The Federalist
David Harsanyi
March 7, 2018

Can anyone imagine a major newspaper running an op-ed justifying public ignorance on public policy? Actually, not merely justifying the ignorance, but rather arguing that facts only help smother discourse rather than enhance it. It’s improbable. Then again, this is the gun debate. And one side benefits from policy illiteracy.

The Washington Post ran an op-ed by former Gawker writer Adam Weinstein arguing that Second Amendment advocates use “jargon” to bully gun-control supporters. “While debating the merits of various gun control proposals,” he contends, “Second Amendment enthusiasts often diminish, or outright dismiss their views if they use imprecise firearms terminology.”

How dare Second Amendment advocates expect that those passionately arguing to limit their constitutional rights might have some rudimentary knowledge of the devices they want to ban? To point out the constant glaring technical and policy “faux pas” of gun controllers is to engage in “gunsplaining,” a bad-faith argument akin to intimidation.

“If you don’t know what the ‘AR’ in AR-15 stands for, you don’t get to talk” explains the sarcastic subhead. If you don’t know what the “AR” in AR-15 stands you still get to talk. But if you want to ban or confiscate AR-15s and you haven’t taken the time to learn what the AR stands for, then gun owners have every right to call you out.

Weinstein bemoans the unfairness of gun controllers “being forced to sweat the finest taxonomic distinctions between our nation’s unlimited variety of lethal weapons.” This statement is illustrative of the emotionalism and hyperbole of the debate (the notion that there’s an “unlimited variety” of firearms is absurd) but also, at the same time, it’s an exaggeration of the Second Amendment advocate’s expectations.

Like with any contemporary disputes over public policy, there will always be those who attempt to dismiss opponents who possess less expertise. It’s certainly not unique to this debate. And no, simply because a person refers to a “bullet” rather than a “cartridge” or “clip” rather than a “magazine” should not mean exclusion from conversation.

Then again, much of gun-control policy is driven by the mechanics of a firearm. So while not knowing what a “barrel shroud” is should not prevent anyone from pondering gun policy (well, unless you’re a politician who goes on TV to advocate the banning of barrel shrouds without knowing what they are) but failing to understand the distinction between a semi-automatic and automatic weapon tells us you’re either dishonest, unserious or unprepared for the debate.

So, for instance, Michael Bloomberg.

In a debate imbued with emotion, gun-control advocates rely on this ignorance. When Barack Obama tells a crowd that a mass shooter used a “fully automatic weapon,” he’s not concerned with the finest taxonomic distinctions of a gun, he’s depending on the yawning obliviousness of a cheering crowd. When CNN featured an alleged gun expert explaining that the AR-15 he’s about to fire is “full semi-automatic,” he’s making the functionality of firearm sound scarier to those who are ignorant about guns.

“Jargon” are words and expressions that are difficult for a layman to understand or use. Rather than use jargon, Second Amendment advocates are usually mocking those who use jargon-y sounding words in efforts to fearmonger viewers and constituents. When you claim that the streets are rife with “high-capacity, rapid-fire magazines” or “jumbo clips” you’re trying to fool your audience with a veneer of expertise you don’t possess. When you claim that we need to ban “gas-assisted, receiver firearms” you’re trying to make a semi-automatic weapon sound like a machine gun for a reason.

It’s not always the mechanics, either. When Joe Scarborough misrepresents the Heller decision, he’s preying on policy ignorance that has little to do with gun culture. When Steve Schmidt goes on television and passionately tells an audience that it’s more difficult to buy cough medicine than an “AK-47 – or 50 of them,” he’s either lying or he has absolutely no grasp of how gun policy works. Either way, he shouldn’t be talking to grownups about firearms.

All these people use a moralistic fallacy, which is often predicated on the ignorance Weinstein rationalizes. Not that it stops him from embracing the an appeal to authority he condemns.

For example, Weinstein takes Fox News personality Tomi Lahren to task for failing to mention that “the family” of Eugene Stoner, the AR-15’s designer and champion, claimed in 2016 that the inventor would be “horrified and sickened to see his military rifle pattern become so common in civilian households and school shootings.” You’ll notice the conflation. Of course Stoner would be horrified that his gun was used in school shootings. But Weinstein fails to note that there’s no evidence anywhere on the record that Stoner was “horrified and sickened” by the notion of civilians owning his gun. Since he was selling proto AR-15s to civilians a decade before his military model was adopted by the United States, we have no reason to believe he would be

Perhaps that kind of discussion spurns conversation in favor of condescension. But at least it’s a debate that revolves around the veracity of facts. Which is a lot more I can say for the rest of the “gunsplaining” grievance.

Link

The first thing I ask my liberal in-laws when they start talking about this issue is if they know what 'semi-auto' means. They of course do not, and do not care, but my point is always they should know what they are talking about if they are going to advocate a certain position.

Over the years Dennis Prager has repeatedly noted that the Left's positions are not based on any intellectual arguments and instead emotion and passion based...environmental policy, economic policy, social policy, and as this article rightly points out, Second Amendment policy.

