>>95941414People can be afraid of guns. End of sentence. It doesn't matter who's wielding them.
What's stupid about Bojack's gun control episode is that it's not everyone's opinion of gender that drives that debate. It's the sheer ridiculous amount of money that arms dealers produce, what they can spend on advertising, and how the lobbying/political system works.
Basically, most political arguments you hear are diversions from the real issues. Every activist is trying to make money, and if they care about any of their fellow humans, they care about money more. The ones who don't care about money naturally don't gather enough cash to compete in the political arena, and their views are never heard.
The way lobbying works is that someone will offer money to a politician in support of a cause. If the politician takes it, the lobby will then support him via funding and will run their own independent ads to help that politician. If the politician rejects the money, the lobby will devote all the cash he rejected to vicious smear campaigns, unseating the politician and whipping the public into a seething rage about complex issues they don't understand.
The gun debate is driven by this. They appeal to many, many soft ideals like tradition and the immovable nature of the Constitution (which is silly because the Constitution is specifically intended to be altered with the times). It's further complicated by the size of the US, where locations in rural Alaska are going to have far fewer gun concerns than densely populated LA.
Ultimately the debate has nothing to do with gender, but I don't think that was the "joke". I think Bojack's "joke" was that the evil badwrong parts of society would never regulate guns because it's badwrong unless you tripped off another one of its badwrong aspects. Society loves guns because it's badwrong, and it also hates women because society is badwrong, so if women got guns, society would ban guns because society is badwrong.
