I don’t really agree with this — maybe some of you do. I think hardcore gun owners are likely to embrace the right-wing worldview that migrants and black/brown urban residents would sooner kill them than talk with them, therefore they need guns. Also, single-issue voters are, well, single-issue voters, and on this single issue, Republicans will always offer more to gun owners than Democrats.
Even so, I think the gun debate has introduced a form of all-or-nothing argument that gets thrown around whenever we’re talking about COVID. This argument is a staple of the discussions about guns: any proposed regulation (say, assault weapons) will still leave guns on the street, and those guns will still kill people. The goal to stop gun death, this regulation won’t accomplish that, so why bother? Basically, it rules out harm reduction or risk mitigation.
This same argument is being used all the time in the COVID discussion. Masking won’t prevent all infection, so why bother? You can still get COVID with the vaccine, so why bother? This from a group that does everything possible to limit the number of abortions by enacting ever so many incremental regulations. It’s stupid, but we hear it a lot.