well, true. common sense as a debating tool can be just the threat, "agree with me or you're stupid." but i think it can be used genuinely as a "one would think...", for instance common sense tells me (one would think) reducing the number of guns would reduce the number of gun fatalities.
even after you get past whether it reduces weapons related deaths though (which seemed like the obvious part to me), then you get to the hard part of individual freedom versus public safety. unless both sides were to agree on some goal as paramount, such as minimizing fatalities, which is unlikely, it's basically just competing desires and opinion from that point on, with no right or wrong. who's to say someone who weights individual freedom-to-public safety 60-40 in importance is more accurate than someone who weights it 40-60? even if you agree on some common framework like quality of life, both have their merits and the weighting of both within that framework will be relative to each person's value system. all you can do is put it to a vote. then say fuck it and go crackmole jesusbungee
---
what if nigger meant kite