Rob Pincus, Dan Gross form Center for Gun Rights and Responsibility

[DispositionMatrix]

News has been out for a few weeks, so this should be dupe.

View: https://www.reddit.com/r/actualliberalgunowner/comments/eqh7g2/center_for_gun_rights_and_responsibility/


We met the former president of the Brady Campaign. At SHOT Show. Here’s what happened.

What followed was a 90-minute conversation between Dan, Rob, and the eight or so others in the room. CGRR’s mission is “to conduct and advocate for strictly non-legislative educational and awareness projects aimed at reducing negative outcomes with firearms”, and based on what we talked about, suicides and accidents seem to be a particular focus. The personal stories from other people in the room on that front were striking. There were a number of vets there, and all had lost multiple friends to suicide. One said he’s had 15 friends commit suicide.

CGRR is just launching, and working on projects to encourage people with suicidal ideation to get help and to have a friend hang on to their guns. Their main proposal is called GunPRO, a pledge where when a newbie buys a gun, they have a friend sign on to teach them gun safety and another friend sign on to be a helping hand if they ever feel their emotional state isn’t safe.

Gun restrictions tend to make those kinds of transfers harder, and that’s where things get interesting. CGRR, and Dan in particular, are aware that when the former president of the Brady Campaign comes in with ideas about solutions for gun problems, we’re going to squint hard at it.

Rob Pincus and Dan Gross Team Up to Promote Actual Gun Safety

So it was more than a little jarring to hear Gross address the staunchly pro-gun crowd that day…saying a lot of the right things and getting a generally warm welcome.

But while he didn’t elaborate on why he left gun control advocacy, his audience probably reasonably inferred that he had disagreements over philosophy…basically, how to actually prevent gun-related injuries and deaths.

As he told the crowd that day, gun owners are “relentlessly and, I believe, unfairly demonized.” He has differences with people whose “ideological hatred of guns and the people who own them is more important to some people than the actual goal of saving lives.” These are “people who pretend they care about saving lives but really have other agendas.”

 

[Boris]

they can go f*** and themselves with their one sided "compromises"

there is nothing to compromise on, they just need to learn some reading comprehension

 

[Deleted member 12999]

f*** BOTH those guys. Pincus is a retard, and anyone from Brady Center can suck my freedom boner.

 

[gunskill]

I actually read the article. Gross says he is willing to work with voluntary, rather than legislative efforts. That is a change on his part.

Throughout the conversation, I could see him deliberately putting his personal opinions to the side and focusing exclusively on the things we could all agree on — that non-legislative, non-coercive, purely voluntary efforts to reduce suicide and promote safety are positive. Not an easy thing to do. This is a guy who got into gun control after his brother was wounded in the 1997 Empire State Building shooting.

So this brought up the question that we all had for him: why? Less than three years ago, Dan ran one of the biggest gun control groups in the country. Why drop that? Why disavow so much of the way that those groups approach guns and gun owners? of the tactics that those groups use? That about-face carried serious personal and professional costs.

Dan explained that one of his biggest frustrations in his gun control activism was when people on his side would demonize gun owners. He ultimately had to change his approach because he realized the old approach wasn’t moving the conversation anywhere. And that meant leaving his former position behind.

 

[drgrant]

f*** BOTH those guys. Pincus is a retard, and anyone from Brady Center can suck my freedom boner.

This smells like some kind of a put up job, another one of those deals where the antis try to invent an anti gun org that doesn't look like an anti
gun org. Pincus with his hubris probably thought he could "do something" and stuck his head in this shit show thinking he could tactically dyamically non linearlly malfunction his way into flipping the antis or something...

At this point though, f*** these people. Even talking to them is as bad as negotiating with terrorists. There is nothing to talk to them about because their entire stated
objectives on paper is nothing more than a big lie. If they cared about "reducing violent crime" etc they would be focused on a lot of other things than just
guns, and we've basically never seen that from them at all.

 

[Deleted member 12999]

I still use non linear malfunction as a metric to determine if someone is functionally retarded.

 

[Dadstoys]

Nope , take that shit and insert it where the sun don't shine.
That's like the guy who tried to burn your house down six times wanting to come over for a chat.
There is one goal and one goal only , to take it all away.
The tactic may change but the end result never has.
The last couple of years has had them come right out and openly admit it.
You have "Nuke gun owners "Swallowell and "Hellfire missile Joe.
If Pincus thinks there is any kind of honest discussion with these f*cks to be had , he is an idiot.

 

[Waher]

I actually read the article. Gross says he is willing to work with voluntary, rather than legislative efforts. That is a change on his part.

Hint: he is lying.

 

[Whutmeworry]

If he is really worried about suicide, I hope he at least acknowledged that there are literally thousands of ways - other than the use of firearms - to do it. Somehow I doubt that happened though.

 

[chris_1001]

I’ve known a few people (personally and by aquaininace) who committed suicide. One was via gun. If you are actually going to do it. You will find a way.

