The media loves people they term as “survivors” of so-called gun violence, particularly mass shootings. These are people who were at the location of some act of gun violence or who lost a family member to such an incident. With mass murders, it’s usually someone who was there, though it’s not necessary for their lives to have actually been in danger.

At least, they love them when they espouse gun control rhetoric.

If they’re pro-gun, they often fall by the wayside, ignored by a media that would much rather they didn’t exist, but if they’re anti-gun, they’re willing to listen. Especially if they’re like this guy who says he’s not.

Every time he talks about gun safety, Craig Van Bruggen, a chemist from Bend, brings a measure of experience that is not for the faint of heart.

He was in the east Bend Safeway when the bullets were flying in 2022 during a mass shooting incident that killed three, and he was at Smith Rock State Park a year later, on the day law enforcement officers intercepted a heavily armed Portland man who allegedly planned to shoot rock climbers and their friends.

…

For Van Bruggen, it’s the image of a man holding tightly to the hands of two young daughters as they ran down the soft drink aisle together toward the back of the store that haunts his thoughts. He wonders how they’re doing.

When the Oregon Alliance for Gun Safety reached out to Van Bruggen recently, he stepped forward to talk about his experiences and feelings.

“I’m not anti-gun,” Van Bruggen said. “I enjoy marksmanship. I grew up steeped in farm culture. My grandparents owned a farm. I feel like we need good guys with guns. I’m pro-responsible gun ownership.

“It’s not about taking away guns, but promoting responsible gun ownership.”

Now, the report is light on any specific policies that Van Bruggen is pushing, only pushing the vague notion of “gun safety,” which could mean proper but voluntary gun storage or for literally any gun control law you care to name, including Measure 114.

But considering the tone of this piece and that he’s openly advocating for this “gun safety” and “to take action,” I have to assume that he’s talking about gun control.

Here’s the thing, though. You can’t just sit there and say you’re not anti-gun while supporting anti-gun policies. 

If you look like a duck, walk like a duck, and quack like a duck, you’re a duck. Likewise, if you’re pushing gun control, you’re a gun-grabber, plain and simple.

I get that Van Bruggen went through something I can’t even begin to imagine. I have no doubt it scarred him and that the trauma was terrible. That’s not a topic for debate in my mind because holy crap, that had to be awful.

On the same token, I can’t help but think how things would have been different if “I’m not anti-gun” Van Bruggen had been armed that day. Rather than running and praying he wouldn’t be seen, he might have saved at least one life and ended the horror for a lot of people far sooner. Or, conversely, if anyone else had been armed and done the same.

See, the lack of guns in a given location other than in the hands of a bad guy doesn’t mean that we need to restrict guns. What it means is that if you value your safety, you need to be more proactive.

That’s the “not anti-gun” answer. You don’t have to like it. You’re just not going to change it.