Blue Force Gear Quote of the Day: Josh Sugarmann’s ‘What You Don’t Have Can’t Hurt You’ Argument for Gun Control

Josh Sugarmann (courtesy huffintonpost.com)

“While pro-gun advocates reflexively deny the relationship between gun availability and increased risk for injury and death, the fact remains: If a handgun had not been in that pickup truck, a mother and her child would be home tonight, not recovering from the trauma of an all-too-predictable tragedy.” – Josh Sugarmann in Why Does the Gun Lobby Encourage Small Children to Handle Guns? [via huffingtonpost.com]

BFG-Long-Logo-Blue-JPG-220x39

 

 

comments

  1. avatar cwp says:

    It’s like he’s never even read an Eddie Eagle comic. Which, to be fair, he probably hasn’t.

    1. avatar Joe R. says:

      It’s like he doesn’t even live in a country that founded itself on the right to slough-off the next batch of fn a-holes that attempted to preempt their means. It took a lot of killing in two different wars (Revolution and 1812) to initially prove the point and we can fn go again anytime he wants (but we don’t swear we’ll wait that long).

      1. avatar A.w says:

        If there hadn’t been a pickup truck there wouldn’t of been a gun in it to get hurt by

        1. avatar JasonM says:

          If she hadn’t had children, the child would not have shot her.

          Ban children! For the…children?

  2. avatar Russell says:

    Prohibitionists will never learn.

  3. avatar OneOfTheGoodGuys says:

    What you don’t have can’t help you either!

    1. avatar General Zod says:

      Considering how the antis deny that defensive gun uses ever happen (or if they do, they claim they’re “extremely rare”), this guy will never, ever admit that having a gun could be helpful in any circumstance.

  4. avatar James says:

    What over simplistic and patently stupid thinking. Life is risk. One can be hurt or die just getting out of bed. Just imagine getting up, tripping on something and hitting one’s head on a nightstand or dresser.

    But gun grabber have a religion, I understand that. This is the gospel according to The Brady Campaign. Obviously we can’t legislate stupid out of human beings. Otherwise Josh would be serving lattes at Starbucks if we could.

  5. avatar ThomasR says:

    BB pistols and rifles at 6 through 8 years old, then pellet rifles through 11 Y/O. Meanwhile, my dad would take me out and shoot his .308 bolt action rifle from when I was 9. Then, on my 11th birthday, I got a .22lr Ruger semi-auto rifle that I kept in my room and could take out anytime I wanted without my parents permission or supervision.

    I was also at 11, driving a tractor hauling a trailor with bins of apples 5 miles down the road to the cider factory, along with building sheds, fixing fences and maintaing roads on our property.

    I was taught about the responsible use of dangerous tools safely that could injure or kill myself and others as I grew up. A rifle was only one such tool.

    But for a progressive/statist, that is heresy, for if a child is taught to act responsibly, to become a mature responible adult, they are out of a job.

    1. avatar 'liljoe says:

      Sorry, no… With the scarcity of 22lr the kids will not be allowed to take their gun out whenever they want to any more 🙂

      1. avatar ThomasR. says:

        No kidding! Back in the day when a box of 500 rnds were ten bucks and you could buy as many as you could carry out.

      2. avatar sagebrushracer says:

        ya, at this rate any kids I ever have will get a decent airgun instead of a .22lr

    2. avatar bobby cotner says:

      ThomasR You are so right. The problem with the liberal left progressives, They are to dumb to teach their children responsibility. Like you I learned to work at an early age and felt accomplishment by doing my share of work. Cars, motorcycles,knives,hammers and so kill millions. I believe the biggest killer of all is drugs and alcohol. And now add Marijuana and mental illness along with radical terrorist and the stupid politicians that protect the crazy people. What a wonderful world?

  6. avatar Sean in MT says:

    Ah yes, the old “relationship between [a thing] availability and increased risk for injury and death [due to that thing]” canard. For example, I could just as easily say, “You can’t deny the relationship between living in alligator-infested Florida and increased risk for alligator bites,” and I’d be making the same circular logical fallacy.

    Is he making this error due to ignorance or malice? You decide, but given his history, I’m going to say that he makes this mistake on purpose, with intent to mislead people. This, in my book, is evil (and a sin). I make this distinction because in the past he has said this:

    “Assault weapons—just like armor-piercing bullets, machine guns, and plastic firearms—are a new topic. The weapons’ menacing looks, coupled with the public’s confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons—anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun—can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons.”

    He has to FUD as hard as possible because The Truth About Guns is not on his side.

