Orange you glad I didn't say banana? (courtesy
Previous Post
Next Post

I’m gonna credit Mike “The Gun Guy” Weisser for this one. The Massachusetts gun dealer (go figure) was the first proponent of re-branding “gun control” as “gun violence prevention.” While I’ve yet to see anyone use his favored acronym (GVP), “gun violence prevention” has officially replaced “gun safety” and the totally lame “gun reform” as the most recent nom de guerre for gun control. We know this because . . .

I just got an email from Keith Ellison. The Deputy Chair of the Democratic National Committee wants me to take a survey “to let us know what issues are important to you.” Here’s the top of the list:

DNC survey 1.16.18

FWIW I reckon that’s the order of priority for the issues the Democrats are targeting for the midterms.

And while I’d love to see the results of this survey, I don’t think I will. But I do expect to see the term “gun violence prevention” become the gun control/civilian disarmament euphemism du jour in the mainstream media. Because fake news.

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. Gun violence prevention=Locking away felons instead of releasing them dozens of times to offend again and again.

    • Be careful, you’re making too much sense and I am pretty sure such things as logic and reason confound and (further) emotionally confuse the liberal masses.

    • We need to take ownership of this dialog. Seize it from them and make the media use our terms:
      Gun control = Gun Owner control
      Gun violence prevention = gun ownership prevention
      Gun control advocate = bigot

      Never pass up an opportunity to correct someone in these conversations – do not allow the bigots euphemisms to go unchallenged.

      • We’ll never be able to make the media use terms that aren’t slanted against us. Won’t happen.

        But you’re right about the rest.

        The progress we’ve made in public opinion over the last 10-15 years has been entirely due to the rise of social media. People see gun owners everywhere, not just in the legacy media establishment — and it’s obvious to everyone who can use their brain that we’re normal, peaceful, responsible folks. We argue with passion AND facts on our side.

        It’s also apparent to an ever-increasing number of people that their formerly trusted news sources are pushing fake news about people they know personally. The more they hear the truth about guns (I feel like there’s a slogan in there somewhere) from people they trust, the more lies and omissions they’ll spot. The cognitive dissonance is real, and it’s our best ally.

        So let’s go forth, and let no Orwellian euphemism go unchallenged!

        • We should never give them control of language. Obviously the left is winning in the propaganda front, as they more or less control our language. Case in point, how many pro-gun folks use terms like “silencer” or the egregious, blasphemous term “assault rifle”? Seriously, how can any person who considers themselves pro-gun use such a term? Yet many do. Normally I’m content to let people use whatever words they want, as long as I know what they mean. But in this case, we must always correct people on their use of language…it is one of the few things more powerful than arms. Never will the national, MSM use terms that we consider appropriate or correct, because in so doing, they admit defeat and/or normalization.

          • Apparently there were social media titans in attendance before congressional committee concerned with reducing the influence of radical Islam and other terrorists. The titans promised to use their super secret magic formulas to rid the internet of violence, violent speech, violent images. That got big smiles from the committee. Of course, the titans did not explain to the committee that those super secret magic formulas have been in place for quite awhile, removing conservative, patriotic, pro-America, pro-gun postings and channels. Social media is being taken completely away from us, and now has the blessings of an official government committee. Any bets on the future?

            If POTG do not know how they are being frozen out of wide audiences, it is indicative of our lack of mental agility. That, and the fact the enemies of social media have no clue how to counter.

    • At what cost?

      Wouldn’t it be easier to just dispose of those deemed incapable of rehabilitation?

  2. None of my guns have been violent. They must be broken.

    I do have a hammer that is guilty of hammer violence. Hit constantly goes around hitting things.

    Come to thing about it, I think I have a knife violence problem too.

    • Cutting firewood today; noticed the head of my splitting maul is cracked and loose – it may be about to commit an act of violence against whatever gets in it’s way when it finally gives out.

    • Hell, my own hammer has repeatedly struck flesh of its own accord! I’ve lost so much finger blood due to that horrific contraption. Somebody should ban them! For the children!

  3. I still want to know why these people think gun violence is any different than other forms of violence. Even in the U.S. more people are murdered by non gun means than with guns.

      • Incorrect, the FBI includes justifiable homicides in their statistics of which there are approximately 1500 police and civilian gun related justifiable homicides per year. Bringing the total gun MURDERS to about 7000-7500, less than half. That’s why I specified MURDERS and not HOMICIDES. There are less than 200 justifiable homicides not using guns per year, so more than half of MURDERS are committed by means other than guns.