The Left needs its base to remain ignorant of anything approaching fact, logic, or context and it has now embraced this ignorance to the point of declaring themselves "bullied" (uh ohhh, trigger word) rather than even attempting to educate themselves on public policy issues that include the wide-spread restrictions on Constitutionally recognized rights, to say nothing of practical solutions.

The Left embraces ignorance and the gun issue is just one more example of this.

quote:

Originally posted by zipriderson:
The first thing I ask my liberal in-laws when they start talking about this issue is if they know what 'semi-auto' means. They of course do not, and do not care, but my point is always they should know what they are talking about if they are going to advocate a certain position.

you would be surprised at the number of 'gun people' that do not know what the AR in AR-15 means,

quote:

Originally posted by lyman:
you would be surprised at the number of 'gun people' that do not know what the AR in AR-15 means,

Decades ago, as a younger man I was shooting with older and more experienced shooters who told me that it stood for 'Assault Rifle', a fact that I carried with me and occasionally repeated for years afterwards. It is only in the last 10 years or so that I learned that I had been misinformed.

This is one reason why I believe it is so important for gun owners to use correct terminology when discussing gun related issues, especially for those not knowledgeable about guns or shooting.

would it not be in our collective best interests to keep them totally ignorant?

or feed them information that is incorrect so that we can make them appear even more unintelligent?

Damn right I'll gunsplain to people who don't know wtf they're talking about, if I bother to engage them at all on the topic. That being said, I won't be rude about it unless they direct rudeness at me.

quote:

Originally posted by nhtagmember:
would it not be in our collective best interests to keep them totally ignorant?

or feed them information that is incorrect so that we can make them appear even more unintelligent?

My preference would be to win over those I could, or at least point out the solution is as simple as they think, and keep my credibility intact.

The local "driveway paper" had a letter that stated:"high powered military assault rifle" to refer to the AR-15. I'm sure if the author was called out she would snap "You know what I mean!"clearly she never heard "Garbage in, garbage out."

quote:

Originally posted by lyman:

quote:

Originally posted by zipriderson:
The first thing I ask my liberal in-laws when they start talking about this issue is if they know what 'semi-auto' means. They of course do not, and do not care, but my point is always they should know what they are talking about if they are going to advocate a certain position.

you would be surprised at the number of 'gun people' that do not know what the AR in AR-15 means,

True. I have a friend that owns and shoots an AR-15 and one day we were talking about the left and gun rights when he made the comment that he wished AR didn't stand for assault rifle. I told him of course, that it didn't, that it stood for Armalite which was the first company to produce and market the rifle. He was pleased with that so that he could use it in future discussions.

Jim

I read the original article this morning. It smacked of the standard liberal superiority to where the author claimed to be an “avid shooter” and gun colllector. But he came off firmly like the guy who hates women but claims to “have a lot of female friends”.

When you have to write an article to explain away how you explain away your position, you have truly been contoured by your opponent.

Most of these clips (yes, clips) you've seen before, but here's the latest compilation. We got some gunsplainin' to do.




Link to original video: https://youtu.be/IHLf5tWva78

quote:

Originally posted by Modern Day Savage:

quote:

Originally posted by lyman:
you would be surprised at the number of 'gun people' that do not know what the AR in AR-15 means,

Decades ago, as a younger man I was shooting with older and more experienced shooters who told me that it stood for 'Assault Rifle', a fact that I carried with me and occasionally repeated for years afterwards. It is only in the last 10 years or so that I learned that I had been misinformed.

This is one reason why I believe it is so important for gun owners to use correct terminology when discussing gun related issues, especially for those not knowledgeable about guns or shooting.

Soooo, AK isn't a Russian acronym that also means Assault Rifle? I'll be damned?

quote:

Originally posted by stoic-one:
Soooo, AK isn't a Russian acronym that also means Assault Rifle? I'll be damned?

A = Assault
K = Kalashnikov = rifle

Simple!

Bonus Info: 47 = number of bullets fired per second from a jumbo clip magazine.

Where can I buy those heat-seeking rounds? That sounds really cool!

(I thought incendiary meant something completely different than heat-seeking. I guess 'ya larn somethin' every day!')

Maybe starting an explanation of AR=America's Rifle is a good idea....

quote:

Originally posted by Georgeair:
Maybe starting an explanation of AR=America's Rifle is a good idea....

Or just "A Rifle".

quote:

Originally posted by zipriderson:
The first thing I ask my liberal in-laws when they start talking about this issue is if they know what 'semi-auto' means. They of course do not, and do not care, but my point is always they should know what they are talking about if they are going to advocate a certain position.

The other qualifier question to ask liberals egging for a 'discussion about firearms' is, if they know what a 4473 Form is, and what's on it.

If you don't know the basics, than how can we have a conversation?

We are oppressed by the designs of a few evil individuals but more so by the ignorance of emotional masses.

I made this for another site, but it seems appropriate here.



If one wants to ban guns or features, shouldn't they at least know what the hell they're talking about?