AP Photo/Jose Luis Magana

I’m not convinced that gun control groups abhor gun-related violence, not by a long shot.

No, I think that on some level, they want more of it. The reason? Gun-related violence gives them victims, victims they can then exploit to serve as politicians or spokespeople for gun control.

Then, they’ll turn around and blast anyone who dares to “attack” a “victim,” calling them a horrible human being.

Perhaps the latest example of outrage is geared toward those attacking Rep. Lucy McBath’s position on guns.

Rep. Lucy McBath (D-GA) ran for Congress to pass gun control after her 17-year-old son was shot dead at a gas station. Now, the GOP is attacking her for backing gun control.

If this isn’t the most tone-deaf political attack, we’re not sure what is.

The National Republican Congressional Committee — the House GOP’s political arm tasked with wining control of the lower chamber — released an attack ad against Rep. Lucy McBath (D-GA) for supporting gun control measures in Congress.

The attack is vile considering McBath’s history with gun violence: Her son, Jordan Davis, was murdered in cold blood at a gas station, when a man shot and killed Davis because he was mad about loud music coming from Davis’ car.

No, it’s not.

Look, no one is going to make any excuses for what happened to McBath’s son. At the same time, what happened doesn’t absolve her from criticism. Her status as a “survivor” doesn’t place her above criticism.

McBath isn’t the first to enjoy this treatment.

Anyone from Parkland who says inane things about guns is shielded from criticism by virtue of the fact that they went to a specific high school at a particular point in time. A state legislator whose son was killed in the Aurora theater shooting also enjoys that same shield.

Anyone who has lost someone to gun violence is free to advance an anti-gun agenda regardless of any other factor.

Well, that’s equine excrement.

There’s a case to be made not to criticize people on general principle. However, the moment someone decides to enter the public arena, be it through advocacy or candidacy, they remove themselves from that protection. They’re now advocating for a political position, and that means criticisms of that position aren’t just allowable but warranted, especially when they take a position that would infringe on the constitutional rights of millions of law-abiding Americans.

If the criticism in question is dishonest, then attack that criticism for its dishonesty. If it’s out of line for some other reason, then attack it on those grounds.

I have no issue with that.

However, I will never buy into the notion that victims should be afforded still grander protections from having their lousy ideas debunked, attacked, criticized, or anything else. If those victims didn’t want to be criticized, they should have stayed home instead of running for public office.

Lucy McBath brought attention to herself the moment she decided to start pushing for gun control. Anything after that is fair game.