  7. avatar gs650g says:

    I love liberal fortune tellers. They never forecast events like “if only she had a gun she wouldn’t have been raped “

    1. avatar sagebrushracer says:

      if it doesn’t fit the narrative, then it doesn’t exist.

      1. avatar PNG says:

        Narrative = lie

  8. avatar Hobbez says:

    If she hadn’t owned a pickup, she would be here today. Ban pickups!

    If she didn’t have children, she would be here today. Ban Children!

    If she had a made a left on 4th street instead of a right, she would be here today. Ban left turns!

    If she hadn’t taken so long to eat breakfast, she would have remembered the gun was in the back seat and she would be here today. Ban large breakfasts!

    I can be facetious and stupid too Mr. Sugarmann…..

  9. avatar ColoradoKid says:

    Here is part of the 4th paragraph of his article:

    “As my organization, the Violence Policy Center, documented in our recent study, “Start Them Young” – How the Firearms Industry and Gun Lobby are Targeting Your Children, the firearms industry is facing a slow-motion demographic collapse. With household gun ownership on the decline, the gun industry has set its sights on America’s children.”

    Demographic collapse? Household gun ownership on the decline? I wonder, based on news reports that gun sales are at all-time record highs, who is buying all the guns!

    1. avatar 16V says:

      Keep telling the lie until it is common knowledge and believed – truth be damned.

      Much akin to the old nonsense about 300,000 trafficked sex workers and the rest of that nonsense. Made up from whole cloth for a congressional hearing. Just keeps popping up even though it’s been debunked a thousand times. There’s people reliant on the grants generated by the myth. The lie must be kept alive.

      https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2014/03/27/lies-damned-lies-and-sex-work-statistics/

      http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/28763-special-report-money-and-lies-in-anti-human-trafficking-ngos

      1. avatar Vhyrus says:

        Thank you for that enlightening article. Apparently anti gunners and anti sexxers have a lot in common.

      2. avatar John Wirts says:

        Ban liars, OOPS SORRY CAN”T DO THAT ALL LIBERALS, POLITICIANS, LAWYERS,AND JUDGES would immediately be be banned. Maybe we can offer them a free one way trip to mars?

    2. avatar TXGungal says:

      “gun sales are at all-time record highs, who is buying all the guns!” ?
      I am!!!!

  10. avatar Indiana Tom says:

    the fact remains: If they had not been in that pickup truck, a mother and her child would be home tonight, not recovering from the trauma of an all-too-predictable tragedy.”
    Same logic applies.

  11. avatar samuraichatter says:

    Yeah, if we never progressed passed the Stone Age I am sure alot gun deaths could have been prevented.

    1. avatar Jim says:

      That’s true. Until someone invented those nasty ol’ guns, there’d never been a homicide in the history of the universe. Not a single war either!

      1. avatar Cliff H says:

        Well…The third person in the entire world murdered the fourth person (or was it the fourth murdering the third, I can never keep that straight) with a rock. Attempting to prevent that primary homicide must be why God did not give Adam the secret of gunpowder, metallurgy and machining.

        1. avatar Nolan in MT says:

          Sons of Adam. Abel, the younger brother, was killed either with a stone or with the sharpened jawbone of an ass, depending on sect.

  12. avatar NYC2AZ says:

    “While gun control advocates reflexively deny the relationship between urban criminal activity and increased risk for injury and death, the fact remains: If a handgun had not been in that house, a father, mother, and their 5 year old child would be dead tonight, not recovering from the trauma of an all-too-predictable tragedy.”

    http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/11/us/mississippi-escaped-murder-suspect-killed-hostages/

  13. avatar Jim Bullock says:

    “What you don’t have can’t hurt help you.” There, fixed it for them. So “they deny accidental gun deaths”-guy denies D G Us. Well, at least we’re balancing all the outcomes here. Oh, wait…

    Why encourage kids to learn about guns? Guns are part of the world, potent tools, and powerful symbols. Kids should learn about the world or they’ll end up like “no D G Us”-guy.

    Also, this learning is good training for a world where we live by our tools, tools which can harm delicate human bodies, if ill-used. In this sense a gun is like a chainsaw, or a car, or a pool stick, without the distraction.

    Finally, shooting guns is fun. Introduce kids to fun things. They might like it.

  14. avatar Bob Watson says:

    “Why Does the Gun Lobby Encourage Small Children to Handle Guns?”

    Little Josh is a cold, calculating and well paid propagandist. The inane drivel he spouts is his work product. Generating hysteria is his goal.

