Are you Pro Gun or Pro Gun Safety?

[Ru4real]

The 2nd Amendment debate is currently being reframed.

Pro Gun Safety is a subversive term meant to trick people into choosing an anti 2nd amendment position. I heard a “left” think tank person use these phrases on a recent podcast.

When he first used the term, I thought, duh, most everyone is pro gun safety. And that is where the lie starts. They intend to push gun reform and loss of freedom behind a Pro Gun Safety mantra.

What is the best way to change the conversation back, or keep BS slogans (Patriot Act) out of the conversation?

Pro Bill of Rights or Pro Second Amendment seem pretty good, as usual.

 

[DocRock]

You said it from the start. People who want to protect our natural right to keep and bear arms are already for gun safety. Any attempt to frame them as other than integral must be challenged and negated from the very start. And anyone arguing the contrary is an anti civil rights activist.

They won’t like that term.

 

[AlexanderA]

"Gun safety" is the new euphemism for "gun control." And gun control, of course, means banning guns.

The reason these euphemisms are constantly being coined is that gun bans, at root, are not popular. Their advocates have to sugar-coat their poison.

 

[ms6852]

One needs to ponder now with modern technology why there are more deaths caused by cell phones than there are by guns. Deaths caused by cell phone distracted driving have doubled and surpassed gun related deaths but cell phones and drivers licenses are given to anyone without doing a background check. Instead, the industry patches the distracted driving accidents and death by providing blue tooth technology in the car so that you can continue to drive and talk.

When it comes to gun safety there comes a time that as a human specie, common sense comes into play and if some one shoots themselves accidentally than so be it. Mother Nature has always played a role in weeding out the weak, dumb, and stupid.

I wonder what all the anti-gunners would think that as pro-gun owners we formed an organization similar to the NRA but instead focus on attacking the cell phone industry. We could demand that drivers using their cell phones while driving and are involved in an accident should get automatic suspension of their driving privileges for one year and if a death is involved automatic jail time for manslaughter . It is a fact now that distracted driving by cell phones causes more accidents than drunk driving. You think Beto O'rourke would promise to take our cell phones away?

 

[SwampWolf]

"Gun safety" is the new euphemism for "gun control."

So is the "Second Amendment". Every anti-gun zealot with any brains (I know, but it's theoretically possible I suppose) will always claim support for the Second Amendment. Always. Such liars and hypocrites they always are.

 

[jmr40]

Are you Pro Gun or Pro Gun Safety?

Both. With rights come responsibilities. If you don't exercise those rights responsibly then you should lose them. I think that the biggest mistake we as gun owners have made is spend all of our time focusing on the collective rights to own guns and not enough time policing ourselves to ensure responsibility.

If I were appointed King and could make all laws there wouldn't be any restrictions on which guns people could own. That includes full auto, suppressors, mag capacity, and short barreled long guns. There would be some restrictions on where and when they could be carried, but basically anywhere a uniformed LEO could currently carry, anyone could carry.

But... If someone chooses to use their firearm in an irresponsible manner the penalties would be severe. And they could very well lose those rights at least for a time. But the focus would be on the individual, not on the collective rights of those who are exercising their rights responsibly.

 

[earlthegoat2]

Both. With rights come responsibilities. If you don't exercise those rights responsibly then you should lose them. I think that the biggest mistake we as gun owners have made is spend all of our time focusing on the collective rights to own guns and not enough time policing ourselves to ensure responsibility.

If I were appointed King and could make all laws there wouldn't be any restrictions on which guns people could own. That includes full auto, suppressors, mag capacity, and short barreled long guns. There would be some restrictions on where and when they could be carried, but basically anywhere a uniformed LEO could currently carry, anyone could carry.

But... If someone chooses to use their firearm in an irresponsible manner the penalties would be severe. And they could very well lose those rights at least for a time. But the focus would be on the individual, not on the collective rights of those who are exercising their rights responsibly.

That is all I ask as well. This is not the military where everyone is punished for the stupidity, negligence, mental disorders, or perversions of the few. Punish the offenders. Enforce the laws already extant and stop trying to make superfluous and redundant new ones that are further reaching into the good and law abiding majority.

 

[CDW4ME]

Pro gun and in before an inevitable "we don't do politics" being the majority of "gun safety" proponents are politically neutral.

 

[GEM]

If folks go to things other than gun rights then it gets closed.

 

[rust collector]

Another term that has been recently advanced by Everytown and other anti-2A sources is "Charleston loophole", the provision of law that permits a sale to be completed if NICS does not clear within 3 days. Claimed to be in common use to describe this phenomenon, but n-gram finds no occurrence in literature. Labeling anything a loophole implies that it is inadvertent and wrong, so isn't reporting but an effort to influence or persuade. We should actively challenge such nonsense whenever we see it.

