Gun Control

In Defense of 'Gunsplaining'

Pedantry may be annoying, but sloppy firearms legislation is a lot worse.



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.

Weinstein does mention that gun control advocates sometimes get their facts wrong, and that they'll even exploit their supporters' lack of knowledge to build support for gun control legislation. Yet this phenomenon seems almost incidental to him; he saves his real fire for Second Amendment fans on Facebook and for inflammatory quotes from Joe the Plumber (remember him?).

But sloppy language doesn't just turn up in Facebook debates. It exercises a heavy influence on actual gun control proposals. In that context, pushing back on sloppy terminology isn't just legitimate; it's essential to the wider debate about gun ownership.

Take the 1994 assault weapons ban—the last major federal gun control measure, which banned all manner of weaponry because of their style, not their lethality. Modern-day opponents of gun control probably wouldn't spend so much time railing against invocations of "assault weapons" if such a hazy term were not currently being used as the basis for state and federal legislation.

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.

Weinstein acknowledges that actual laws need to be "written with precision." He doesn't acknowledge that too many politicians are willing to sacrifice accuracy for speed. That seems a rather bigger problem than the presence of pedants on social media.

NEXT: Rand Paul, on Trump: 'I Think He Will Sign Audit the Fed if We Can Get it to Him'

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Let’s generalize this concept to factsplaining:
    It’s when you try kill someone’s virtual signaling vibe with inconvenient facts.

    1. That’s essentially his argument. “How dare you debate me with the correct language!”

    2. Um, well, actually, not to commentsplain to you, but it’s virtue.

      1. Um, well, not to virtually wordsmithsplain you, but you are correct.

      2. I’m feeling pretty aggressed by all this splainsplaining.

    3. I nominate this for a threatwinner.

    4. You bet me to it. And everything needs to be carefully explained to these stupid cunt progtards. Subnormal pieces of shit that thy are.

    5. Start earning $90/hourly for working online from your home for few hours each day… Get regular payment on a weekly basis… All you need is a computer, internet connection and a litte free time…

      Read more here……..

    6. Oh, my, yes! You, sir, NAILED it.

      I was going to point out that Weinstein had comitted a tactial error by hitching the bahavior he was describing to the ‘mansplaining’ meme. Whatever legitimate point the Feminists may have had when they started that, it has come to mean “I’m a whining little bitch and you’re just being mean when you point that out!”

  2. “Gunsplaining,” Weinstein declares, “is always done in bad faith. Like mansplaining, it’s less about adding to the discourse than smothering it.”

    “Gunsplaining” would not be necessary if some people would do half a second of research before talking about guns. “Gunsplaining” is done in good-faith to ensure clear communication. “Gunsplaining” makes discourse possible.

    1. “Gunsplaining” makes discourse possible.

      That is exactly why gun control advocates think “gunsplaining” is always done in bad faith. When it comes to banning these evil, children-killing weapons, gun control advocates believe topics of discourse should be limited to how extensive, how fast, and how totalitarian. There’s no place for discourse regarding whether more gun control is necessary any more than there is place for discourse regarding the existential threat of anthropogenic global warming.

      1. Right. They don’t actually want a conversation, they just want submission. So there’s no particular point in getting the facts right.

      2. Of course gun control advocates don’t really want to ban guns, they just want to limit them to the armed government enforcers who actually do use them to kill children on a regular basis.

        1. One only has to look at which children those government enforcers kill on a regular basis to understand why those gun control advocates are fully on board with that.

    2. As long as the same definition is applied to “Journosplaining” then I’m fine with that definition. Yes, at this point I assume all journalistic explanations are done in bad faith and are not about adding to discourse but smothering it in favor of their preferred narrative.

    3. It’s a lot of work, straightening out idiot progressives.

  3. Shorter Weinstein, “how dare you expect me to know anything about the subjects I am paid to bloviate about”. In Weinstein’s defense, if he knew anything, he wouldn’t be writing for the Washington Post. So, I can understand why he would think it was unfair for people to expect him to have any actual knowledge.

    Never forget that pundits are more than anything stupid. Most of them don’t even know enough to be wrong.

    1. Well now we can just be dismissed out of hand for “gunsplaining.” How convenient. It’ll probably make the OED any day now.

    2. Isn’t it ironic? When it comes to “climate change,” we can’t opine unless we’re climatologists who agree with the majority. Abortion? You better be a woman! Gay rights? Better be gay! Guns? Anyone can opine, even people who think a semi-automatic is a machine gun!

      Let’s face it, the average gun hater knows nothing about guns. They play Grand Theft Auto and think you can drive to an AmmuNation, buy an RPG, and start blowing up trucks.

  4. Weinstein does mention that gun control advocates sometimes get their facts wrong, and that they’ll even exploit their supports’ lack of knowledge to build support for gun control legislation.

    The facts don’t matter as long as you get the narrative right. This is what these morons actually believe.

    1. They are not concerned with convincing you through compelling argument.

      They are only attempting to distract you long enough to enact laws so the murderous government agents can kidnap or murder you if you fail to comply.

      1. It speaks highly of a movement that more information will harm them.

  5. Christ, what an asshole.

    1. He is not just an asshole. He is an ignorant asshole. His solution to people correcting him on facts is to whine about people correcting him rather than learn something. It is not like the basics of firearms and the difference between a rifle and a pistol or what basic terms like magazine and semi automatic mean is that fucking complicated. It is nothing that a few hours browsing the internet and taking a few notes couldn’t fix. But this asshole can’t be bothered because it is those who have knowledge’s fault that he is pig ignorant.

      1. Preach it, brother!

      2. Pignorant

  6. Gunsplaining. Finally, I know what I do and, ergo, I am.

    1. Whenever the bank informs you that you have overdrawn your account, they are just mathsplaining to you. I am dumbstruck that this guy wrote this. He is announcing to the world “I don’t know much and I am mad at the people who try and teach me anything”. I honestly can’t understand what the hell kind of an idiot one has to be to do that.

      1. The more worrying thing is that there are probably millions of people who agree with him.

        But this is the modern left. They only care about how things make them feel.

    2. Don’t forget to follow up with gunspreading.

  7. Gun grabbers and lefties consider sloppy arguments as S.O.P. as long as the narrative moves forward.

    Unfortunately for lefties, more and more Libertarians and conservatives have plenty of ammunition to fire back and destroy their arguments.

    1. Maybe we can bore them with the details until they surrender?

    2. It’s all about the narratives. For people on both the left and right. On this topic however, more people on right tend to know what they’re talking about.

      Everyone has the right to their own opinion, but when you’re posting about something you know nothing about, other people have the right to call you out for being an idiot.

      1. In my world-view there is a huge difference between an opinion and being wrong.

        The left in this country has killed the meaning of opinion by consistently tying the word to the act of being factually wrong about something.

  8. Wow, I thought liberals were the ones all about science and facts……

    1. Why did you think that? That is a narrative of theirs.

      1. This is an apple, this is a banana….

        1. This day is bananas, a…p…p…l….e….s….

      2. That’s my point. Their narrative is supposedly that they have science and facts on their side (at least until it’s not).

