Reducing ecological waste is expensive in the short term. Politics built on demagoguery and emotional effluence (reactive sentiment over considered reasoning) tend to sacrifice long-term stability for immediate gratification. Sell short the future to pay for the now, and all that. It’s a poor strategy, but one well adapted to the current political climate.
The question of an armed populace is one on which many hold strong and differing views. It's not going to change quickly. I would suggest that the connection you’re trying to draw between these two positions (climate resistance and gun advocacy) isn’t primarily about policy. It’s rooted, I think, in emotional posture. Weapons provide a sense of personal agency and control. Feelings often linked to fear, but not necessarily negative ones. It's just part of what makes us human.
That same reactivity -grounded in fear, change aversion, and distrust- can fuel resistance to environmental policy if the benefits seem distant or uncertain. So, yes, there may be an emotional and psychological overlap: people who fear losing autonomy in one domain may respond similarly in others. But that’s not a rule, just a tendency. The choice to bear arms can emerge from many different belief structures - cultural, strategic, philosophical. I’m not asserting causation, just pointing out potential correlation in emotional orientation in reference to your question. Realistically, all I have said here is baseless supposition.
There is no political connection between arming for war (which ANY superpower should do in order to PREVENT war) and leaving carbon emissions alone.
TERMITES EMIT MORE CO2 THAN ALL HUMAN ACTIVITY COMBINED.
And why isn't anyone bugging CHINA about (a) increasing its humanity ending nuclear arsenal, and (b) surpassing the US a thousand times in carbon emissions?
