If a politician promises everyone an SUV and you want one then fine but if one will provide you with a SUV but no gas for it have you won anything. Would you prefer a cantidate to allow you to have a gun or one that provides you with an environment that you don't need one? An extreem I know but we have to look at more than one issue.
If the latter were actually possible, I'd probably choose it. But anybody with sense knows it isn't.
I've gotten into some interesting conversations with people from overseas who think strict gun control is a good thing. Nevermind that it didn't do anything to change their crime rate (it was already lower, and stayed lower at the same rate and trend). One of them said something...that he honestly believed that when a society progresses enough it finds that it has no need anymore for private gun ownership. And honestly, I think he was right. But then the question becomes: if society has progressed to the point where guns are no longer needed,
what is the harm in allowing them?
He had no real answer.
The argument I fall back on anytime I talk to anti-gunners is this: banning the tools used in a crime does little to prevent the crime...it just alters the method. Homicide rates didn't drop in the UK or AUS as gun control was tightened,
firearm homicide rates did. They point to lower crime rates in all these other western nations with strict gun control, suggesting that the correlation
must mean something; to which I point out that those nations
also have different ways of dealing with most of the issues that
cause violent crime (at least the random sort). Things like poverty, income disparity, mental illness, drugs.
It comes down to this when I argue with anti-gunners...I'm not particularly interested in giving up my guns even if it
would reduce crime, so I'm certainly not interested in doing so when the evidence (crime rate trends in other countries as gun controls are introduced) suggests that it
won't. Personally, before I'd even be willing to consider stricter gun controls, I'd prefer we address some of the root issues causing people to become criminals, not just try and take their guns away. Because I'm not excited about getting stabbed instead of shot.
The funny part, though, is that you were right in your other (unquoted) paragraph. Gun control (for or against) tends to come as part of either a left- or right-wing package. And in general the people who are strongest supporters of gun rights think "addressing the root issues of crime" means more prisons, more cops, more executions. And maybe some longer sentences thrown in for recreational use of the wrong drugs. And the people who might be interested in actually trying to address some of the social and economic factors contributing to violent crime are also looking to take guns from law-abiding citizens...and the latter is generally much easier to pass into law than the former.
Lose-lose.
I guess it depends on the person, but I'd like to think I'm not alone...whether or not a candidate agrees with me on one issue (even one of my most important issues) rarely indicates that they'll agree with me on a majority. My positions don't clearly line up with either party. Really, I think the average person who considers themselves a "one-issue-voter" is likely just something else (though they may or may not want to admit it)...a cookie-cutter member of their party. More or less, at least.
