Perhaps the worst example of gun control advocates’ Orwellian double-speak: their use of the word “gun safety.” Anti-gunners deploy the term as a euphemism for gun control, of course. The idea being that we’d all be safer without guns. Yes, well, meanwhile, neither gun rights advocates nor proponents of civilian disarmament want innocent people to be shot. By anyone. Ever. So you’d think that . . .

we could join hands over REAL gun safety. You know: teaching young ‘uns to leave guns alone and tell an adult, spreading the gospel of the four rules of gun safety and proactively working on suicide prevention. Nope. The antis don’t want to know.

Why? Is their hoplophobia so great that they’re willing to let people die? Or, God forbid, does “gun violence” suit their purposes? What’s the matter with these people?

57 Responses to Question of the Day: Why Are Gun Control Advocates Against Gun Safety?

    • He didn’t fill the role of ill informed, condescending, liberty bashing racist to MSNBC’s liking.

      Which is why he was replaced by Al Sharpton.

    • Can anyone remind me why Cent Yogurt was fired from MSNBC?

      You’re asking the wrong question. The right question is why was he hired in the first place.

    • He dared question The Narrative.

      http://www.mediaite.com/tv/cenk-uygur-nbc-will-fire-david-gregory-just-like-they-fired-me/

      And anyone who thinks the sockpuppet agitprop groups funded by people like Bloomberg, or Soros, represents REAL moms, just hasnt been paying attention.

      TTAG readers, and other independent media watchers have known it for a long time.

      Gun control agitprop is all about gaining left-wing top down power, and the whores of the StateRunMedia, who long ago chose “the ends justify the means” are now even more desperate for revenue, given flyover country has caught on, and realized they long ago lost credibility as “free press”. Its an echosystem that is corrupt, and rotting from within, but still squeezes out cash from clicks, including the echo-chambers and intermediaries designed as the thought police and monetizers fom eyeballs of the LIVs, and Kool Kos Kids Klubbers, who need someone to tell them how to think, in between Kardashian tweets, and other important FakeBook news.

      http://trustmeimlying.com/

      P.T. Barnum said it long ago “theres a sucker born ever miinute…”

  1. Actually, I’m not convinced that gun-grabbers are totally against the idea of innocent people being shot–at least in the short run. Heck, if there aren’t enough mass shootings actually happening to suit them, they make ’em up. Then again, maybe they are just completely, totally, entirely, without exception, irrational in their aversion to guns.

    • After the school shooting in Marysville, WA, Nick Hanauer, I-594’s primary backer and a local statist douchebag, publicly stated that he hoped there’d be another shooting to help I-594 pass.

      • I remember that. I was stunned that he said it… No. Let me rephrase. I was stunned he said it where he would get caught saying it.

  2. To them, firearms (in the hands of anyone other than State agents that they control) are bad, and anyone who owns firearms is a bad person. They wish harm upon you for owning a firearm (c.f. the comments to any given CSGV facebook post), so why would they care if you practice safe handling?

    They don’t care about firearms safety, at all. They care about control.

  3. “Yes, well, meanwhile, neither gun rights advocates nor proponents of civilian disarmament want innocent people to be shot. By anyone. Ever. ”

    Wrong. The comments sections of blogs and other websites everywhere are overflowing with comments from foaming-at-the-mouth hoplophobes who relish the thought of innocent gun owners being shot and killed, usually by their own guns. It’s even pretty common to see them hope for the death of gun owner’s families, including children – simply because they exercise a Constitutionally-protected right.

    “Gun Safety” was a term cooked up purely for misdirection. “Handgun control” morphed to “Gun Violence” which morphs to “Gun Safety”. Next week it’ll be some new euphemism. If Shannon Watts was as smart as her assumed salary pretends her to be, she’d be inventing new terms on a daily basis – fortunately, that isn’t the case.

    • “Wrong. The comments sections of blogs and other websites everywhere are overflowing with comments from…..”

      Ain’t that the truth.

      • It’s amazing what some people will say (or write) if they think there will be no consequences.

        And often sad and / or scary.

