It's all about incrementalism

It is not unusual to hear Second Amendment advocates respond to suggested or pending gun control legislation by noting that "This new law could not have done anything to prevent previous mass killing events." They are, of course, quite correct.  Recent legislation passed in the US House that would require "universal background checks" would not have done a thing to stop any of the recent mass killings, be it Newtown, Parkland, Orlando, or Las Vegas.

An important point that must be noted in the passage of such legislation is that those passing it do not care if it is effective or not.  Their point is incrementalism.   In psychology we could call this desensitization. For instance, in theories of suicide risk and commission, one fact that is considered is how certain experiences may desensitize the individual to eventual lethal self-harm.  In the suicide literature this is referred to as acquired capability. So, experiences that decrease one's sensitivity to violence or might include self-harm, whether cutting or even the use of injectible drugs, might play one part in suicidal actions. Of course there are others and this is simply one example of how small increments in risky behavior can lead to large leaps over time. Similarly, va small changes, even inconsequential ones, we become desensitized to attempts to infringe on our rights as each becomes the new normal. This is also likely why it has been suggested that with these small irrelevant bills, they will let things stand for a while - expecting that everyone will adapt to teh new normal.  Thankfully, these house bills are unlikely to become law - but even teh gesture has relevance.

With regard to gun control legislation we see this process in what is often called "boiling the toad".  Turning up the heat by small degrees until it turns deadly. Turn it up too quickly and the toad will leap from the pan.  In social psychology and sales, this is called "foot in the door". Don't ask for too much too soon, but make a small request and once compliance is gained, add a bit onto it.  At that point, each escalation is a small step in relation to the last, while obviously a large leap from point A. Of course, each small request is seen as "reasonable" and "common sense". We retreat a step at a they advance a step at a time.

Conversely, those who are quick to say :We are not coming for your guns" may be using a bit of the old "door in the face" approach, which entails asking for a large favor and when rebuffed noting, "Well , how about just this little bit then". Ask to borrow $100 and when you get the WTF response, say, "All right, how about 5?"  So when they say "No one is coming for your guns" they are implying the large demand, but then they follow with "Okay, how about this small reasonable, commonsense thing then?"

It doesn't matter that the small thing will not work - it is simply a small step toward the ultimate goal, one more degree added to the water in the pot. Remember - the water is never fine!