My guess is that this is simple ignorance more than anything else. I had a conversation with a guy at work the other day who was asking my advice for things he could do with his visiting parents from New Jersey. He's a smart guy with a masters from Princeton, but the conversation went something like this:
Me: You could take them to the range to experience the illicit joy of shooting hollowpoints.
Him: Yeah, but we don't have any cops we want killed.
Me: Hollowpoints aren't cop-killers. They suck against armor.
Him: Oh, I must be thinking of those teflon-coated bullets.
Me: Nah, those aren't any more effective. The teflon makes it easier on the gun barrel.
Him: Oh.
Me: If you wanted to penetrate armor, you'd just use a rifle.
Him: You shouldn't be talking so cavalierly about this sort of thing.
-------------------------------------
You can't hold it against him or others who support certain legislation based off ignorance. We know this is stupid legislation because we understand how guns work, whereas people who have no interest in guns have no motivation to learn the technical details; consequently, they'll accept an authoritative-sounding statement at face value. Those who have technical knowledge of a field can instantly spot legislation from ignorance; the more one understands the field, the less one can comprehend how someone can't know the things he knows, and the easier it becomes to assume that the legislation is malicious.
The real problem is endemic willingness to spout BS and universal aversion to confronting people when they spout it. Consequently, stupid gun legislation won't be defeated by arguing against it on the grounds of its effects; those who proposed or support the legislation will just take that as encouragement that their ideas are valid. Instead, attack the source of the legislation: It's stupid, it won't work, and the only organization who says the technology is feasible is the company that makes it.
Corrollary: When arguing gun control with people, don't argue against their ideas, because many will take it personally. Argue against what they've been told. Expose lies and common misconceptions without sounding like a conspiracy theorist. People hate having positions shoved down their throat, but given correct data will happily take the correct decision based on their own reasoning.
Me: You could take them to the range to experience the illicit joy of shooting hollowpoints.
Him: Yeah, but we don't have any cops we want killed.
Me: Hollowpoints aren't cop-killers. They suck against armor.
Him: Oh, I must be thinking of those teflon-coated bullets.
Me: Nah, those aren't any more effective. The teflon makes it easier on the gun barrel.
Him: Oh.
Me: If you wanted to penetrate armor, you'd just use a rifle.
Him: You shouldn't be talking so cavalierly about this sort of thing.
-------------------------------------
You can't hold it against him or others who support certain legislation based off ignorance. We know this is stupid legislation because we understand how guns work, whereas people who have no interest in guns have no motivation to learn the technical details; consequently, they'll accept an authoritative-sounding statement at face value. Those who have technical knowledge of a field can instantly spot legislation from ignorance; the more one understands the field, the less one can comprehend how someone can't know the things he knows, and the easier it becomes to assume that the legislation is malicious.
The real problem is endemic willingness to spout BS and universal aversion to confronting people when they spout it. Consequently, stupid gun legislation won't be defeated by arguing against it on the grounds of its effects; those who proposed or support the legislation will just take that as encouragement that their ideas are valid. Instead, attack the source of the legislation: It's stupid, it won't work, and the only organization who says the technology is feasible is the company that makes it.
Corrollary: When arguing gun control with people, don't argue against their ideas, because many will take it personally. Argue against what they've been told. Expose lies and common misconceptions without sounding like a conspiracy theorist. People hate having positions shoved down their throat, but given correct data will happily take the correct decision based on their own reasoning.
) but it could help to keep the Governor's mansion Red.