    2. You mean like all those anti-GMO and anti-Nuke signs at the “March for Science”?

  9. Who was it who said the AR-15 is full auto, and he refuses to bow to the NRA and use their “semi-auto” language?

    1. To be fair, it IS automatic in that it automatically chambers a new round in its firing cycle. Think along the lines of calling a 1911 a .45 Auto. But it is not a machine gun.

      1. All pistols except revolvers and a handful of antiques are semi-automatic weapons. It’s how pistols works. At one time people were shitting their pants over pistols, but the current pants shitting topic is scary looking rifles.

        1. Even though pistols account for at least 66% of all gun deaths, suicides and homicides.

        2. All pistols except most revolvers and a handful of antiques are semi-automatic weapons.

          /earning my gunsplaining merit badge

          1. Well technically most revolvers are also semi-automatics. But it’s splitting hairs and revolvers have consistently been classified separate from semi-autos due to the mechanisms involved.

            1. Well technically most revolvers are also semi-automatics.

              *Sighs in between teeth*

              You’re right, the term ‘auto’ can be short for anything that’s automated but, for the overwhelming majority of firearms and firearm history it’s been either auto-loading and/or auto-cocking, which, single- and double-action revolvers by definition do not do.

        3. Revolvers used to be called police automatics and they will shoot with every pull of the trigger. Its all about reference and in reality I’m not afraid to call all guns assault weapons that can be used for defense and sport just like baseball bats

          1. Revolvers used to be called police automatics and they will shoot with every pull of the trigger.

            Not sure where you heard this (maybe in Britain?), but the ‘police automatic’ that I’m familiar with refers to a specific type of “hammer-less” revolver made by Harrington & Richardson. It was, arguably, a gimmick as they basically just enclosed a double-action revolver (which preceded them by several decades) and added an ‘automatic’ extractor to the cylinder. Neither of which were new technologies, H&R didn’t hold any patents on them, and despite being advertised as automatic, still required either additional force specifically to cycle the action/rotate the cylinder and/or your fingers (or gravity) to remove the spent cartridges.

          2. Ron you are wrong on the facts and there is no way to sugar coat it. There are two types of revolvers in current use. Single action revolvers which require pulling the hammer back and then pulling the trigger to fire and double action revolvers which only require pulling the trigger to fire. In general double action revolvers require more pressure to pull the trigger back because some of the pressure is used to pull the hammer back as well while single action revolvers divide the pressure in to that used to pull back the hammer and pull the trigger. There is another way to fire single action revolvers called fanning, something often seen in old cowboy movies where the trigger is pressed back with the finger of one hand and the hammer is pulled back and let go usually with the palm of the hand. Fanning is not really an effective way of shooting since aim is compromised by the position of the hand fanning the hammer and often is done from the hip. It really only seems to work in Hollywood movies.

        4. All pistols except revolvers and a handful of antiques are semi-automatic weapons.

          Well, no. There are a number of modern single shot and break-action repeating pistols, including derringers. And the modern replica muzzle-loading pistols being manufactured today don’t qualify as “antiques.”


          ^ Gunsplaining.

      2. Well, technically it’s an autoloader, not an automatic.

  10. Citizen X beat me to it but it bears repeating:

    Christ, what an asshole.

    1. Don’t beat yourself up over it. That guy is an asshole and the more times people say it, the better.

      1. Yes, X needs to know that he’s an asshole and that we will not stand for it.

        1. Look, if i wanted to be where people were reminding me i’m an asshole, i’d spend more time with my family.

        2. Um, actually, it should be Citizen M, since he is technically a Millenial and not a Gen Xer.

          1. It’s about continuity from my original screenname, not about some made-up generational demographic bullshit. Jesus.

            1. Sorry, I know it’s a touchy subject. The wounds are still raw, I bet.

            2. I remember when you were still Citizen X #7.

            3. What an asshole.

          2. If he can demonstrate enough cynicism and apathy, he can be an honorary member.

    2. X simply posts that in every thread, assuming that it applies to the topic, so yours feels more sincere.

      1. It applies to almost every article posted by Reason.

      2. Oh, i mean it every time.

      3. Christ, what an asshole.

      4. Doubtful he would be missed.

        Now Fist not posting first would be missed.

        1. I would definitely miss him. I miss everyone.

  11. “Gunsplaining,” Weinstein declares, “is always done in bad faith. Like mansplaining, it’s less about adding to the discourse than smothering it.”

    And? You say that like the fight was started in good faith. Meanwhile, the rest of humanity was always taught never to bring a knife to a gunfight. Isn’t Weinstein a *professional* wordy-type discourse-smotherer?

    1. If gunspalining is so bad, why doesn’t this moron get off his ass and get his facts right? They can only correct you if you are wrong.

      1. What does this guy describe what his side is doing?

        The honest answer would be “lying”, but how does HE describe it.

        Yeah, we shouldn’t focus on the vocabulary — we should focus on what guns we’ll ban. Sure, sounds like good faith arguments are desired there…

    2. By inventing a pithy term in which he can conveniently dispose of the arguments of those against gun control, he is the one acting in bad faith. This fact will surely be lost on most of the people who read his junk.

      1. If “gunsplaining” does not make the dictionary, it will surely make the internet lexicon of social outrage. As it,”oh just shut up, the gunsplaining son of a bitch!” Personally I am happy to add to my list of personal attributes along with deplorable [did not vote for Trump, just like the label], bitter clinger, flyover bumpkin, and now, gunsplainer. I’ll have to get that on a t shirt or something.

        1. I personally hate the rise of deplorable. That was OUR WORD. Nobody better co-opt dirtbag, damn it.

          1. ^

          2. I actually feel shame that ‘gunsplaining’ was invented and claimed by a leftist in this regard. It really should be ‘something explained at the point of a gun or with the butt of a gun’.

            1. Hell let’s just appropriate it, like we supposedly do with everything else from sushi to yoga.

              1. Shit, I get proggies pissed off at me when I ask “Why are you celebrating Halloween to begin with? You’re not Irish!”

        2. I fully expect to be seeing it regularly from now on, along with “whataboutism” and misuse of “tu quoque”.

          The left specializes in winning arguments by prohibiting the other side from arguing, rather than using superior information and reasoning. They’re always coming up with new ways to justify shutting up the other side.

    3. And which liberal candidate famously said “they bring a knife, we bring a gun”? Oh, right. That well-known advocate of peace and winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, Barack Obama. Funny how soon libs forget.

  12. Excellent example of prog stupidity that may just save us yet from conservative stupidity.

    This idiot thinks he is actually helping his cause by tying it to “mansplaining,” because he is surrounded by people who do actually think there is something to that concept besides self-parodying purplehair whining and an infantile nomenclature. Let’s hope they run with it! And continue to chant “gunsplaining” as they jerk each other off with their backs to the world of normal people.

    1. Could there be anything more convincing than telling the world how proud you are that you don’t know anything? Normal people are embarrassed when they get the facts wrong. This clown is proud of it and thinks his getting things wrong somehow reflects poorly on those who try and correct him. I am frankly kind of awed by someone who is that stupid. Remember, he took the time and thought about it and decided it was a good idea to write this oped. What he is saying isn’t the result of a momentary lapse of reason. He actually believes this and thinks thinking this way is persuasive. Words fail

      1. I strongly suspect being a know nothing [my apologies to those 19th century Lincoln freaks with the funny hats and capes..] about guns is a prerequisite to having a place in their polite society.

