Gun interests WANT criminals to have guns

[BainsBane]

138. Taking care of one's own interests is key

to what bothers me about those gungeon threads. These are people in Wyoming and other rural places working diligently to extend concealed carry to cities throughout the country, far from where they live and where they will never travel. It's not enough for them to have concealed carry in their states. They insist jurisdictions where the overwhelming majority of the population opposes concealed carry be forced to allow it. Now, that is a policy that results in greater violence, in higher death rates in cities like Chicago. There already is concealed carry in my city. Aren't I lucky. That's why there is regular gun fire in my neighborhood. Chicago's crime rate is down 40% from last year, but these people want to make sure that more guns enter Chicago. There are even groups that go into cities and hand out guns. Since we know more guns equal more gun violence, how can I conclude anything other than they want to see that violence? The same with background checks. Opposing background checks only ensures criminals ready access to guns. It strikes me as entirely logical to conclude that opposition is intended to ensure that ready access.

More guns out and about in cities and criminals having easy access to guns both increase homicide rates. Now, someone might say that is not why they support those measures. They can give some argument about constitutional rights, but when they support the NRA's efforts to deprive First Amendment rights through imposing legal gag rules, restricting doctors from asking about guns in the home, or writing down anything about guns, as well as special exemptions from lawsuit for gun manufacturers, it's crystal clear constitutional protection doesn't matter one bit to them. If one only cares about the broadest possible interpretation of the Second Amendment and not at all about the gun lobby's infringement on other constitutional rights, they neuter the entire constitutional argument.

So they support policies that result in higher death counts but claim that isn't what their goal is. If it isn't their goal, WTF are they doing? Why do they cry about voluntary gun buy back programs? I's like advocating for war and claiming you don't want people to die. There may be some other motivation, but when the policy results in massive loss of life, pretending one's position has nothing to do with it doesn't pass the smell test. They advocate for policies that kill. They therefore are responsible for deaths that result, just as I would be responsible if I advocated for war or cuts in medical care. We are responsible for what results from the policies we advance, not just some hypothetical justification for why we think those policies are a good idea.

So they advocate for concealed carry in cities thousands of miles away from them, where people like I live. That results in shootouts and deaths of people like me. I have every right to take that personally, just as Iraqis have a right to take neoconservative war mongering personally.

I have never called for gun confiscation but the more I read responses by gungeoners, the less I care about their gun rights. As I've said before, they do more to advance gun control than the Brady Campaign ever could. And that was when they were still pretending to care about dead children and support background checks. Now that they've dropped that pretense, it's hard to have any sympathy at all for them. The worst was that opposition to gun safes. I can think of nothing more evil. Even Rumsfeld and Bush didn't target children.