So, Adam Weinstein at WaPo
is upset because his arguments are erroneous.
The phenomenon isn’t new, but in the weeks since the tragic shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla., a lot of gun-skeptical liberals are getting a taste of it for the first time: While debating the merits of various gun control proposals, Second Amendment enthusiasts often diminish, or outright dismiss their views if they use imprecise firearms terminology. Perhaps someone tweets about “assault-style” weapons, only to be told that there’s no such thing. Maybe they’re reprimanded that an AR-15 is neither an assault rifle nor “high-powered.” Or they say something about “machine guns” when they really mean semiautomatic rifles. Or they get sucked into an hours-long Facebook exchange over the difference between the terms clip and magazine.
Well, Adam, it's hard to talk about guns or gum policy if you don't know what you are talking about. Whether it's terminology, mechanics, or policy, if you spout nonsense, we are going to correct you. And, the instances you talk about are the ones that will get you "gunsplained" in a hurry.
There are no "assault weapons".
The AR-15 is not "high powered".
Machine guns have been strictly regulated for decades.
There is a huge difference between a clip and a magazine.
If you didn't know that before, you should know it now. I've just told you. And, I'm sure that the Washington Post has editors and fact-checkers that proof-read your work. If you're going to alk about gun stuff, get your facts straight. Or, be prepared to look like a dumbass.
Know your topic. It's okay to have an opinion, but if your opinion is based on myth, legend, or popular culture, be prepared to be mocked by those who have the facts. In the gun debate, it seems to us that you have an irrational fear of something that doesn't exist, and we'd be happy to show you the error of your ways. We'd also be happy to let you explore gun culture just a bit.
Gunsplaining, though, is always done in bad faith. Like mansplaining, it’s less about adding to the discourse than smothering it — with self-appointed authority, and often the thinnest of connection to any real fact.
No, Adam. Gun-control is always in bad faith. It's not about addressing the problem, it 's about the bad guys, it's about putting additional sanctions on law-abiding people. I could argue (and frequently do) that the entire gun-control debate is about smothering discourse. We already had this discussion, as a nation. In 1994 we tried it.
We tried it for ten years. We found it didn't work. You guys keep bringing up failed policy. That's bad faith.
You want to talk gun control when it affects the right people. You don't want to talk about it at all when it affects the inner-city dwellers of Chicago, or Baltimore. That's bad faith. You don't want to talk about it when Eric Holder runs thousands of guns into Mexico in violation of federal law. That's bad faith. You want to change definitions to suit your immediate argument. That's bad faith. You don't want to enforce the laws that are already on the books. That's bad faith.
You spout platitudes using erroneous facts and expect us to play along? Then you blame the NRA. We are several million strong, and we didn't murder anyone last month. We insist that people obey the law, we teach gun safety, we believe in every one of the Bill of Rights, and we don't intend to give up a single one, especially when your arguments are based on bad information.
So, Adam, if you want to have a reasoned discourse, get your facts straight. Every time you come at us with lies, distortions, or errors, we're going to call you on it. We've been having this discussion now for several decades and you should at least, by now, know the basic facts. If you refuse to learn even the basic facts, you should be prepared to be mocked. Because without the basic facts, you really don't have an argument at all.