        1. I agree. If this guy ever woke up and adopted any kind of a reasonable or intelligent position on guns, he would face complete and total sanction from his social circles. He would likely lose his job and almost certainly lose the majority of his friends and might even be disowned by his family.

          This guy’s entire career and social standing are dependent on him never deviating from the party line. And the saddest thing is that he is likely so far gone that he doesn’t even realize how enslaved he is anymore.

      2. If the WaPo underpaid him, would he “paysplain” the issue to them?
        If his girlfriend will not give him his penis back to use for a day, will be “eunuchsplain” shit to her?

        1. Eunuchsplain. I once knew a guy who was so PW’d that I though about getting one of those plastic dick and balls things they used to hang off trailer hitches and putting it in his wife’s purse. Never did it but wish I had.

          1. Did they have a dick too? I thought it was just the balls, but maybe that’s all I could see. (Or maybe the trucks I see are being driven by chimpanzees, so they buy the ones with giant balls and tiny dicks.) In any case funny idea; you should have indeed gone through with it. (Say I from a safe distance over here.)

      3. I don’t know much about the Navy; is it possible that someone from that branch could actually be ignorant of these points? I figured the ignorance wasn’t personally his, but he foolishly thinks that a concept that is only used unironically by the very stupidest and most clueless progs is actually a serious thing and can be extended to this situation. Or maybe he is actually smart, and knows there’s a career in throwing red meat to said stupidest progs. Here he delivers them the perfect excuse for their ignorance, so they can reseal any holes in their bubble and reassure themselves of their superiority to the real “anti-intellectuals” that are the great unwashed.

        Hmm, starting to lean to the latter explanation. Well done, sir. I always respect a hustle.

        1. I used to think guys like this were just hustling. But then twitter came along and I got to see their unedited thoughts about nearly everything. And after seeing that, I changed my mind and decided they really are this stupid. This guy wrote this because he got tired of gun owners pointing out his mistakes and making him look stupid. That is all that is going on here.

          1. Is this more hustlesplaining or twitsplaining? I can’t tell.

          2. Congrats, and thank you, for wading through the morass!

        2. Was he a naval officer or enlisted? Officers don’t work for a living, so they have more time to ponder what could have been with socialism.

      4. Not all gun-grabbers are stupid. Some are mendacious and know exactly what they are doing when manipulating language. The idea is to shut down the debate since they cannot win on the merits of their argument.

  13. To be fair, Weinstein is probably too busy sexually harassing young actresses to pay attention to the facts. And now I suppose some pedant is going to sidetrack the argument by punditsplaining that this is a different Weinstein.

    1. Israeli fencer Yehuda Weinstein? You’d think the Munich massacre would have given him enough compassion to avoid victimizing others in any way. This just goes to show you we should not make heroes out of survivors, and how tragic and hard to escape the cycle of violence can be.

      1. That really shouldn’t be funny, yet I laughed.

    2. Did you just assume the gender of those he is sexually harassing? RACIST.

    3. I’ll sidetrack it by saying that alluding to Bret Weinstein would have been a deeper cut.

      1. Quit Weinsteinsplaining, shitlord.

    4. If you ask me, the Weinstein conjecture makes perfect sense. I mean, why wouldn’t a compact contact manifold’s Reeb vector field carry at least one periodic orbit?

  14. The thing the right doesn’t get is that the correct course of action in everything is fully known. The progressive rules were handed down to Mondale (or some other Mo…) and all the arguing or hair splitting in the world isn’t going to change them.

    It’s all settled science, so just lie back and enjoy it.

    1. As mothers of the 1950s advised their daughters to do in the event of rape, right?

      1. I’m not sure they actually said that.

        1. Don’t be stifling his narrative.

        2. I’m pretty sure they did say that.

          1. Considering that marital rape wasn’t illegal until the 1970s, I am inclined to believe you.

      2. I thought they were supposed to lie back and think of England…

    2. Mondale was not a ‘mo. You’re thinking about Gerry Studds.

  15. So when Weinstein try to deflect from his sexual misconduct allegations last year by saying he would channel his energy into battling the NRA, he meant it.

  16. Do global warming deniers have permission to dumb their way through climate science debates now? (I guess Blil Nye kind of does already.)

  17. From the article:

    “…the onus should be on those citizens who own the weapons technology, and purport to understand it, to share that understanding with the skeptical and less-informed. That’s a responsibility that goes along with the right to bear arms.”

    Perhaps the onus should be on those who advocate new laws regulating the public, to present credible evidence that these laws are needed.

    1. It is up to you to prove why you should be able to do something. That which is not specially authorized is prohibited. Christ what an asshole.

      1. A more important serious point to fish out of this morass of silliness is this:

        If gunsplaining had a motto, it might be Samuel “Joe the Plumber” Wurzelbacher’s macabre old saw: “Your dead kids don’t trump my constitutional rights.”

        The author is not out of touch here. It seems to all of us here barely worth a second thought that “not one more” or whatever is a preposterous and brain-dead premise for public policy, let alone for merrily tossing out the window the fundamental human rights at the foundation our republic. But look around. This is a formula that finds wide support, in one form or another, again and again.

        Until we begin to damage in the public mind the premises underlying the very phenomenon of moral panic itself, libertarian progress will be relatively superficial–legalizing weed and buttsex and so forth–and will always be in danger.

        1. The author is not out of touch here.

          Yes he is. At least, I know plenty of women (leftists even) and plenty of full on feminists who recognize the ‘mansplaining’ term for the crock of shit that it is. He’s deluding himself if he thinks there’s a massive majority out there waiting for the gun control debate to clarify what ‘gunsplaining’ is for them so they can finally decide that enough is enough.

          1. My earlier comments agreed with this assessment. Here I was just referring to the quoted portion.

        2. If Joe the Plumber actually said that, that’s not “gunsplaining”: the statement has nothing to do with details firearm function or intricacies of law. It’s just a rude platitude.

    2. “…the onus should be on those citizens who own the weapons technology, and purport to understand it, to share that understanding with the skeptical and less-informed. That’s a responsibility that goes along with the right to bear arms.”
      Besides being wrong about who has the burden of proof, it’s impossible to have a reasoned debate when you’re constantly demeaning your opponent and dismissing their arguments out of hand. If he wanted factual information on gun technology, he could fucking Google it.

      1. One of the many annoying things about this article is he acts like guns are some complex subject that is just too much to expect someone to understand. There is nothing you need to know about guns that can’t be found out with an hour or two of searching on google.

        It of course never occurs to him that he might want to know something about guns before he decides to ban them. No. He has decided to ban them and it is now incumbent upon gun owners to make sure he doesn’t make himself look like a fool.

    3. Or even that they now something about the subject. At all.

    4. And since those who own and understand the technology do in fact share their understanding as best they can in a media environment overrun with opinionated jerk-offs like this one, isn’t that “gunslplaining”, and isn’t it therefore exactly what the author wants such folks to do?

      He hasn’t a clue.

  18. Weinstein wrote: “But the pro-gun side needs to give a lot more ? not just because it’s been disingenuously gunsplaining to shut down discussions and close minds for years ? but because the onus should be on those citizens who own the weapons technology, and purport to understand it, to share that understanding with the skeptical and less-informed. That’s a responsibility that goes along with the right to bear arms.”.