  15. avatar Soccerchainsaw says:

    And if so & so didn’t have a car, they wouldn’t have been mangled or killed in the crash.
    Life is full of risks. Every day we decide which risks are worth taking. In the grand scheme of things, driving your car is much riskier than carrying a gun.

  16. avatar TyrannyOfEvilMen says:

    People like Mr. Sugarmann know that they are idiotic but they also know that most of the general public who they contact through their sophomoric articles are idiots themselves.

  17. avatar Priest of the center mass says:

    A very wise man once said, it is better to be silent and thought a fool than to speak and confirm it.
    Josh sugarmann confirmed it.

  18. avatar Indiana Tom says:

    Actually, we could prevent many auto accidents by banning cars.

  19. avatar Shannon's Pimp says:

    Why does Sugarmann have an FFL? Hypocrisy is thy name…

  20. avatar Cadeyrn says:

    I take issue with two of the words in his key sentence: “predictable” and “tragedy.” First, how is someone leaving a loaded gun in a back seat with a four year old “predictable?” How “predictable” is the four year old working the mechanism, shooting it, and actually hitting someone? Neither are “predictable” although both are “stupid” as in: never should have been possible in the first place.

    Now “tragedy” is a word that connotes a calamity, disaster or fatal event. The event wasn’t fatal although it could easily have been. Was it a “calamity” when a careless gun owner got taught a severe lesson in gun safety? I think a lot of gun owners who would have secured their arms around toddlers, kept them completely out of reach, kept safeties on, etc. might disagree. The event was actually more of a calamity for law-abiding, careful gun owners because one idiot makes the rest of us look bad. For the participants, it was more of a hard lesson so the sentence should be revised to read “Idiot learns hard lesson.”

  21. avatar Garibaldi says:

    The problem with this guy’s article is that he takes two entirely unrelated things and tries to pretend that they are related.

    The first thing is the tragic accident that occurred when a toddler gained access to a loaded firearm. Everyone in the world agrees that this should never have been allowed to happen.

    The second thing is parents educating their children about firearms, i.e. teaching them what a firearm is and teaching them how to shoot a firearm -under supervision-.

    He wants to create the impression that allowing the second one will somehow increase the first. It will not, they are totally unrelated.

  22. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

    “What you don’t have can’t hurt you.”

    He’s really not that far off the truth here. Just a little difference in the wording and he could’ve been had something. Unfortunately, sometimes a little difference can make a big difference.

    Had he written “What you don’t have can hurt you”, the missing quality being common sense, personal responsibility, or rudimentary firearms safety training, then yes, he would’ve been on to something.

    Alternately, had he written “What you don’t have can’t protect you”, meaning a household firearm or personal self-defense firearm, then he’d have offered something meaningful here. So close, but so far.

    1. avatar OneOfTheGoodGuys says:

      +1

  23. avatar Binder says:

    If governments were not armed, they could not kill their own people.

    At least 170 million people — and perhaps as many as 360 million — have been murdered by their own governments in the 20th century

  24. avatar TeeJaw says:

    Sugarmann’s statement is an example of lying by making a technically true statement that is so misleading and one sided as to convey a false impression of the truth. It is true that when killer doesn’t have a gun he cannot kill anyone with a gun. It’s also true that when a citizen who is attacked by a killer with a gun does not have a gun himself he cannot defend himself effectively.

    Just as many times, perhaps more times, it is true to say that if there had not been a gun in the citizen’s pickup truck that citizen and/or his family would not be alive today.

    1. avatar Jim Bullock says:

      They invented a term for this: “undulating lie.”

  25. avatar Mark_PAV says:

    The accidental shooting by the four year old happened on Tuesday. Mr. Sugarmann’s article was publish that Friday. In the three days between the shooting and the article, how many people were hurt in accidental shootings compared to car accidents? I’m guessing Mr. Sugarmann knows the difference between the two are monumental……BUT he’s not concerned with reducing all accidents, only those with the evil guns.

  26. avatar Wrightl3 says:

    Correction: If the gun had been in the front of the truck, this wouldn’t have happened.

  27. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    “What You Don’t Have Can’t Hurt You” — Josh Sugarmann

    Patently and demonstrably false: not having a fire extinguisher could hurt you. And NOT having a firearm hurt the Petit family when two violent criminals decided to rape the mother and one of her daughters and then kill the mother and both daughters.

Write a Comment

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

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
Blue Force Gear Quote of the Day: Josh Sugarmann’s ‘What You Don’t Have Can’t Hurt You’ Argument for Gun Control http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2016/03/robert-farago/blue-force-gear-quote-day-josh-sugarmann-dont-cant-hurt-argument-gun-control/" title="Email to a friend/colleague">
button to share via email