system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
CMV: 2A advocates have no incentive to compromise with those who want gun control.

By "2A advocates" I mean people who think guns should generally be available to citizens for self-defense, home defense, and as a means to ensure self-government. People who only want guns for hunting, plinking, and/or target shooting have different motivations and interests and would likely be fine with a Canada-like approach.

I'm not particularly interested in debating the merits of the 2A advocate position; this post is about the best strategy one should adopt if they hold this position. 

***

The pattern is familiar by now. A mass shooting happens, Democrats call for gun control measures, Republicans deflect or propose other solutions, and nothing substantial ends up happening. (Ironically, Trump's bump stock ban is the rare exception). 

Gun control advocates will point to specific solutions such as more comprehensive background checks, closing the gun show loophole, raising minimum age, and others as "common sense" gun control measures which have high support in polling. These measures would not in themselves limit 2A advocates' right to own and bear arms, the argument goes, and so therefore 2A advocates are callous, evil, and want children to die for opposing them. 

To me, it just looks like good strategy. If 2A advocates do compromise and allow some of these to be passed, especially in the wake of a mass shooting, they are tacitly admitting that mass shootings are valid justifications to limit gun rights. But none of these compromise solutions are going to appreciably lower the rates of mass shootings, so after the next inevitable shooting, it will just be the same arguments from each side, but now with the battle lines drawn closer to the gun control side. Gun control advocates won't accept a compromise as an end solution; they will continue to push until they have an Australia or Canada-like situation, and Canada has been restricting gun rights even further in recent years. 

As a practical matter, *only* an Australia or Canada-like approach is likely to bring gun violence down to the level of other developed countries (and that's discounting the likely mass civil unrest and violence if we tried to do it). Ceding ground in this debate is a losing proposition for 2A advocates.
gpt
>Gun control advocates will point to specific solutions such as more comprehensive background checks, closing the gun show loophole, raising minimum age, and others as "common sense" gun control measures which have high support in polling.

That's not a specific solution. That's a talking point that doesn't mean anything. How are we implementing more comprehensive background checks? Are we opening NICS up to everybody? Are we mandating every gun transfer go through an FFL? 

> If 2A advocates do compromise and allow some of these to be passed, especially in the wake of a mass shooting, they are tacitly admitting that mass shootings are valid justifications to limit gun rights.

That's not a compromise. A compromise means both sides getting some of what they want. What are gun rights advocates getting?