    Then, when gun owners do try to “share that understanding”, he shoots them down. The asshole is talking out of both sides of his mouth.

    1. That, too.

    2. Exactly. How does one share their knowledge with the pig ignorant like this guy without then being accused of “gunsplaining”?

      1. I think Weinstein just invented a whole new category of stupid.

        1. In a world full of stupid, Weinstein manages to stand out.

          1. I’m hoping someone here with more wit than I possess will come up with a pithy name for the phenomena.

            1. There is already a name for it: The Dunning-Kruger Effect.

              Pithy, though, don’t ask me. I’d come up with something cringe-worthy, I’m sure.

              1. Thanks, I just learned something new.

              2. The Dunning?Kruger effect is a cognitive bias wherein people of low ability suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly assessing their cognitive ability as greater than it is.

                In introducing the concept, it might be useful to call it “illusory superiority” or “the Dunning?Kruger illusory superiority effect”.

            2. I think one already exists: willful ignorance.

              1. Bingo!

                He actually didn’t invent anything new. He was just very blatant about it.

          2. That moment when you come back to a thread and rack your brains trying to figure out what Harvey Weinstein has to do with gun control.

            1. I would imagine he fully supports it. Makes it harder for his victims to shoot him.

      2. You can’t. That’s the point. He made up the term “gunsplaining” so that he would be justified in not looking at facts and he could explain away any attempt to use fact based arguments as a bullying attempt to “gunsplain.”

    3. In terms Weinstein & tumblrinas can understand: Sharing our understanding of weapons technology, painstakingly acquired through entire hours of reading wikipedia, is emotional labor and not something People of Gunhaving owe you! Weinstein & crew need to spend their own effort to educate themselves. Maybe do some research or watch some documentaries on how POG have been marginalized and oppressed by the progressiviarchy, if they want to ever stop being state-hetero shitlords.

      1. Gunhavers will not enact that labor for you!

    4. disingenuously gunsplaining to shut down discussions and close minds for years

      You must mean “explaining something to you that you demonstrably don’t understand in order to facilitate further discussion of the issue”. The only one trying to shut down discussions is the people that know dick about guns. Stop projecting.

  19. “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.

    Or how fast you can move your index finger.

    1. Or just being semi-auto, period.

      1. Ban springs in rifles.

  20. How can you expect to write a gun control bill without knowing what the words mean?

    WTF is wrong with this guy? Did he attend Brown?

    1. Hey let’s not go overboard here. He might merely be retarded. We should try not to coarsen the discourse.

  21. I think we should convince him to advocate a ban on any shotgun that can fire more than once without reloading.

    Get Joe Biden on his case.

    1. Even Joe Biden is more gun friendly than “a ban on any shotgun that can fire more than once without reloading.” Joe thinks we should all have double barreled shotguns.

      1. Mad Max style?

      2. But restricted to the home, fired through front doors at unseen persons in proper self-defense fashion.

  22. Almost as bad as progsplaining.

    1. Is there such a thing? Progs don’t splain. They feelz. And yell. And scream. And call you names.

      1. I’d rather have a root canal than try to reason with a proggie.

        1. Yep. You can’t reason someone out of something they arrived at by emotion. It’s unpossible.

          1. Sad thing is, I have a conservative acquaintance with the same issue. I can barely even get my point across, much less defend it, without getting shouted down with some kind of emotional appeal.

            1. In my experience conservatives do emote, but are also susceptible to reason. Depends on the issue.
              Whereas proggies emote about absolutely everything. On the rare occasions you can break through and get them to actually think, they’re back to emoting the next day. It’s a lost cause.

              1. Should we consider, in connection with this issue of reliance on reason, that conservatives tend to believe that fairy tales are true; avidly suppress science and history — and teach and consume nonsense — to flatter superstition and childish dogma in classrooms; and . . . did I mention these goobers believe fairy tales are true?

                Carry on, clingers.

                1. Are we just ignoring it?

                2. Poor Artie, it must be exhausting to spend all of your time clinging to the hope of a progressive utopia.

            2. Jeez, I must be on a roll, if I got the good Reverend to respond to my post.

    2. Progsplaining is when you explain to someone how Neal Peart would have done it better.

    3. Progsplaining: explaining just how cruel and unloving conservatives are, in a bitchy, self-satisfied, condescending, and narcissistic manner

      1. in a bitchy, self-satisfied, condescending, and narcissistic manner

        I laughed.

    4. Progsplaining: fellating fallacies.

      1. Tony would be the dictionary example.

        1. He was my inspiration for the expression.

          1. Yeah, I guess it’s obvious. Hmm, I wonder if his back gets sore from all of the goalpost moving.

            I guess I should introduce myself. I’m someone who has been lurking for ages, but rarely posts. I’ll give you a hint about “ages”: Donderoooooooo!

            1. I don’t even get that joke, and I’ve been here for years. Wowzah.

              1. IIRC, he was a Ron Paul operative who used to post here in the early 2000’s, then left in a huff.

                1. That’s way before my time. I don’t think I discovered Reason until maybe ten years ago.

  23. FUsplaining is progressive for “I’m a liberal arts major who doesn’t know what I’m talking about, and so I’m rejecting what you say because it’s unfair and contrary to my sentimen- I mean facts”.

  24. Pointing out inaccuracies in your opponent’s arguments is a cynical ploy to stop discussion.


    Person 2: They haven’t been since 1934.

    How is that not the end of the discussion?

    1. Fully auto weapons are absolutely available to the public.

      1. Very expensive, and tons of paperwork, however.

      2. My gunsmith has a fully suppressed, fully automatic, AR15 with a night-vision scope. The city calls him when there are nuisance animals that need killing. And he kills them. Day or night. Right there in the middle of the city. There are worse jobs.

        1. Nice work, if you can get it.


    2. How is that not the end of the discussion?

      Because now you’re a gunsplaining bigot who wants the blood of children to flow through the streets. Proggies sayeth, so sayeth we all.

  25. Makes me think of a thread a few years back where John had a total conniption in response to being gunsplained about magazines vs clips.

    1. I gotta admit, I find the whole clip/magazine thing a bit like splitting hairs. It’s not that important of a point. I grew up calling magazines “clips.” It was the terminology my dad used, and it was common in popular culture at the time.

      1. Same here. I just like picking on John when opportunity presents. He’s so cute when he gets angry.

  26. “Ahem. How do I put this delicately…. I guess I can’t. You don’t know what you’re talking about, but I’d be happy to cure you of your ignorance.”


  27. I wonder if Weinstein is some kind of nihilist. If so, nothing means anything anyway.

  28. If my last name were Weinstein, I wouldn’t play fast and loose with facts.

    1. Well, if my last name was Weinstein, I wouldn’t be caught dead near a member of the opposite sex without a whole gaggle of witnesses to make sure nothing untoward happens.

      But if I had to actually sit down and have a conversation with either this idiot Weinstein or the creepster/harrasser Weinstein, I think I’d probably choose the latter. Both are clearly assholes, but at least one them might not be so close-minded when it comes to reality and facts he might be capable of participating in a discussion rather than just preaching.