        • Update, my math was wrong. I forgot to take the justifiable homicides out of the total, so I am incorrect. In 2014 it was just over half. In 2016 (17200 ish total homicides) it was just under half.

        • Also consider that any homicide committed with a gun goes into the “murder with a gun” areas, regardless of the outcome of any investigation/prosecution. Mainly because the FBI gets their data from the states, who very seldom bother to make any changes after investigation/prosecution, even if the “perp” is exonerated.
          Statistics lie for many reasons.

    • The true fact that people are going for when they cite this incorrect statistic is that more people are killed by non-gun means than are killed with rifles or other long guns, and by a huge margin. While guns do account for the majority of homicides, the vast majority of homicides committed with guns are committed with handguns.

  4. Alinsky probably ripped off Orwell when he said, ““He who controls the language controls the masses.” Of course, Orwell probably meant it as a cautionary note against authoritarianism. Alinsky, as an instruction manual for Stalin wannabes.

    • Orwell certainly meant it as a caution. He hated communism and totalitarian government (thus 1984 and Big Brother; if you ever want to be depressed about where we’ve been and where we could be headed, read that book).

      • Back in the day (flower children, free love, power to the people), universities were pushing Orwell as anti-capitalist, anti-conformist, anti-tradition, anti-whatever. Orwell was taught as the consummate socialist, anarchist, leftist, anti-government radical. “Big Brother” represented authority, rules, structure, lack of freedom from responsibility.

        P.S. The universities were completely wrong, but they raised a generation of intolerant acolytes. Who raised another generation, and another, and so on.

        • This is blatantly untrue. Orwell was a democratic socialist.

          “Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism, as I understand it.”

          Orwell, George (1968) [1958]. Bott, George, ed. Selected Writings. London: Heinemann. p. 103. ISBN 0-435-13675-5.

          • Doesn’t change history.

            The universities did not teach Orwell, they taught his writings as they saw fit.

        • What, so you’re complaining they taught him as an anti-authoritarian socialist in the face of evidence that he was an anti-authoritarian socialist? I’m not one, but I just hate seeing Orwell lionized by any toad who reads his own meaning into it.

          • Orwell was writing in critique of the leftward drift of England. The US universities used his writings as anti-right wing. The government of England was nowhere near right wing.

            You cannot be anti-authoritarian socialist. Socialism requires strong, intrusive government to enforce all the social good. It is no coincidence that Stalin and Hitler were both socialists.

        • Why should I listen to you when you’re not grounding your argument in Orwell’s writing? You’re just… saying things. Your quibble with the semantics of authoritarianism is entirely besides the point.

          • Don’t “listen” (read). You have an off button on your device. You have a delete function regarding each of these postings and comments.

        • Yes, very convincing. I wish closing my browser could erase from my memory the manifold brands of idiocy paraded about in TTAG comment sections. Fortunately, bourbon exists.

    • Gun control is most certainly tyranny and for decades this country has been slipping down that slippery slope to socialism. We are a country inhabited by foreigners, and I don’t mean in the literal, global, legal sense. Being an American has almost superseded nationality, it is no longer just a birthright, but also a state of being or mind…and too many inhabitants of this country are not “American”, and I hate to use quotation marks, but feel compelled to. And so many of these un-American Americans have been elected to office in this country by “victims”, special interest groups, imported voters and just about any subsection of the American public. What do you expect? What will it lead to?

  5. None of my guns are violent. Well maybe my type 99 is a a little violent to shoot because that steel butt plate doesn’t feel great depending on where it ends up sitting on my shoulder. Yeah we could find a way to prevent that… I’m in!

    • I replaced the steel but plate on my mosin nagant with a rubber butt pad.

      Cut way down on the ‘gun violence’.

      • Good call. Not sure I could bring myself to modify grandpa’s bringback type 99 though. I guess I’ll just bask in the violence.

  6. Does gun control work, yes or no?


    There have been almost no crimes committed with “machine guns” since 1935. “Machine guns” are not banned, but tightly regulated. It would seem that severe restrictions do lower the incidence of “gun violence”.

    Not taking the position that gun control is constitutional, merely pointing out that we cannot claim gun control is useless when faced with the firearms act of 1934, regarding “machine guns”.

    “Gun control” may be many things, but when properly structured and enforced, the result cannot be ignored.

    POTG need to drop the idea that “gun control” is useless on the whole. We need to be more imaginative about the other failings.

    • You are mistaken. ILLEGAL machine guns are still used to commit crimes frequently. There have only been two times since 1934 that LEGALLY owned machine guns were used and one of those was by a deputy sheriff. The “regulation” of which you speak simply made it possible to track this and see that law abiding citizens who own machine guns do not commit violent crime and they still would not have with out the NFA of 1934. They did not commit crimes with their machine guns before the NFA and still do not ever since.