  4. Well, sure, maybe the antis AREN’T OK with innocents getting shot. But I guarantee that your average anti has a VERY different idea of what constitutes “innocence” than we do. Also, it’s worth noting that the hardcore antis fall into one of two categories: Power hungry monsters who wish to subjugate the masses (Hilary Clinton, Barrack Obama, Dianne Feinstein, etc), and utopians. But utopianism is a terrifying philosophy because it is SO easy to justify ANYTHING, up to and including loading people into cattle cars. After all, if the end result is complete perfection of society, in a way that EVERY SINGLE PERSON benefits in MASSIVE ways, then it becomes REALLY easy to justify the means. “You’re standing in the way of such incredible good? I have the moral imperative to murder you and your entire, tainted family, as well as all of your friends and their families to prevent them from impeding progress!”.

  5. To grabbers, the only good thing about firearms is that government agents can use them to control or eliminate certain “undesirable”. To that end, nothing that may empower individual citizens can be allowed. No they don’t care about gun safety because the more a person learns, the less likely they’ll be able to take firearms away from everyone.

  6. Because theirs is a strict Manichean worldview that does not allow for “both/and”. If you teach gun safety, you are not eradicating them. Just like when you advocate self-defense training for women, you are tacitly admitting that rape and assault exist. Why are you not eliminating rape?!!!

    That should also answer why some of them think we shouldn’t exist. The light cannot coexist with the dark.

    • +1
      Very good point. Teaching about safe handling of guns is a clear affirmation that there are at least some reasons for the average citizen to own and bear them. Since their end game is removal of guns from society, teaching people how to use them safely is a chink in their narrative.

      We teach toddlers that “Fire – BAD!” to just keep them from hurting themselves. We don’t explain the chemistry of combustion or the many very useful reasons to have fire around. The anti’s haven’t evolved past that point, and keep deluding themselves so they don’t have to. Fortunately, a great many Americans are far past the toddler stage, with more and more asking themselves, “Now what about this “fire” thing?”

  7. Simple: safety requires knowledge. Knowledge equals power, and begets curiosity. Curiosity results in increased familiarity.

    The end result, if you teach true gun safety, is likely to be more people who want guns, not less.

    • This is the main answer, right here. People who are less prone to irrational fear are much more difficult to manipulate.

    • Close, but quite. Otherwise sex education and drug awareness, which start formally in middle school (or earlier), would beget rampant experimentation with both, though we know those tend not to occur until high school or even college age. (Yes, variation exists, including extreme outliers. I’m talking central tendencies here.)

      The reasons others have cited thus far are all valid, but it can be even more basic than those:

      Any introduction to firearms, even Eddie Eagle programs, which address no aspect of handling of, let alone proficiency with or philosophy behind, firearms, necessarily demythologizes firearms. From that point forward, people are, if not inoculated against future gun grabbers’ lies, then are at least more resistant to the more hysterical of their claims.

      Antis view authentic firearms safety as a peek behind the curtain, exposing the faint and deceitful Oz they really are.

      • I think the term I’d use is “demystify” … but yeah, that’s the main point.

        Teaching gun safety educates people about guns.
        Learning about guns means guns are not some unknown scary thing – they’re better understood.
        Understanding guns puts gun control into focus, and makes the proposed gun control solutions look ridiculous.

        In short, teaching real gun safety hurts the fight for gun control.

        • Demystify is a term, to be sure, but it changes the meaning of the idea I expressed. I don’t mean simply removing the difficulty in comprehending a topic. That would be demystifying it. I meant removing the aura of heroism, even superhuman, super-heroism, surrounding firearms. That’s demythologizing it.

          Kids watch T.V. and the movies and they see amazing feats accomplished by central figures armed with firearms, even ray guns, and conclude that righting wrongs, or just self defense, via these tools is the province of specially endowed fictional characters. Even the somewhat closer-to-reality depictions of firearms in rap “music” nevertheless convey the impression that those who wield them are larger than life, even, dare I say, mythological. Well.