  29. You gunsplaining mother fuckers, with your secret death knowledge of the AR-47 with the over under grenade thrower, with full auto pump/lever action, and the snap-on maglight adapter, and your laser lights, and your reversible stockings, with detractible hip clips, with the gas-fed auto-loading breech barrels, need to go die in a fire of incinderiary bullets!

    We’re trying to save children here!

    1. I want one with the aircraft carrier attachment.

      1. Hell, I want one that fires mini nuclear bombs.

        1. I want one that launches a straw man at anyone who pisses me off. With a false double dichotomy selector switch.

          1. Some of us long for a Tommy gun. You long for a Tony gun.

            1. They don’t make a long Tony gun.

      2. I ‘ll take the one with the Imperial Death Star attachment.

        1. That model has been recalled! Minor but potentially very serious design flaw.

    2. +1 for creativity, avoiding the old chestnut of the “shoulder thing that goes up.” Although that is of course the deadliest feature of all.

      1. Don’t even get me started… I’ll bump your stock!

        1. Stay away from my hangy down thing.

    3. Don’t forget the terrifyingly deadly chainsaw bayonet.

  30. What’s sad is that it does NOT take a specialist and expert to get the basic terminology and facts straight. Wikipedia is right over there…

    If you’re going to be out in public demanding that people bow to your opinions, then the least you can do is get your spelling right, get your grammar right, and get your terminology right. Otherwise you just look like an idiot.

    1. Looking like an idiot shouldn’t be a barrier to protecting children from the Bogeyman.

      1. Surely there is SOMEONE who is not an idiot who can make their argument for them?

        Frankly, this is fallout from all the whining about grammar Nazis a couple of decades ago. We coddled those whiners and now we have to live in a culture that discounts accuracy.

    2. Proper spelling and grammer are relatively superficial metrics even the founding fathers could’nt spell that good.

    3. What’s sad is that it does NOT take a specialist and expert to get the basic terminology and facts straight. Wikipedia is right over there…

      Again, the issue isn’t gunsplaining or even, really, guns. They don’t feel safe by proxy and it’s your obligation to shut up and make them feel safer.

      If they had even the slightest amount of genuine reason to their suggested safety propositions or criticisms of ‘gunsplainers’, their actual suggestions would sound more like battle plans. When you’ve reinforced walls with 6-in. of concrete and 1/2″ steel plating, *then* you get to disregard the distinction between 5.56 and 7.62.

  31. I like how the burden of proof is on people who want to be left alone, rather than the people who want “MOAR LAWS!”

    1. I appreciate there irony. Can’t say I ‘like’ it.

  32. “Gunsplaining,” Weinstein declares

    Ahhh I see what you did there…

  33. OT: does anybody have a fix for when Reasonable is not flagging unread comments? It isn’t even showing active on my toolbar.

    1. Gah, an edit button would be nice.

      I do have Reasonable enabled in the settings. God, I almost wrote “Reasonbable”.

  34. The constant mix ups in terminology that anti-gunners make should be flat out embarrassing.

    “So I’m going to talk about driving safely.”
    “Manual transmission, automatic transmission, it’s all the same right? Stop carsplaining!”

    “Now, the man was driving a pickup truck.”
    “That’s a motorcycle.”
    “Stop carsplaining!”

    1. We need to have a serious discussion about US defense policy. Let’s start by talking about the Air Force’s need for modern tanks. What do you mean the Army and Marine Corps have tanks but not the Air Force? Stop defensespalining!!

      The jokes really do write themselves.

      1. The jokes really do write themselves.

        Yeah, everybody from Monty Python to Scott Adams and beyond, has repeatedly cashed in on that golden goose.

        “The task has been set, has been made plain and clear, and needs to be carried out.”

      2. We (the Marines) got our new tanks WELL after the Army got theirs.

        1. I served 2000-2004 and was still using a radio that was used in Nam.

          The only thing the Marines get new is gear for grunts. Rifles and packs.

    2. “Stop econsplaining!”

      /Seattle city council

  35. As is typical with proggies, any disagreement is assumed to be born of bad intentions. So any attempts at gunsplaining are really bad-faith attempts to end the discussion. They couldn’t be good-faith attempts to cure someone of their ignorance in order to actually have a discussion. Nope. Proggies have good intentions, and everyone else has bad intentions.

    1. bad-faith attempts to end the discussion

      Is exactly what they are doing by trying to say that correcting their ignorance is a bad thing.

      1. They know what they feel. Don’t go confusing them with stupid things like facts.

  36. ___splaining (splayn-ing) (suffix): “any verbal expression that has the effect of reminding the person expressed to that they are less informed or educated about a given subject than the expresser”.

    1. What about ‘splaining simpliciter, as engaged in by patriarchal interracial heterosexual couple Ricky and Lucy Ricardo?

      1. I suppose it was only a matter of time until someone got around to “splainsplaining”.

  37. I used to have an AR-15. It figured out that it actually identifies as a Mini-14.

    1. Did the accuracy decrease with the change in identity?

  38. “I am literally demanding the destruction of a civil or human right based on faulty beliefs, but correcting them is always in bad faith“, in other words.

    (“High powered” would seem to be a material confusion when speaking of a weapon one wishes to ban, no? Correcting a material mistake is simply necessary for honest and legitimate policy discussion.

    Declaring it to be “splaining” deserves only a response his newspaper wouldn’t print.)

  39. Weinstein is just feeling butthurt because when he is corrected on something so simple that a redneck kid in flyover country can understand it, he realizes that his proggy mantle of “smartest person in the room” got shredded.

    1. That is it. These people are incredibly arrogant. But they are also pretty stupid and even more lazy. I guarantee you it drives this douche bag nuts that people correct him about guns. Not nuts enough to cause him to learn anything or do any work. But it annoys him enough for him to demand that they stop doing it.

  40. (Nitpick: The “bump stock ban” you link to did not “retroactively” ban anything; that would be an ex post facto law and facially unconstitutional regardless of content.

    It would ban them without grandfathering and without a grace period, just as the Controlled Substances Act made possessing weed a Federal offense from the moment it passed, regardless of prior possession.

    But “retroactive” means “before the time”; the proposed ban did not attempt to make possession before the enactment of the Act into a crime, and thus it could not be retroactive.

    Retroactive bans are 100% unconstitutional, and as far as I know the Supreme Court has never undercut that clause, even for A Super Great Cause. Equally, I’m not sure the last time I can recall someone in Congress actually proposing a retroactive ban or ex post facto law…)

    1. Stop that lawsplaining.

    2. SCOTUS has never undercut the prohibition against Bills of Attainder, but they and other courts have spent considerable energy deciding whether a particular law is or is not retroactive. Seems like the more seemingly simple something is, the more seemingly simple it ain’t.

  41. Jesus they’re getting more and more retarded by the minute.

    Of course language matters and that making ‘little mistakes’ in the aim of achieving an objective they believe in is a distorted version of ‘the ends justifying the means’.

    They’d rather ram through a law based on faulty premises than use actual truths to protect civil liberties.

    At this point, how can one not conclude they’re enemies of the people and state?

    It’s so irrational it’s frightening.

    ‘Hey man, so what I’m wrong! My message is important so you’d better submit!’

    1. What worries me that is they insist on politicizing absolutely everything. It’s going to end up in a civil war if they don’t back off.

