Discussion Post

Gun control advocates do have a moral obligation to reveal their true intentions regarding the ultimate consequences and potentially obscure implications of the policies that they espouse. By attempting to prohibit firearms incrementally, yet failing to inform the public of their true intentions, these organizations deceive and manipulate individuals who only support moderate gun controls into unknowingly advancing a cause (prohibition of guns) that they may not necessarily stand for (Kleck, 2001). Moderate gun control supporters are thusly being used as pons by organizations who help them achieve their more moderate goals, only to then move on to more extreme controls that moderate gun control supporters may not have originally supported. To omit information or true intent for the purpose of fulfilling a political goal, however well-intentioned, is deceitful and immoral, especially when the strategy relies on the support of misled individuals supporting more than originally bargained for.
In addition, as long as moderate gun controls are covertly utilized as an incremental strategy to eventually achieve total gun prohibition, the strong opposition of gun rights groups who perceive this tactic will continue to be kindled. In an interview with Gary Kleck, Kleck asserted that powerful groups such as the NRA possess the mentality that “we shouldn’t do anything, because doing anything can lead to going too far”, leading to their opposition of most moderate gun controls (Kleck, 2000). As a result, the passage of some potentially useful non-incremental and moderate controls will be quite difficult, as any discussion of moderate controls will tend to revolve around the threat of total prohibition (Kleck, 2001). Herein lies a possible opportunity cost: with the passage of moderate controls stalled, any possible benefits stemming from these controls may not exist.
In short, I agree that gun control organizations have a moral obligation to be forthcoming