It's not just that this is about taking something away. It's that, rather than give-and-take, it's all take. Gun owners see a ratchet effect. For a very long ti

It's not just that this is about taking something away. It's that, rather than give-and-take, it's all take. Gun owners see a ratchet effect. For a very long time, things only went one way. Gun owners lost rights again and again and again. Changes would never go the other way. A lesson has been learned, and now nobody will give an inch. With today's gun owners putting up a fight, not much happens. They seldom win or lose; we are held to the status quo even though both sides might benefit from a bit of horse trading. The trust isn't there. Consider registration: Gun owners would support registration except for the fact that history shows that registration is typically the first step toward confiscation, and this was even seen as recently as during the aftermath of hurricane Katrina. The cops lost in court, but the guns were already taken and destroyed. With events like that, and with gun opposition often having the stated goal of ultimately having a ban, the paranoia is justified. Ownership went way up under Obama. The more people thought he or Clinton might restrict guns, the more guns people bought. There was also the matter of BLM and other riots, and a bit of terrorism here and there, and immigration. People buy guns when they don't feel safe. Speaking of rhetorical framing devices, what is this "gun violence"? People can be violent, crazy, and evil. Guns are no more violent than knives, baseball bats, pit bulls, 5 irons, cars, hammers, and heroin. You're trying to put the focus on an inanimate object instead of on the guilty.