      1. They advocate disarmament. We advocate being armed. That wouldn’t go well for them.

        1. Except they have the government on the side. Cops are unionized, remember?

          1. Except they have the government on the side. Cops are unionized, remember?

            Cops and depending on how you read the tea leaves, a good share of women more than a fair number of brown people.

            I understand that it sounds borderline crazy racist to say that this would be how the Second American Civil War would go, but the left has a tendency of living up to every inch of the alt-right’s wildest dreams.

  42. What, you mean “SHUT UP, YOU KNOW WHAT WE MEANT” isn’t valid phrasing in gun control legislation?

  43. Read the article in a voice that sounds like it’s coming from inside a high school locker, and you’ll better understand Weinstein’s motivations.

    1. Or like it’s coming from inside a high school closet, am I right? With some guy’s dick down his throat! Oh! Oh! I grew up in the ’90s, ladies and gentlemen.

  44. Alt-Text: Mansplaining gunsplaining

  45. I would have a lot more respect for the gunsplainers if they ever bothered to acknowledge, much less confront and ‘splain, the vast disparity between our gun death statistics and those of every other Western nation that has sharply limited access to guns.

    1. Because we have more guns.

      But the relevant question is “the disparity between overall suicide, homicide and accidental death rates”. And as to that:

      -our overall suicide rate isn’t high for an Anglosphere country with our demographic conditions over time

      -accidental deaths are statistically insignificant and dropping fast anyway

      -mass public killings (as in, someone attempting to kill a large number of random people at once using an effective weapon of some sort) are not more common or lethal in the US than in the EU


      -our overall non-gun murder rate is significantly higher (1 to 1.75 per 100k) than the average EU overall murder rate (0.5 to 1.5 per 100k), so our murder rate is clearly higher for other reasons than gun prevalence, and the similarity of US urban social conditions to those in South America and Africa- where gun control has beeen completely ineffective- indicates that US gang activity is likely sufficient to provide the basis for a healthy black market that would render any reduction in lethality from gun removal insufficient to balance out loss of self-defense capacity.

      Consider yourself… gunsplained to.

      1. “Because we have more guns.” Yep. You got it. The rest of your response is either wrong or beside the point. Typical gunsplaining.

        1. You asked. He ‘splained.

          Not our problem you really didn’t want to know.

        2. “Nuh-uh” is not a response.

          1. Of course, you won’t look at this because it’s you who “really” doesn’t want to know.
   2017/10/2/16399418/ us-gun-violence-statistics-maps-charts

            1. I’ve looked at that moral-panic bullshit before, but just to make you happy I looked at it again.

              And, as always, none of it contradicted what I said.

              Most of those “mass shootings” are gang disputes, which I addressed in point #3 by specifying someone attempting to kill a large number of random people at once. Gang shootings are addressed in point #4.

              Guns are only 20% more effective than hanging, and lots of studies have shown that hangings are the primary means of displacement- as one would expect, given that outside the US, hanging is the favored method of the rural males that comprise our firearm suicide rate. The reduction is present but minor.

              And all that guff about the US having the same rate of crime as lower-murder countries is disproven by our non-gun murder rate.

              Try again.

      2. So, “gang activity” explains the higher rate of gun deaths in states like Alaska, Montana, Wyoming, and Idaho, states which have the highest rates of gun ownership? My, my. I didn’t know that gangs were so much more prevalent in those states than they are in New York, New Jersey, D.C., and Illinois, which have lower rates of gun deaths and gun ownership. I guess I’ll have to reexamine those “urban social conditions” in Wyoming!

        1. Most of those deaths are suicides. As you’d realize if you stopped projecting the worst possible motives onto your opponents for 2 yoctoseconds strung together.

          1. Even if you project the worst possible motives on each other the shithead doesn’t exactly care about the specific number of deaths as indicated by the focus on rate. Nevermind that Illinois Chicago will pile up a mountain of bodies, all firearm homicides (let alone total homicides) that it would take Alaska between 5 years and a decade to reach.

            The City of Chicago’s murder rate is routinely 5-10X higher than the rest of the state of IL. Chicago and/or Cook County can’t go a week without a firearm murder while all kinds of suburbs and regional municipalities, well within an hour round trip of Chicago, record a gun homicide (or even a homicide) every couple of decades.

        2. Gun ban advocates in this country routinely perform the scam of including gun suicides in “gun death” and “gun violence”, more than 60% of the total. Suicides are a voluntary act committed by people with many deep problems, and they choose a gun or other means to end their difficult existence. But including them into “gun death” greatly inflates the statistic and it is regularly mindlessly regurgitated by our ignorant media.

          Consider the top four methods of suicide in the US:
          Someone who commits suicide by jumping off a bridge or structure is not a victim of Bridge Violence or Building Violence.
          Someone who commits suicide by poisoning is not a victim of Drug Violence or Natural Gas Violence.
          Someone who commits suicide by hanging himself is not a victim of Rope Violence.
          Someone who commits suicide by using a gun is not a victim of Gun Violence.

    2. I would have respect for you if you were not a fucking moron who can’t see the fact that we have more guns means people use them and that just because gun deaths are high doesn’t mean the overall crime and death rate is higher.

      1. Yep. Again. You do indeed know that “more guns=more gun deaths.” So, the gunsplainers clearly know the truth. They just don’t care, aka Joe the Plumber: “Your dead kids don’t trump my constitutional rights.”

        1. John | 3.6.18 @ 6:41PM | #

          …just because gun deaths are high doesn’t mean the overall crime and death rate is higher

          PollyZ | 3.6.18 @ 7:11PM | #

          Yep. Again. You do indeed know that “more guns=more gun deaths”

          If you refuse to see anything in your opponents’ comments but what you expect to see, why do you even bother reading them?

          1. Because I was really hoping for a bit more insight than “more guns=more gun deaths.” But I was disappointed.

            1. PollyZ sometimes an economic perspective can illuminate an argument.

              There is an economic term called ‘substitution’. If you have two or more items with similar effects, properties, uses etc, then a relative decrease in the opportunity cost of one item will have an increase in it’s use and a decrease in the other substitutes. ‘Cost’ in this discussion refers not just to the price, but such factors as availability.

              For instance, some have proposed legalizing prostitution as a way of reducing human sex trafficking. There are several reasons given why this may occur, but one is that increased use of legal (consensual) prostitution will result in less demand for sex trafficking (non-consensual) [Results from the Netherlands, are however not that promising.]

              In two comparable countries, such as similar rates of murder or suicide per capita, then a lower cost for one of the substitutes, say guns, will tend toward a higher ratio of that substitute used. Conversely in a country with a higher cost more of the substitutes will be used. So there would be more knifing murders or more suicide by poison. Mixing assaults, murder, suicide, and accidents all together as ‘gun violence’ muddles the issue. Also you need to look gun effects not in isolation of other types of violence, knifing, blunt objects, poison, high buildings (mostly suicide, but sometimes people are pushed.)

            2. Because I was really hoping for a bit more insight than “more guns=more gun deaths.”

              No you weren’t. This is obviously a lie. Please, continue lying, exploiting dead and mostly white children for your political ends, and then wondering why more than half the country will only buy into your narrative just long enough to figure out that that smell they keep smelling is your bullshit.

