It may be obvious to some, but I though I would make the fact clear: Just about every hot button issue, ranging from abortion, to capital punishment, all involve a “balancing test”:

That is to say that there are legitimate interests on both sides of almost every such issue, and to reach a reach a reasonable outcome, these issues must be balanced against each other.  Usually, there is not a clear set of “good guys” and “bad guys.” Sadly, it is often the case that overly zealous advocates on each side of the issue act as though their side is the only reasonable one, ignoring the need to balance each side’s interest against the others. Perhaps a couple quick examples will illustrate the point:

Abortion Rights are a Balancing Test
On the abortion rights side are the privacy and self determination rights of the woman who wants to have the option of having an abortion. On the anti abortion rights side there is the interest of the people who feel that a fetus is a life, and should be protected. I reach the conclusion that abortion should be allowed, because I believe the privacy and self determination interests of the woman trump the interests of the anti abortion side of the argument.

Firearms Rights are a Balancing Test
On the firearms rights side are the interests of law abiding citizens who wish to own firearms for self defense or sporting purpose. On the anti firearms rights side are the interests of people who feel that banning firearms will prevent criminals from having them, and using them to commit crimes. I reach the conclusion that firearm ownership should be allowed, because I believe the interest in self defense and other lawful firearm ownership purpose outweighs the virtually non-existent connection between gun control and crime reduction.