Something to keep in mind: the phrase "common sense" means that the reasoning behind something is so obvious and simple that it generally need not be explained. That being said, it also indicates that whatever it is describing can be easily explained by anyone who puts their mind to it.

For example, it's common sense to wear a selt belt while in a moving car. The reason? The seat belt keeps you from being hurled from the vehicle in the case of a collision. Having been in 4 car wrecks myself, I can assure you that yes, seat belts are a good idea. It's also common sense not to run with scissors. Why? Running increases the likelihood of falling, and falling with a pair of sharp scissors in your hand can be a dangerous prospect.

I'm sure you know where this is leading... where is the reasoning behind the so-called "common sense" gun legislation? After all, if that phrase can be properly applied to the proposed laws, then the logic behind them should be plainly obvious and simple to explain. Right?

Yes, it's common sense not to leave an unlocked gun (loaded or otherwise) accessible to an unsupervised child. But what about the guy who lives alone? In a dangerous neighborhood? Why should someone like that be required to "protect" children that don't exist and sacrifice his own safety in the process? But that's what "common sense" mandatory trigger locks require. It's an across-the-board regulation that applies to everyone, whether it makes sense or not. How can something that's "common sense" not make sense?

The real trick is to try and find the reasoning behind gun registration and gun owner licensing. By definition, if these proposals are simply "common sense" as they're often labeled, the explanation should be elementary and obvious. Yet, the only reasoning you're going to manage to extract from gun control proponents is "Safety" and "Well, we register cars, don't we?" Neither of those actually explain how these laws will actually prevent intentional misuse of firearms, the source of more than 95% of all gun deaths.

Trying to minimize accidents truly is a laudable goal, one that's been pursued by the NRA for over a hundred years, but seeing as how gun accidents are at one of the lowest rates in history, what is the real push behind getting these laws passed? We face a continual deluge of words like "epidemic" and "out of control". Gun accidents are an epidemic and are out of control? No, those terms are being used to describe gun violence, something that gun registration and licensing simply have no effect on. Don't believe me? Ask a gun control supporter exactly how licensing and registration will cut down on crime or suicide. Take a look at the effects of licensing, registration, and bans on New York City, Washington D.C., and Los Angeles. Considering that the overwhelming majority of guns used in crime are stolen, smuggled, or delivered by crooked dealers, how are licensing and registration going to affect criminals one bit? "Common sense" says that they can't.