Thus, a death from an intentional instrument of harm is more reprehensible than a side effect of medical care or a mode of transportation.
EBRs clearly descending from a line of killing instruments and arouse negative feelings in some - INCLUDING many of the sports shooting inclination.
So if you do argue the point about EBRs - you need to know the processes that are active in their evaluation outside of the views of our choir. And you need to know that some of these arguments are not very effective if they are being viewed by fast, emotional based affective evaluation processes.
+1. IMHO the arguments in support of legal EBR ownership should emphasize the fact that thay have plenty of use in legitimate shooting sports, that they're useful for legal self-defense, that they lack full-auto capability like the guns you see on TV in the hands of BGs and terrorists, and that plenty of law-abiding citizens own them and never use them to commit any kind of crime.
It should also be emphasized that most criminals don't use EBRs, criminalizing them would merely prop up the black market and support the mafia, and that the Mexican drug cartels have plenty of sources of illegal weapons other than U.S. straw buyers who are already breaking multiple U.S. federal laws to supply them.
Most people lack the attention span to listen to us explain the difference between an "intermediate-power" and "full-power" cartridge, and may not care anyway. Most U.S. citizens do not have a strong and tangible fear of federal government tyranny, and trying to convince them otherwise will just cause them to tune us out, or worse yet, to write off all gun-rights supporters as potentially violent revolutionary nutcases.
To get back to the original topic, I deeply admire Jimmy Carter for his outspokenness and his human-rights work, but he's wrong on this one.
I also think that the gun-rights lobby needs to think of ways to generate positive
PR on the EBR issue.
All IMHO of course.