You guys are going about it all wrong. You can't apply that type of logic to what they are doing.
They are listening to the squeaky wheels within their own circles. In order to get them to pay attention to you, you have to get in to their circle. In order to do that, you have to make them like you.
In order to do that... you need to give them money.
In MA the issue is not an economic one, despite the fact
that one could easily argue that loosening MA gun laws
would be at least a small monetary windfall for state and
local coffers, because more people would buy guns, pay
taxes on them and accessories, and it would justify more
gun stores which would also pay taxes, etc.
The problem in MA is that the pols actually -believe- this
shit they're writing into law- this isn't about "misguided" politicians
sponsoring something they just happen to think "sounds good".
These people KNOW exactly what they're pushing; their end game
is to ban civilian ownership of firearms; it's simple incrementalist
policy. It has nothing to do with economics and everything
to do with far-left socialist idealism. In other states pols are
sometimes persuaded to actually look at the pro-gun side of
the story, in MA that isn't true 9 out of 10 times. The people
writing the gun laws in MA are always full out, anti-gun to the
core, moonbats.
The core of the problem in MA is that an anti gun vote is
virtually "free" of political cost. Given, that point it
then all boils down to what the individual pols personal
feelings are.
I understand what your point is, though.... problem is soft
corruption likely doesn't work as well for the gun lobby. The
problem with stopping gun laws is it's not like a one-off type of deal
like greasing some hacks to speed up some building permits, or any
of the usual hack type activities. It's a long term problem that
needs a long term solution.
-Mike