The gun control group known as Giffords was founded after then-Rep. Gabby Giffords was shot by a deranged person, along with others, during a speaking engagement. Ostensibly created to push gun control, it seems to prefer to engage in a little light gaslighting.
See, the organization claims that what folks like me tell you is its endgame is nothing of the sort. To do so, it has to ignore something Giffords herself said.
Giffords posted this on its website a couple of days ago:
When you ask the average gun safety skeptic why they don’t support commonsense gun measures, they often cite one specific reason.
They fear that once we start to pass even small safety laws, the government may become so obsessed with it’s own power that it just won’t stop. That after we take a few small steps, we’ll be facing the day when the government walks into homes across America and takes every last gun.
Many of these skeptics will acknowledge the dangers posed by guns, including the ever-increasing scourge of mass shootings and the fact that shootings are now the leading cause of death for kids and teens. Yet somehow, the phantom threat of government overreach remains more menacing than the everyday reality of gun violence.
But there’s a big flaw in their logic: No federal lawmaker on either side of the aisle is advocating for the abolishment of the Second Amendment, and no leading gun safety advocacy group (including GIFFORDS) has called for the government to come and take everyone’s guns away. When it comes to solutions to gun violence, reasonable gun laws can and do coexist with Second Amendment rights.
First, the framing here is very disingenuous, to say the least.
Most gun rights advocates don't actually acknowledge the dangers posed by guns because guns can't do anything on their own. Only in the hands of a person can it be used to harm anyone, and that's where the "skeptics" stand.
Further, no one is really saying that somehow a step toward gun control would mean the government suddenly becoming enamored with tyranny in the aftermath and that it would never stop. The link provided doesn't include a single quote of anyone saying any such thing. What we say is that once it starts, it won't stop, which isn't based on a governmental thirst for power but the fact that with every anti-gun victory, groups like Giffords immediately move on to the next group of restrictions.
We also note that a tyrannical government can only exist with a disarmed population.
But while Giffords claims "there's a big flaw" in our logic, even though they've set up a strawman, there's a big hole in its defense. Namely, Gabby Giffords' own words.
About two years ago, Giffords spoke with Time:
As we wrap our interview in her office, I ask how she keeps coming back to a challenge so deeply ingrained in politics. She pauses for 12 pregnant seconds.
“No more guns,” she says.
Ambler, her aide and adviser, tries to clarify that she means no more gun violence, but Giffords is clear about what she’s saying. “No, no, no,” she says. “Lord, no.” She pauses another 32 seconds. “Guns, guns, guns. No more guns. Gone.”
An aide tried to clarify that she meant like Australia's gun control scheme, but that was described as a gun ban with a mandatory "buyback," which she agreed with.
So while Giffords tries to claim no one is arguing for anything of the sort, they're having to do so by ignoring their own founder's words.
But even if Gabby Giffords hadn't said that, it doesn't matter.
As I said, every bit of gun control passed in a given state just prompts the next round of gun control efforts. Anti-gun advocates can never tell you exactly where the line is just short of a total gun ban. If just one billionaire can afford to jump through the hoops needed to own a firearm, their claims are fulfilled, even if it's practically a total gun ban for everyone else.
And we know it.
It's obvious where they're going with this. They're just trying to pretend otherwise so they can paint us as unreasonable.
What they don't get is that gun rights advocates like me don't actually care.