      • “ILLEGAL machine guns are still used to commit crimes frequently. ”

        Source citation, please.

        Compared to non machine guns, the incidence of crimes committed by anyone using a machine gun is quite rare.

        Which was my point.

        • “Source citation please” More like source citation now. What a load of crap. And to indulge your claim, so what? Because some A-hole commits a crime with an illegally owned automatic weapon (says you), everyone else in America must be tightly regulated? It burned me to no end when teacher punished us all for one person in school…as a man only more so. Besides, I’d rather have a brand new semi-auto rifle for $600 vs. a 50 year old shot out automatic for $12000.

          • If you are going to claim that illegally owned machine guns are frequently used to commit crimes, a source of your statement is required.

            Second, you may want to consider demanding a refund of the money spent teaching you reading and comprehension skills. You missed the point grossly, and entirely.

        • You overlook that the supply of new machine guns available to the public was not capped in 1934, but continued to increase until 1986, including many war trophies that never made it into the national ATF database, especially during the Viet Nam War era. And the price of machine guns did not skyrocket until after FOPA. But even with all of those additional automatic weapons, there was a continued dearth of murders in which such weapons were employed. As has been said here many times, correlation does not equal causation. Further, although it is undoubtedly true that criminals stopped buying machine guns when the background check and fee went into effect, another related circumstance was the end of Prohibition, which greatly impacted the use of smugglers and gangs to import booze, and consequently greatly reduced gang warfare (which was the true intent of the law).

          • All of which underlines that the 1934 GCA worked….as regards machine guns, and machine guns only.

            Nothing more implied.

        • “All of which underlines that the 1934 GCA worked….as regards machine guns, and machine guns only.”

          Define “worked.”
          If you mean it did what the act said it would do, limit the number of machine guns in the possession of civilians, yes it did that, and thus worked.
          However, it must be noted that it was prohibition that greatly increased the use of automatic weapons in the US, and for the most part, it was felon-on-felon shooting.
          Since prohibition was repealed, such shootings came to an abrupt halt. Since prohibition ended in 1933, it is specious to say the GCA halted such shootings, because the GCA made no provisions for somehow rounding up all the machine guns already in circulation.
          The North Hollywood bank heist is one of the few machine gun uses in crime, but a spectacular one.
          Machine guns make very poor crime guns, anyway. They are very hard to control, eat ammo at a prodigious rate, and deafen all nearby people (including the shooter). Even criminals, who are stupid to begin with, know better to use a weapon that’s unsuited to the task. How many crimes do you see reported where someone used a sword to threaten someone?

          • Another thought on this whole issue of whether the NFA worked. I’d say it did work. It reduced the number of regulated/banned items. That was the goal. It happened.

            Did it reduce violence, or even “gun violence?” Probably not. Who cares if it reduced “machine gun violence” if it didn’t reduce violence and/or “gun violence?”

            • Who cares if controlling machine guns did not “gun violence” caused with other firearms? Why is that relevant? You agreed the machine gun controls met the intentions of the regulations. The fact that guns not regulated as machine guns were still widely used in crimes is simply illogical. The controls and regulations over machine guns also did not cure cancer, or usher in world peace. Nor did the regulations reduce “gun violence” in Canada. Your logic would say that requiring certain safety features in automobiles, but not in trucks was effective for automobiles, but was ineffective at addressing safety issues in trucks.

              • No, I’m saying banning Hondas would just get people to drive Toyotas and not get them to stop driving foreign cars. If you passed the law because you’re an investor in Toyotas, you win. If you passed to law to support the American automobile industry, you didn’t win.

              • Complaining that a piece of legislation did not accomplish that which it was not intended to accomplish seems a strange bit of logic.

              • Not at all. My proposition was that control and regulations of machine guns was effective at nearly eliminating crimes committed with machine guns. End. Overall gun control was not at issue, in my statement or the CGA. Concerns about general gun control effectiveness based on the potential that other guns would be made substitute is related to general gun control (or general “violence prevention”), not to the reduction of crime committed with machine guns.

              • What’s that got to do with my point that your point is stupid? (Your point as described in the comment I’m responding to, not the point that people should beware absolutes because, as we all know, only the Sith deal in absolute).

                The “gun violence” argument is stupid. It argues that we should regulate (work up to a ban) guns so gun violence will go away.