          It just isn’t so. You, me, and the seventy-five year old retiree and amputee down the block, can all use firearms, with but a modicum of training, to repel the most common manifestations of evil out there. Opening little ones’ eyes to firearms, even if only via basic Eddie the Eagle instruction, is itself sufficient to erode the myth that only oh so (allegedly) highly trained cops and military are adequate to the task of firearms deployment. It’s that chink in the armor, the crack in the dam, the pulling of the loose thread, that leads to the collapse of the entire falsehood upon which the antis’ worldview hinges. That’s why they fight even apolitical instruction tooth and nail.

      • Otherwise sex education and drug awareness, which start formally in middle school (or earlier), would beget rampant experimentation with both

        It was sex ed that made me want to get laid and smoke a doobie. It was. Really. So it’s not my fault.

        Story not working? I guess not. It didn’t persuade my parents either.

  8. There is a lot of power in ignorance and fear. The anti’s don’t want to lose that tool.
    Nobody in power or with aspirations of power wants to lose that tool.

    So education is the worst thing they could imagine for their cause.

    It’s not unlike the irrational opposition to silencers/suppressors. If the noise bothered them they’d support suppressors. But the noise bothering them, and others, is exactly what they want.

  9. Fun fact time!

    Cenk Uygur is, and has been for some time, an outspoken denier of the Armenian genocide, in which the Ottoman reformers known as the “Young Turks” systematically displaced and killed 1.5 million Armenian Christians from 1915-1917.

    Oh, and the Ottomans disarmed them through weapons control first.

    The more you know!

  10. People put their children inside – INSIDE! – incredibly dangerous cars. Some of them do it EVERYDAY! And yes, kids get killed on a VERY regular basis. But the trade-off is considered worth it.
    Last night I took my children in my car to hear a musical performance (dangerous, I know). I heard an amazing violin performance of the theme from Schindler’s List and tried to explain to my three year old daughter the story behind that movie.
    Yes. Guns are dangerous. But they offer incredible value. They offer the possibility that my daughter, or grand daughter, won’t end up represented someday in “Schindler’s List 2” or as a victim of a horrible home-invasion.
    And I think the liberals hate this reality: that there are truly wicked people in the earth who must be resisted with force on occasion and that the State won’t always be there to protect (and in fact may contain some of these TRULY wicked people). This is anathema to them.

  11. Let’s see….I can think of a few possible reasons:

    1. The anti-gunners are against anything with gun in it, including gun safety.

    2. The anti-gunners are psychotic.

    3. Both 1 and 2 above.

  12. The comments on YT are hysterical. Nearly 100% pure anti-gun hysteria including a few mo-rons that start with the lie that they support gun rights but…….
    But one thing mothers with guns now know is that off body carry with an toddler is far more dangerous than holstered on the hip.
    I’m sure criminals would love a law banning mothers from carrying while they have a child with them. It would make it easier for them to know what targets are not armed.

  13. What are this guy’s credentials for assessing the danger of handling a gun? Did he attend the course or review the materials? How did he reach the conclusion that some aspect – all aspects – of the gun-handling were dangerous to babies?
    Mothers with babies take their children outside for a stroll around the neighborhood. What if a police officer walked by on his beat? What if the mom is pulled over by a cop who is going to give her a traffic ticket? Would the baby be at risk because of the proximity of the policeman’s gun?
    What about a policewoman who is a mom? Must she disarm at the station and attend to her children disarmed? What if her department requires her to be armed at all times?

    It strikes me as though he hasn’t the slightest clue about what aspect of a gun tends toward danger and what aspect tends away from danger.

    Seems to me that we PotG are leaving the “gun safety” ground to the antis. We talk a lot about safety; after all, we know our own lives are on-the-line when we handle guns and are around others handling guns. But, it’s hard to get that into a sound-bite. Maybe we need a bumper sticker something like:

    Gun safety
    NRA – since 1871

    Such bumper-sticker like promotion would take-back this ground from the Antis in a way that might register with the uncommitted public.

  14. Yeah, I immediately saw a parallel here with sex education. Teaching about how to do a thing safely implicitly acknowledges the thing is in any way acceptable. The antis can’t have that.

