't want ANYONE to have a gun?