Kerby Anderson

Imagine you were in the midst of a discussion about nuclear arms policy. And in the midst of your debate, the other person says something like this: “I don’t think it’s fair that only the United States and Russia have nuclear weapons.” You pause, and then explain that many other countries (like China, France, England, Israel, India, Pakistan, and North Korea) also have nuclear weapons. And at that point, you might want to suggest that person learn a little more about nuclear arms before making dogmatic statements concerning nuclear arms policy. Change nuclear arms for guns, and you have an illustration of what often takes place in the gun control debate. The posters at the “March for Our Lives” rally and the slogans in many interviews and speeches illustrate a level of ignorance. But gun control advocates have a ready response to anyone questioning their understanding of guns. The term they use is “gunsplaining.” Adam Weinstein coined the term in a widely-shared Washington Post op-ed. He defines the term as the habit of gun-rights activists to bully gun-control activists with technical jargon. And I will admit that sometimes that is true. We see this in just about any discussion, where someone uses technical terms to intimidate you into silence. Can we also agree that many of the posters in rallies and slogans used in debates are inaccurate? Is it really easier to buy an AR-15 than to buy Sudafed, fireworks, or birth control pills? Is the NRA really America’s ISIS? Do you really believe that guns are so unregulated that any person can buy a fully automatic machine gun? Any American can express his or her opinion about any topic, even their opinion about guns and gun control. But that doesn’t mean we have to take seriously every one of those opinions, especially when they are based in ignorance and sprinkled with condescension.