  15. For the exact same reason many conservatives don’t believe in comprehensive sex education: if we pretend children and teens don’t have sex/find guns, the problem goes away.

  16. You read that one story that one time of the woman who hit a tree at 50mph and died because she was drinking and driving. So why would you drive? You think you’re better than her or somehow competent in handling the vehicle because you took a DMV course an test and teach driver’s ed classes? No, humans make mistakes. You may not drive drunk 99 times in a row, but eventually you’re going to make the mistake of getting hammered and driving into a tree or wall at a high rate of speed. You think transporting a small amount of alcohol in your car to consume at home is responsible? That alcohol is only feet away from your lips, and at any moment could open itself and force its way down your irresponsible gullet. All we are asking for is a little bit of car control, but I’m the crazy one for asking that all high horsepower engines be banned for regular civilians and kept in racing, where they belong. I’m the crazy one for thinking that the average American who grew up learning how to safely handle cars will eventually die a fiery death from hitting something going really really fast

  17. So long as guns remain scary and unfamiliar territory for some, those people might be more easily swayed into giving up their rights.

    Once guns are “demystified” they are no more feared than any other tool.

  18. Gun control advocates only pay lip service to safety. The truth is they want guns dangerous, sos they have more victims with which to dance on in order to remove guns from society at large. That’s why all the “safety” legislation they propose is utterly useless.

    • That’s exactly right. They acknowledge a supposed dangerous risk and their solution? Removal of the gun from the picture.

      They see no benefit for the firearm and then resort to treating people like a statistic instead of a person.

  19. I’ll tell you what their problem is. They think legislation is the answer to all things. They find something they don’t like – “legislation.”

    There is nothing wrong with a training course teaching women to safely carry both their baby and their firearm. There are definitely times and areas where she may need it.

    Note to liberal statists: We don’t want your “help.”

  20. As with every other country which banned guns en mass, all it takes is just the right tragedy at the right time in history. So, for the short term, the anti-gunners pray to their agnostic god of utopian society for such a horrendous event that surely we must act. They thought Sandy Hook was that event and ran with the ball as hard and fast as they could. They made strides amongst the weak minded folk, but overall even that tragedy wasn’t enough since they did not control all elements of government. But a day will come, when the Democrats control the Congress, Senate, Executive, and the judicial. And the next Sandy Hook after that will mark the end of not just the 2nd amendment, but all freedom as well.

  21. These are the people that give the boot to proven programs like Eddie Eagle and Project ChildSafe when they discover that they’re NRA affiliated.

    Screw these people.

  22. Ugh I tried to watch his video but I just couldn’t.

    We cannot protect everyone from consequences all the time. People will hurt themselves and pay high consequences and we can’t relieve them of that, at all. Quit it. People will pay the piper one way or another, in gun ownership, in career development, in recreational drug use, in everything. The sooner you make peace with that, the better.

  23. Because normalization and acceptance work against them. At the most basic level, guns are *fun* and if you let people use them and learn about them, you can’t explain (lie) why they are bad any more

  24. Yes, well, meanwhile, proponents of civilian disarmament do not want innocent people to be shot. By anyone. Ever. Bull!. These people thrive on the blood of victims. Bunch of vampires.

  25. I can’t stand watching that guy from the Young Turks on a normal basis. I really can’t stand watching him talk about Melody like that. I have actually met her in person before and interact with her on facebook quite a bit. She certainly isn’t the crazy idiot that he makes her out to be. Quite the contrary. She is quite intelligent. Her course isn’t what he represents in the video, however, she realized that many parents are carrying concealed while with their children and she saw opportunity to instruct parents how to do so safely. I think he also misrepresents the amount of firearms and self defense training that she has had. I personally believe that she is quite a bit more qualified to speak on the subject than anyone hosting the Young Turks. I find them to be quite reactionary and they present very few facts, this video included.

  26. For gun control activists, the term “gun insulation” is generally closer to their desired outcome than “gun safety.” It seems like they believe the only way to be safe around guns is to make sure they are far removed from average citizens.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *