Warning, you are about to enter a “gunsplaining zone.”
Trash magazine Cosmopolitan announced on Wednesday that it has partnered with Bloomberg’s Everytown for Gun Safety (I’m not going to link it) to push a gun control agenda.
The magazine will run a propaganda piece in the March issue called “Singled Out,” warning single women they may be dating a man who is a firearms owner. And he may become “disgruntled.”
“When I was dating, it never occurred to me to ask a guy if he owned a gun,” wrote Joanna Coles, Cosmopolitan’s editor-in-chief, in her Editor’s Note. “But given the numbers — more than 8,700 women in the U.S. were shot to death by their partner between 2000 and 2013 — it’s time to discuss what’s in your guy’s drawers, and I don’t mean his CK boxer briefs.”
“Singled Out” identifies certain “gunsplainers.” Here’s my “real life” friend Cam Edwards speaking truth-to-power or, as the magazine would describe it, “gunsplaining”:
Cam makes the self-evident point that people, women included, cannot depend on a malefactor who is immediately trying to engage in the criminal activity of rape, robbery or murder, to do the right thing and stop. If a goon were going to do the right thing, why would he violently attack you in the first place? How this is a controversial observation?
Which brings me to my second point. The magazine provides canned responses to people who speak positively about gun ownership and gun laws. Do you ever notice that these left-wing gun control groups have to tell people how to respond to adversaries? If you are opposed to gun ownership and the right to keep and bear arms, don’t you know why? Or do you need some propaganda outlet to tell you why? Whether it’s giving you talking points for Thanksgiving dinner, or listing off psudeo-information for you to parrot in the latest issue of their claptrap, the real message is “Hey dummy, you can’t think for yourself, so here are some talking points for you to mindlessly spew towards those who oppose the ‘correct’ agenda.” It’s kind of insulting.
Let’s have a look at one of the “Myth vs Facts” on Cosmo’s “Singled Out” website:
He says: “Why bother strengthening gun laws, criminals are just going to find ways to get guns anyway!”
You say: “That’s like saying why outlaw bank robbery. Bank robbers are going to steal.”
This is a subtle trick here that would not be noticed by the kind of feeble-minded people who depend on trash magazines to inform their political views. Why is there an analogy between gun ownership and bank robbery? One is a crime and the other is a constitutionally protected right.
On one level, it’s transparent that the gun control crowd wants firearm ownership to be exactly like bank robbery: illegal and criminal. But for the weak-minded Cosmo reader, the intended takeaway message is: gun ownership = bank robbery.
The rest of the [actual, not Cosmo] facts about gun crime are that the vast majority of criminals steal their guns or get them on the black market, and less than 10 percent of firearms are purchased privately without a background check. In fact, there are a record number of background checks being conducted nowadays, something you would think would be celebrated by the gun safety crowd.
Cosmo said there are “many” websites where people meet up to buy and sell guns, “no questions asked, no background check.” And as I have pointed out, this is a tiny minority of all gun sales. It’s almost as if the gun control people want to make laws regardless of whether those laws are a deterrent for criminal gun violence. That can’t be right, can it?