People often wonder why pro-gunners oppose even the most moderate efforts to reduce gun* violence.
First, we’d love to see reduced gun violence. Nobody LIKES violence. Heck, in a world without violence, there would be no gun control and we could all own machineguns for fun. However, we disagree with disarming the law abiding in a failed attempt to inhibit the criminals. In some cases, gun control can actually increase violence. In many places with strict gun control, violence rates have increased after the bans. Why? Because the criminals have less to fear. They have all the power.
Second, many of the “sensible” gun control attempts are really not very sensible. Want to ban ‘cop killer’ bullets? Well, those hollow point bullets are actually what the cops use. They stop an attack faster, increasing my chances of surviving. Also, the faster I stop the attack, the fewer times I need to shoot him to stop the attack, which increases HIS chances of survival. Finally, hollow points have a lower chance of blasting out the other side and hitting an innocent person. This is just an example, there are many other cases where the pro-gun side has a truly legitimate reason.
Third, and this is my main point, we oppose even the most “sensible” gun control because we see the truth. The gun-control politicians will never be satisfied. If we had a promise, a rock solid unbreakable vow, that THIS (registration, background checks, etc) would be the last gun control ever, then many of us would agree. I’m tired of giving money to the NRA. I’m tired of constantly worrying about what the ilk of Feinstein and Pelosi will try next. However, we all know that isn’t true. They’re always trying to pass another law, and another, and another, until everything is gone. Hence, we have to fight every attempt or we will slowly lose by attrition.
*Why are the politicians always talking about reducing ‘gun violence’? Is it somehow worse to be murdered with a gun than a knife? Shouldn’t we talk about reducing all violence?