Apparently now “gunsplaining” is a thing, and raises objection to the idea that people advocating for public policies should actually know what the hell they are talking about. Excerpt:
Pointing out inaccuracies in your opponent’s arguments is a cynical ploy to stop discussion. Or so I gather from Adam Weinstein, who just published a Washington Post op-ed taking gun control critics to task for “gunsplaining”—Weinstein’s name for when one is “harangued with the pedantry of the more-credible-than-thou firearms owner” after one makes some incidental factual error about guns, such as calling AR-15s “high-powered” or confusing clips with magazines.
“Gunsplaining,” Weinstein declares, “is always done in bad faith. Like mansplaining, it’s less about adding to the discourse than smothering it.” Were it not for those condescending gun snobs picking apart every rhetorical misstep, we would spend less time arguing over little details and more time having reasoned discussions over just which firearms restrictions we should implement next.
What an asshole. It goes without saying, of course, that “reasoned discussion” is the last thing Weinstein wants. But it gets better:
More recently, there’s the bump stock ban introduced by Reps. Carlos Curbelo (R–Fla.) and Seth Moulton (D– Mass.) after the Las Vegas massacre of October 2017. Their bill was written so hastily, and so vaguely, that it not only retroactively criminalized the possession of bump stocks; it banned “any part or combination of parts that is designed and functions to increase the rate of fire of a semi-automatic rifle”—which could include anything from binary triggers to heavier recoil springs.
Something similar happened after the Sandy Hook shooting of 2012, when the New York state legislature passed a bill banning non-existent “muzzle breaks” (as opposed to muzzle brakes), semiautomatic pistols that are “semiautomatic version[s] of an automatic rifle, shotgun or firearm” (it was unclear what this was supposed to mean), and loading more than seven rounds in a ten-round capacity magazine. These provisions were later struck down by a U.S. District Court Judge for their incoherence. The difference between “brakes” and “breaks” may be a mere typo on Facebook; in legislation, it’s enough to undo a segment of a law.
With few exceptions, proponents of strict gun control laws know bugger-all about guns. Stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid laws like these mentioned above are are ample evidence of that; as a legislator, if you write a bill which is made law and then overturned because your language was sloppy because you couldn’t be bothered to take ten minutes to research the topic, then you deserve the gales of laughter that should accompany your resignation in disgrace. Unfortunately, that almost never happens.
I’ve gunsplained to would-be gun banners before and I’ll continue to do so. Public policy should only be decided on the basis of accurate information. If someone doesn’t approve of that, then they are welcome to fuck right off.
But here’s the real gem in all this: Gun control is almost exclusively an issue advocated by the political Left. The Left loves to claim they are the side of science and reason. And yet, on this topic alone, they repeatedly argue from pure emotion, and so many of their claims can be shown so easily to be… well, bullshit.
So much for their science and reason, eh?