 

[AllaSnackbah]

 

[mikeyp]

Adding to this, they wrote a column together

Guns in America: Ending the Culture War & Starting a Productive Conversation

USA –

-(AmmoLand.com)- Although many other issues have understandably dominated the news cycle, we are at a critical moment for guns. Over the last year, gun sales have reached unprecedented levels, as have gun-involved homicides, and the House has recently passed H.R. 1446, The Enhanced Background Check Act of 2021, which is currently being debated in the Senate. Recently, a wave of tragic mass shootings has put the gun issue in national headlines as President Biden has called on the Senate to pass the background check bill, adding that he supports a ban of “assault weapons.”


We are two advocates, activists and leaders from opposite sides of the “gun debate” who have come together because we both believe we are at a make-or-break moment. Suffice it to say, there is plenty that we disagree on, but for anyone with the genuine goal of reducing the number of preventable gun deaths in our nation, we believe we have an opportunity for real impact that has not existed in years and, if we are not able to seize it, it is likely to have negative repercussions for years to come.

 

[Dennis in MA]

They had me at "Educate and simplify-and-enforce current gun laws." They lost me at "expanded background checks."

 

[wahsben]

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kkLAtzXVFC4

 

[jkelly1229]

One of the things the above illustrates is that the gun control groups are only interested in confiscating firearms.......

they're totally uninterested in any meaninful discussion about safety.....if they were then they would have supported NRA training/education programs all along.......

No need to reinvent the wheel here

Reinvent away when that wheel is a lambo for Wayne

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

I'm pretty blah about any new organization, pro or anti gun..... The spaces are already way too over crowded.

I can say one positive thing about Dan Gross formerly of the Brady bunch and NOT much loved by them. He's shifted his perspecitve. To paraphrase his view, what's important is not prohibiting everyone from possessing some guns, it's important to keep some people from possessing any guns. I can agree with that.

 

[Coyote33]

(April Fool's)

 

[The5thDentist]

thinking he could tactically dyamically non linearlly malfunction his way into flipping the antis or something...

A year later this is still friggin' funny...and accurate.

 

[free]

Poor Pinkus. Poor little Pinkus.

 

[OnTheRoad]

 

[wahsben]

. To paraphrase his view, what's important is not prohibiting everyone from possessing some guns, it's important to keep some people from possessing any guns. I can agree with that.

The problem with this is who gets to decide. Will anyone that wants to have a gun be required to have a psychological evaluation and if yes will it be a state approved Dr. doing the evaluation? Also what are the some guns that would be approved?Flintlocks and percussion caps or maybe 6 shooters? The founders put shall not be infringed so that the balance of power would be in the hands of the people. When infringements are allowed it puts the balance of power in the hands of government and in the hands of all enemies foreign and domestic. In fact if peoples rights hadn't been infringed upon at most of these places where the major mass shootings have occurred they would have been less likely to have occurred and if they had they would most likely have been ended sooner. When I was growing up guns could be mail ordered directly to your door. No FFL required and no problems like what is going on today. The problem isn't inanimate objects which guns are. The problem is a society that excuses and in some cases even encourages criminal behavior. A lack of self-responsibility blaming everyone else but themselves. A decrease in good parenting etc.

 

[drgrant]

The problem with this is who gets to decide. Will anyone that wants to have a gun be required to have a psychological evaluation and if yes will it be a state approved Dr. doing the evaluation? Also what are the some guns that would be approved?Flintlocks and percussion caps or maybe 6 shooters? The founders put shall not be infringed so that the balance of power would be in the hands of the people. When infringements are allowed it puts the balance of power in the hands of government and in the hands of all enemies foreign and domestic. In fact if peoples rights hadn't been infringed upon at most of these places where the major mass shootings have occurred they would have been less likely to have occurred and if they had they would most likely have been ended sooner. When I was growing up guns could be mail ordered directly to your door. No FFL required and no problems like what is going on today. The problem isn't inanimate objects which guns are. The problem is a society that excuses and in some cases even encourages criminal behavior. A lack of self-responsibility blaming everyone else but themselves. A decrease in good parenting etc.

This is an issue which I explored thoroughly when I was a lot younger and just getting into guns. I came to the conclusion that there is no way to improve the current system without adding additional infringements or on a good day, other things which are offensive to civil rights. (like adding biometric 2nd factor to identification systems) Part of the problem is the framework of existing gun law is badly rooted in things that already violate peoples rights and concepts of law in america. The system basically requires that someone prove their innocence in the eyes of the state in order to buy a gun. The concept of "innocent until proven guilty" goes right out the window. Worse yet, the system FAILS on a regular basis where it (effectively falsely accuses people of criminal acts that they did not commit. That's just f***ed up. There are ways to reduce the falsing dramatically, but not without a HUGE civil rights cost up front. (you could kill most NICS falsing and delays via a known buyer system with biometric ID, but the very idea of that system even existing should run a chill down anyones spine!)

There is a "third way" option of a voluntary type system, but that would inherently require the government giving up its teeth or forfeiting control, and that ain't going to
happen.