                It misses the point entirely. It misses the cause and the result. Who cares about eliminating gun violence? Idiots, that’s who. The concern should be eliminating violence. If eliminating or burdening the lawful commerce in firearms increases violence but decreases “gun violence,” don’t do it because that is stupid. Guns don’t cause violence. The actual harm a sane society wants to avoid is violence, not “gun violence.”

                Eliminating “machine gun violence” is an even dumber goal. Handguns, revolvers specifically, are the best tool for the average violent criminal. Even if machine guns were the best choice for crime, a machine gun ban would only cause criminals to use semi-auto rifles (if the cost-benefit was then advantageous). It’s called the substitution effect.

                The law didn’t achieve a meaningful and legitimate governmental purpose. It did not increase public safety. It reduced consumer goods and technological development of a strategic resource. It harmed the nation. If the goal was to limit freedom, it succeeded and was evil. Any other claimed (successful) goal is either a lie or an intermediate goal.

              • “The law didn’t achieve a meaningful and legitimate governmental purpose.”

                According to who? The law (NFA and CGA) made and kept the criminal activity using machine guns at near zero. That is a failure? This mixing of a single effort with a single goal into a discussion of gun control in general is illogical. The gun control of machine guns is/was effective in controlling the proliferation of machine guns, and the proliferation of machine guns in criminal activity. The fact that the laws did not eliminate “gun violence”, or even “violence” is irrelevant. The intent was never to eradicate or even dramatically limit “violence”, or “gun violence” in general.

                I never expected you to join the “if it doesn’t solve all problems, it is ineffective” crowd.

              • “According to who?” – Me.

                “The intent was never to eradicate or even dramatically limit “violence”, or “gun violence” in general.” I do not accept that premise. I have read some of the congressional record on the NFA; I’m not just talking out of my ass.

              • If the intent were truly general reduction in “gun crime”, would not handguns have remained in the legislation?

                Everything OK over there? Noting an edge on your commentaries (to everyone) all day that is not normal for you.

              • In reverse order, I was watching those sorry sons of … in the Senate not fund the government. I also had a few beers in me, and I have an abrasive personality I usually moderate better. In vino veritas. I’m a really nice guy, but I’m usually an ass about it. Thanks for asking.

                Politics is the art of the possible. It’s a let’s get what we can know, and come back for the rest later kinda game. Also, perhaps the true intent of the law was to lay the ground work for the subjugation of the American people by preventing them from being able to legally acquire arms that would be effective in resisting a tyrannical government that, say, put a bunch of people in concentration camps because of their nation of origin.

              • Regarding “the art of politics”, we are engaged in civil war (without the smoke). In war there can only be winners and losers. Politicians are in a struggle for absolute control over the lives of the citizenry. There can be precious little “give and take”, because every proposal is a hard core “principal”, not to be compromised.

                A struggle for power is not a contest of ideas, but a contest of power. It is always a zero sum game. Once the majority of people (from whence come the politicians) decide that personal gratification is THE defining issue, the hopes and intentions of self-government devolve an exercise in force of will, nothing more.

                Right now, Dems are determined to install a self-perpetuating and invincible cadre of voters. There can be no compromise. Dems know that DACA is not about “800,000 dreamers”, but about the 3.2 million related potential voters. Indeed, the “compromise” bill shown to Trump not only locked the present into law, but also expanded the number of people eligible for “amnesty”, now and into the future. My reading was that the measure provided for the entire world to become American citizens; authorizing unlimited refugees into the country. All of this is a non-negotiable position for the Dems. Simply put, Dems demand no limits on the number of potential voters. Repubs are publicly opposed (except a few). Where is the ground for compromise? Every piece of legislation presented by Repubs will be met with the demand for unlimited immigration (legal or otherwise). Where is the room for “let’s get where we can now, and come back and work on other stuff later”?

                Question: why is the DACA thing so important now? Obama could have dispensed with this problem when he and the Dems controlled everything.

              • “Where is the room for “let’s get where we can now, and come back and work on other stuff later”?” That’s the Democrats’ entire reason for pushing immigration. They don’t actually care about immigration or immigrants. They care about accruing power down the road, so they can do whatever they want then.

                On the other hand of Republicans, I don’t understand what they are thinking, at least in leadership. I have spoken to my congressman. I agree with him on most issues. He believes that basically all gun control is unconstitutional, but he is willing to support a law that only overturns some of it. He is for fiscal responsibility, but is willing to vote for a deficit if his vote will make that deficit lower than it would be otherwise.

                “Question: why is the DACA thing so important now?” Because Trump is only willing to violate the constitution until the March deadline? Perhaps Democrats want to make Republicans look racist for upholding the law.