 

[FFGColorado]

Deaths caused by cell phone distracted driving have doubled and surpassed gun related deaths but cell phones and drivers licenses are given to anyone without doing a background check.

ahh, not really. The stats say about 10-15% of deaths on the highway are caused by distracted driving..about 35,000 total highway/road/driving deaths-so 'about' 3500-4500. 19,223 deaths due to guns in 2020....

Drunk driving deaths are 'about' 10,000 per year..

who's 'beto o'rourke?

IBL

 

[DustyGmt]

Deleted

 

[SamT1]

The second amendment was written to ensure the government couldn’t strip the people of fire power. That basically means it is unconstitutional to ban us from having Nukes and fighter jets. It was setup that way so politicians knew they were on a short leash. thats obviously dead now, we now fear what the politicians are going to try and do to us. Our freedom hangs on by a shred (possibly that mega stash of AR15 rifles held by civilians)

I don’t believe the second amendment requires us to practice any sort of safety. The founders were willing to die for freedom, the intense focus on safety in all aspects of life Is new.

gun safety should be left out of the 2A debate all together. That’s a lesson you teach your children at home. Don’t give politicians an inch. We have already given a mile.

 

[HPCadm17]

Pro 2nd Amendment is pro gun safety. The issue here is that the Left tries to redefine what Gun Safety means, like they do with everything else. To a 2A advocate, gun safety means being safe with firearms. To the Left, gun safety means being safe from firearms. Same words, different meanings. Until both sides can agree on the meaning of terms, there can be no rational discussion.

 

[DustyGmt]

We were guaranteed certain rights and individual freedoms by our forefathers. Why would you ever, ever want to play an active role or be ambivalent about having any of those freedoms rescinded by your own government who is supposed to be under your thumb, not the other way around. The answer is because you were tricked, don't exercise those freedoms yourself so don't care if anybody else does either, or you're prone to thinking errors and never really considered the argument beyond thinking less guns = saving the children.

That's how I think about it and that's usually how I frame it up to opposing viewpoints, maybe dialed back a few degrees so as not to hurt feelings too badly. Its an individual freedom, why would you ever sacrifice a personal freedom? "Well if it saves just one......" nope, not an argument, not a reason. What's a real reason? "the children". Nope. You lost.

 

[FL-NC]

I am pro-freedom, which means I am pro-constitution. All of it. I also happen to believe in the safe and responsible use of all tools, whether they be power tools, farm equipment, firearms, or anything else that could potentially cause harm if misused, or used in a criminal way.

 

[Hokkmike]

I've said it before, "Most laws are enacted to remedy problems caused by the lowest common denominator among us."

 

[kwguy]

It is not about safety on their part. It never was.

 

[bassjam]

Maybe we can take back "common sense gun laws"?

Like removing any laws from the books that do nothing to criminals and only impact law abiding citizens?

 

[buck460XVR]

I don’t believe the second amendment requires us to practice any sort of safety.

While it doesn't "require" us to, as responsible gun owners we owe it to ourselves and others to.

 

[NuShootr]

19,223 deaths due to guns in 2020....

Most of which are gun related suicides. If memory serves.

And THAT'S how I would approach this argument. Frame it this way. "If gun safety can prevent the majority of gun related suicide, which tends to be the majority of gun related deaths annually, then I am 100% for teaching more about gun safety. I'm also for a much better mental health system, which was basically shut down in 80s because of corruption within the system. How are you dealing with the lack of mental health care funding and resources?"

 

[NuShootr]

Maybe we can take back "common sense gun laws"?

Like removing any laws from the books that do nothing to criminals and only impact law abiding citizens?

There are currently about 2000 gun laws on the books. When was the last time criminals followed the law? That's the other way I'd approach this argument. It's staggering to me that when there is a shooting, people flock to the "gun control" argument. After which, it is shown that no laws would have prevented the tragedy anyway. "Common sense" isn't so common. Sadly.

 

[gnappi]

The anti gun lobby are hypocrites... they doesn't push Car safety, drink responsibly issues or call for banning alcohol and autos. Yearly many times more deaths are car / alcohol related but they need cars and LIKE alcohol and wouldn't think of banning them.

From the CDC... "In 2016, 10,497 people died in alcohol-impaired driving crashes, accounting for 28% of all traffic-related deaths in the United States" How many school disasters is that?

Two things (among others) I got from my parents are don't suffer liars and call them out for what they are.

 

[DustyGmt]

I've said it before, "Most laws are enacted to remedy problems caused by the lowest common denominator among us."

Yes. Besmirch and stigmatise an entire group for the actions of a small few. I don't want to be governed on a 250,000:1 basis, is isn't reasonable. There should be some kind of numerical legal threshold that any proposed legislation has to pass before even being considered. Although I guess that could be a slippery slope.

 

[jar]

Both with a strong emphasis on the latter.