Everytown’s Sham Gun Training Program Caused a Fight Within in the Org Because It Means There’s a Place in Society for Gun Ownership

A revealing article in USA Today last week reported that Everytown for Gun Safety’s new “firearms training” program, Train SMART, “met stiff opposition from [Everytown’s] own members and longtime supporters.” The reason, as the article made clear, is simple. Gun control advocates don’t want “harm reduction” when it comes to gun ownership; they want “abstinence.” In other words, they see Everytown’s firearm safety training as a betrayal, because it tacitly acknowledges there is a place for firearms in America. What Everytown’s supporters want, however, is to put an end to gun ownership, period.

For people of a certain age, this may bring to mind the debate over “sex education” in schools, where the “just don’t do it” crowd clashed with the “if you do it, do it carefully and knowledgably” contingent. Yet another viewpoint, however, held that sex education was fine, in the right context, but that context was not public school.

To stretch the analogy slightly further, NRA takes the third view when it comes to Everytown’s entry into the firearms training space: firearm training is great, but the right context for it isn’t with people who would rather you not own a gun at all.

But if the “just say no” crowd was portrayed as naïve, how much more athwart reality are people who resent – in a nation of over 400 million guns, where the right to keep and bear arms is enshrined in the Constitution – education on their safe handling and use? That, however, is the reaction Everytown is getting from its members and supporters.

One is quoted as calling Everytown’s program “hurtful and insulting to survivors.” She elaborated: “Our mission is to reduce gun violence and keep people from having guns in their homes and here you are giving a gun safety class that encourages gun ownership. You can’t have it both ways.” [Emphasis added.] Another was “so enraged by the Train SMART launch she resigned her position leading a local survivor group.” It felt, she said, “like a kick in the teeth. All these years working on expanded background checks and how we know having a gun in the home won’t make you safer … this doesn’t make any sense.”

John Feinblatt, president of Everytown, was as condescending and dismissive of his members’ anger as he usually is toward gun owners. Any new program, he told USA Today, comes with a mix of “curiosity, enthusiasm and skepticism.” But if there is any enthusiasm for the program, it wasn’t reflected in USA Today’s reporting, which documented anger from gun control advocates and skepticism, if not justified mockery, from Second Amendment supporters. Feinblatt likewise unconvincingly tried to rebrand his own organization – which pursues sweeping bans on America’s most popular firearms and harsh prior restraints on the ownership of other guns – as a “wide tent … as opposed to being … anti-gun or hardline gun control.”

As is often the case when it comes to anti-gun messaging, Everytown is hoping to leverage the credibility of military veterans to promote its “unique” approach to training. As we have documented many times at this site, however, having served in the military or law enforcement does not necessarily ensure a person supports the Second Amendment or civilian gun ownership. Those are also “big tent” organizations that include gun control supporters.

Everytown’s lead trainer, for example, indicated that students will be taught: “purchasing a firearm will increase the risk someone in your home will be shot” and “you should not always assume buying a gun will be the key part of your home defense plan.” Again, the condescension is palpable, with the unspoken message being: “If you’re foolish enough to make this choice, we will do our best to keep you from killing yourself or a loved one.”

Meanwhile, an “enraged” former Everytown member chastised the group for “wasting precious resources on ‘reinventing the wheel’ on training,” apparently preferring they spend it on the group’s efforts to ban guns instead.

The article acknowledged that Everytown’s training is currently available only online with the hope of adding “in-person and range sessions next year.” It goes without saying that firearms training that involves no handling or discharge of guns under expert supervision is of limited value. But if the goal is mainly to discourage gun ownership, a virtual format makes sense.

Whether Everytown’s training will still exist by next year remains to be seen. But the reaction of its supporters has already taught – or at least, reinforced – an important lesson every gun owner in America should remember. Gun control advocates don’t want you to be safe and responsible with guns. They don’t want you to have them at all.