When tragedy hits, the narrative usually follows fast. And according to Colion Noir, sometimes it’s aimed in the wrong direction.
In a recent breakdown, Noir took aim at a prosecutor’s comments following a terrorist shooting. Comments that didn’t focus on the attacker, but instead blamed millions of law-abiding gun owners.
The claim? Americans “care more about guns than they care about six-year-old children.”
Noir didn’t hold back.
He called the argument what it is: emotional manipulation dressed up as moral outrage.
And then he dismantled it.
According to Noir, the framing is designed to trap people into a false choice: either support sweeping gun control or be labeled as someone who doesn’t care about children. But once you actually slow it down and examine the logic, he says, the entire argument collapses.
Owning a firearm for self-defense (especially to protect family) isn’t evidence of indifference. It’s the opposite.
“Millions of Americans have guns to protect themselves and the people they love,” Noir explained. “That doesn’t mean they don’t care about children. It means they refuse to be powerless.”
He compared the logic to blaming car owners for traffic fatalities, an argument that sounds absurd the moment you remove the emotional packaging.
But Noir says that’s exactly the point.
The rhetoric isn’t meant to be logical. It’s meant to be powerful, emotional, and disarming in a debate.
And in this case, he says it also conveniently ignores the actual threat.
The suspect in the attack had reportedly previously pleaded guilty to trying to assist ISIS. A detail Noir says should be front and center. Instead, the focus shifted almost immediately to gun owners.
“Not the terrorist. Not the extremist. And, not the person who pulled the trigger,” Noir said. “You.”
That shift, he argues, is why honest conversations about gun rights are so difficult. One side is arguing from constitutional principles and personal responsibility. The other is using emotion to frame the debate before it even starts.
And it doesn’t stop at the Second Amendment.
Noir warned that once rights start getting traded away in the name of safety, it rarely ends with just one. He pointed to a broader concern: a government asking citizens to give up their ability to defend themselves while not being legally obligated to protect them in return.
Citing Supreme Court precedent, Noir noted that the government’s duty is to the public at large. Not to individual citizens.
In other words, the deal being offered is simple but flawed:
Give up your ability to defend yourself… in exchange for protection that isn’t guaranteed.
That’s a trade Noir isn’t buying.
He closed by flipping the original accusation on its head.
The idea that gun owners don’t care about children, he argued, isn’t just wrong. It’s backwards.
“People own firearms because they care about their families,” Noir said. “Because when danger shows up, you are your own first responder.”
And no speech, no matter how emotional, is going to change that reality.
*** Buy and Sell on GunsAmerica! ***
Read the full article here
