I think you're wrong about the other side. It is about outcomes as well as intentions, it's just that the proclaimed outcomes and intentions are different than the real ones. The rank and file may be ignorant of the outcomes as you suggest, and they may have good intentions, but it's virtually impossible that the leadership, those promoting "gun control" like Obama, are ignorant of the consequences. Therefore, when they propose certain measures what you see as terrible outcomes must be the actual outcomes they seek.maintenanceguy wrote:It's not about outcomes, it's about intentions.
Guys like you and me, we can see the terrible outcomes of these policies. But to the other side, the outcomes never matter. I don't think they can think 2 or 3 steps ahead. Chess must be difficult. Somebody got shot with a gun so guns must be bad and must be taken away. It doesn't matter what the real results would be.
The leadership of the anti-self-defense groups have made their intentions pretty clear they just normally keep them to themselves. But enough of their intentions have been revealed so that there is little doubt about what they actually want: UK style laws against self-defense and gun confiscation. They don't want us mundanes to have guns or to be able to defend ourselves, period. They slip up every once in awhile but for the most part they're too savvy to say this openly because it's a no sale to what is probably still a majority of Americans.
That's why they make every effort to demonize guns and gun owners and why school children get expelled for drawing pictures of guns or wearing NRA t-shirts. Their objective is to reduce support for gun ownership to a minority so they can get traction for bans and confiscation. Once they reduce gun ownership to a sufficient minority of the population the outright bans and confiscations will commence --just like in the UK and Australia. Every "gun control" measure they propose is always a step in the direction of bans and confiscation.