            3. Here you go!

              John | 3.6.18 @ 6:41PM | #

              …just because gun deaths are high doesn’t mean the overall crime and death rate is higher

              Gotta try reading slower. Pace yourself.

            4. Right backatcha, Polly

            5. PollyZ, I’m always deeply annoyed by this claim that “more guns == more gun deaths” argument. If you compare Chicago with its high murder rates and stringent laws to the surrounding areas that have low murder rates and considerably looser laws, I can’t help but conclude that the problem is something other than guns.

              “But, but, but, Chicago has a lot of guns, because the gagz smuggle them in from the surrounding areas, where it’s easy to get gunz!” you might say. Well, yes, that’s true…but it still doesn’t explain why Chicago has a far greater murder rate (including gun murder) than all those places that surround Chicago, but have a high availability of guns.

    3. The murder rate for Swedes in the US us about the same as in Sweden.

      The murder rate for blacks in the US is about the same as in the UK.

      Turns out that guns are not the variable that correlates best with murder rate.

      1. The murder rate for blacks in the US is about the same as in the UK

        Ehhh… Unless I’m seriously misreading this graph

    4. When you look at all violent crime, committed with and without guns, the US is not really an outlier. It is generally in the middle of the industrialized nations. The murder rate is a little higher because guns are somewhat more likely than other means to result in death. But murder is a rare part of violent crime and on the whole, violent crime in the US is not much different from the rest of the First World.…..By_country

    5. every other Western nation that has sharply limited access to guns

      This is what I love about agenda driven statistics. You pick the thing that annoys you, then you ignore every other thing to tout your correlation.

      First off, Switzerland eliminates your ‘every other Western nation’ phrase.

      Secondly, there is a vast difference between other Western countries and the USA. For example, for a very long time the USA has the highest corporate tax rate in the world. Why isn’t that your defining metric? It certainly makes a lot of people angry. Why aren’t you examining the proposition ‘the vast disparity between our gun death statistics and those of every other Western nation that has much lower corporate tax rates’.

      I agree my second point is ridiculous, but to most of us, so is your point.

      I think a lot of people believe the problem is the way our kids are being raised to believe anyone who denies their ever expanding rights is an enemy worthy of scorn and ridicule.

  46. Jesus Christ, I really need to hand in my gunsplaining certificate for not seeing this earlier: who the hell teaches a Weaver nowadays?

    1. Someone who doesn’t like potters!


      1. Even Google can’t help me figure out what the hell you’re talkin’ about.

        1. Weaver – one who creates utilitarian products by weaving fibers.

          Potter – one who creates utilitarian products by working and firing clay.

          Cheap humor and Reason commentary goes hand in hand.

          1. My attempt to divine your meaning was greatly impeded by my belief that “/ducks” was meant to imply that your statement was a quote from actual waterfowl.

  47. 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.

    That’s a feature, not a bug.

  48. My husband works from home. it’s saved United States of America virtually thousands of greenbacks in travel expenses. as a result of he will work for anyplace there’s a reliable net affiliation, we have a tendency to were ready to stick with my mother once the death of my stepparent while not my husband desirous to take vacation time…


  49. The reason we have to gunsplain in the first place is the gun grabbers don’t know anything about guns, don’t want to know, and are cheerfully willing to lie their asses off to get their way.

    1. Here. Get back to me when you have carefully read and fully refuted these “lies.”

      1. Most are not lies but distortions either of the facts, or of the “myth”.

        #2 Myth #2: Guns don’t kill people?people kill people.

        Fact-check: People with access to more guns tend to kill more people?with guns. States with higher gun ownership rates have higher gun murder rates.

        So the follow-up question is do states with lower gun ownership rates have LOWER murder rates, or do they just murder using more of other methods? So people with access to fewer guns kill people- without guns. (Thus proving the “Myth”.)

        Knives Blunt hands, feet,etc Poison thrown out window Explosives Fire
        1,694 496 726 5 2 12 75

        Also the graph that ‘proves’ it is a line drawn through a cloud of data. For example Hawaii has a 45% gun ownership rate with 2 deaths per 100,000, and Delaware has has about 5% gun ownership rate with 10 deaths per 100,000.

        And it mixes all kinds of gun death together. For suicide a gun may be easier/effective than crashing your car or overdosing (stay away from Tylenol, liver failure is a horrible way to go, and liver damage is pretty bad if you survive.)

        Myth #7: Guns make women safer.
        ? A woman’s chances of being killed by her abuser increase more than 5 times if he has access to a gun.

        See how distorted the ‘myth’ is. Would a gun proponent say this or perhaps “A trained woman who has a gun is safer.” Her abuser having a gun doesn’t help her.

        1. Debunking Mother Jones’ ’10 Pro-Gun Myths, Shot Down’ http://www.thetruthaboutguns.c…..yths-shot/

          Myth #1: They’re coming for your guns.
          When President Barack Obama said the words “Weapons of war have no place on our streets, in our schools, or threatening our law enforcement officers,” how do you think he meant to remove those ‘weapons of war’?

          The original form of Dianne Feinstein’s Assault Weapons Ban floated back in 2013 had no grandfather clause and no sale permitted of the now banned firearms ? the covered firearms would be illegal after the owner’s death and required to be turned in to the government for destruction.

          Myth #2: Guns don’t kill people?people kill people.
          People kill people with guns, but that happens less often every single year. If Mother Jones’ assertion that guns are the cause of these deaths, then with the influx of millions of new guns and gun owners in the last few years the murder rate should have skyrocketed. But despite all those new potential murderers (to MJ’s mind, at least), the murder rate continues to drop.

          1. Myth #5: Keeping a gun at home makes you safer.
            Fact-check: Owning a gun has been linked to higher risks of … accidental death by gun.

            Fact: In 2007, there were 999 drowning victims and 137 firearm-related accidental deaths in age groups 1 through 19. This despite the fact that firearms outnumber pools by a factor of more than 30:1. Thus, the risk ratio of drowning in an available pool is nearly 100 times higher than dying from a firearm-related accident for all ages, and nearly 500 times for children ages 0-5. 3

            Fact: Medical mistakes kill 400,000 people per year ? the equivalent of almost three fully loaded Boeing 747 jet crashes per day ? or about 286 times the rate of all accidental firearm deaths. 4 This translates into 1 in 6 doctors causing an accidental death, and 1 in 56,666 gun owners doing the same.

            1. Myth #6: Carrying a gun for self-defense makes you safer.

              Fact-check: In 2014, according to FBI data, nearly eight times more people were shot and killed in arguments than by civilians trying to stop a crime.

              Mother Jones arrived at their conclusion about people being killed in arguments versus citizens stopping a crime by using the number of justifiable homicides as a stand-in for defensive gun uses. The best “defensive gun use” situation is one where everyone walks away uninjured. Something that happens every day in this country.

              Mother Jones would have you believe that every valid DGU must end with a justifiable homicide ? someone pulling the trigger and dying ? but a gun is just as (maybe more) effective as a behavior modification tool if the attacker stops and flees without ever needing to fire a shot. Mother Jones either doesn’t think those bloodless DGU’s “count” or they’re just too damn lazy to look into the facts and figures any further. Either way, their analysis is sloppy and misleading.

              The Violence Policy Center puts the number of defensive gun uses in the United States at over 50,000 per year.

        2. A woman’s chances of being killed by her abuser increase more than 5 times if he has access to a gun

          Also, this is basically just a roundabout way of saying “a woman is five times likelier to be killed if her abuser is the kind of guy that owns a gun”.

          The problem being that that category includes all violent criminals in the US. which is why it oughtn’t to be terribly relevant to a woman with a law-abiding partner with no criminal background.

          Determining the actual increase in lethality of a gun over, say, a kitchen knife is also subject to the selection bias in attempters: career criminals are more likely to own guns, and to kill their girlfriends- so, does the lethality derive from the gun’s presence, or do both the lethality and the gun’s presence derive from the career criminal’s presence?

      2. Here’s my 2 cents, without doing whatever research the boys at TTAG did:

        #1 every gun confiscation in other countries began like this.

        #2 All only applicable if you include suicide. Murder is randomly distributed by state, concentrated in urban and/or racially segregated areas. Suicides are concentrated in rural, economically depressed, high-altitude and -latitude places, thus correlate with gun ownership and loose gun laws.

        a. vague.
        b. uninformative
        c. fails to specify if the gun was legally owned, potential selection bias
        d. Texan concealed carriers make up 0.25% of all arrests, so hardly relevant.
        e. correlation =/= causation, especially without data on how many prosecuted murder cases involved the law

        a. False.
        b. out of context.

        1. #5
          a. The increase in odds of accidental death and suicide are heavily exaggerated.
          b. There are more than 21,000 gun suicides in the US every year, so for this to be true there’d need to be around 2,000 self-defense incidents. There are actually at least 58,000 per the NCVS, so this is obviously a lie.
          c/d. There are only 450 accidental gun deaths every year and dropping, +/- 90% of whom are adults, so this is not relevant relative to benefits of ownership. Cars are at least 25 times more lethal per capita.

          #6 selection bias: everyone carrying a gun in Philly is likely doing so illegally and thus is probably involved in criminal activity, and most of those arguments are probably amongst criminals too. Thus, not relevant to a law-abiding middle-class person’s decision to CC. (Also, I see Phos is alleging that MJ is using the standard DGU underestimate trick, so pobably not even relevant)

          1. #7 most of those aren’t guns owned or accessible by the woman; we as a movement are trying to increase that. Also, domestic abusers are disproportionately career criminals, who are disproportionately likely to own guns illegally, so there’s a selection bias at play which undermines the fear a woman in a middle-class law-abiding household should have.

            #8 no libertarian supports banning video games or any other form of speech.

            #9 irrelevant to whether they should.

            #10 applies only if you accept that restricting access to guns is actually a good idea.

      3. Mother Jones, seriously. The entire staff of Mother Jones, Vox, Vice, Wonkblog, Raw Story, Rolling Stone, Slate and the NYT put together could not identify a firearm in real life if they tripped and fell over it. They are ignorant fools who don’t understand guns, gun technology, the existing gun laws and the gun culture in their own country. And they don’t care. They routinely make monkeys out of unwitting people like you who repost their hit pieces without verification.

        If you want to understand guns and WHY tens of millions of gun owners are so passionate about their rights, learn about the subject, and not from Mother Jones, et. al. Here is a good starting point:

        Fact Sheet: Guns Save Lives

        1. Oh, Rolling Stone! That reminds me of this:

          The 5 Most Dangerous Guns in America

          Spoiler alert: What do you think the top most dangerous guns will be? Glocks? AR-15s? Kentucky Rifles?

          Nope: They are (drum roll, please)…pistols, revolvers, rifles, shotguns, and Derringers.

          This is the kind of thing that drives people who know anything about this topic nuts!

          1. In fairness, the reduced lethality of a derringer is entirely balanced out by the embarrassment incurred should you be unfortunate enough to be killed by one anyway.

      4. Mother Jones is your source? If you want to be taken seriously you’ll have to do better than that.,

    2. Do not accept their language and use the word “gunsplain.” The Orwellians and their newspeak do not deserve respect.

  50. Every bill proposing an “Assault Weapon” ban should be amended in committee, and passed into law, with the US Army definition which includes a select fire capability enabling auto fire, either burst and /or full. It won’t have a real effect but will explode anti gun heads and perhaps help educate the rest.

  51. We’re trying to educate the gun control crowd but they’re resisting with all their might.

  52. I try, (try) to explain that if you want to BRAND a person FOR LIFE with the “felon” label who was previously a law-abiding person, and throw them in a rape cage for 10 years and permanently withdraw their constitutional rights, just for things they happen to own at the time, you had better god-damn well know what THE FUCK you are talking about.

    The thingie that goes up, weppunz uv woar!, 10 thousand roundz a minute, high-powered assault riflez, clippy clips, arbitrary 10 rounds (nice round number, right?)… all these “things” have CRIMINAL consequences. Fuck you, idiots.

    This shit gets really old when you’re talking about THROWING ME IN PRISON and you don’t know your ass from a hole in the ground.

  53. The legal difference between a pistol (that has a rifled barrel (perfectly legal) and a SBR short barreled rifle (direct ticket to pound-you-in-the-ass federal prison) is not the length of the barrel, or the type of ammunition or the actual functional moving and shooting parts of the gun. It is if it has a stock. A stock- an inert piece of wood, plastic or metal behind the functional parts of the gun. You can get a pistol grip AR-15 with a 10 inch barrel, but attach a piece of wood behind it long enough to rest it on your shoulder and it has magically transformed from a gun to a SBR.

    1. Well, yeah. That’s what definitions are for. To define thing A and thing B and how they are different.

      The ATF defines a pistol as being held in one hand and having a grip that extends below the barrel, and a rifle as a weapon designed to be fired from the shoulder. Is that controversial now?

      1. It has always been controversial, because there’s absolutely no difference in terms of “deadliness” to justify the differences.

        The distinctions are completely arbitrary. Enforcing them is capricious.

  54. So, does this guy prefer that we just call him a snotty little gun-grabbing cunt?


  55. However I am all for gun control- for the weapons used by the government.

    No non-military government agent or agency can own or use a firearm or other weapon that is not commonly available to the public. The military can only use those non-common weapons for training which shall not be against people or their property, or in accordance with a war declared by Congress.

    Non-military is a government employee, official, etc who is not a member of the armed forces such as the Army, Navy, Marines, Air Force, or Coast Guard.

    Commonly available is defined as available to 90% of the population above 15 years old, without a special permit, or prohibitive cost.

    A special permit is defined as a permit that costs more than $10, OR takes more than a week to process, OR is available to less than 90% of applicants.

  56. The murder rate for Europe, Oceana and Asia is 3 per 100,000.…..icide_rate

    The murder rate for whites in the US is 3 per 100,000

    The murder rate for blacks is 20 per 100,000.

    1. ProPublica: How the Gun Control Debate Ignores Black Lives


      America’s high rate of gun murders isn’t caused by events like Sandy Hook. It’s fueled by the deaths of black men. Gun control advocates and politicians frequently cite the statistic that more than 30 Americans are murdered with guns every day. What’s rarely mentioned is that roughly 15 of the 30 are black men.

      Even in high-crime cities, the risk of gun violence is mostly concentrated among a small number of men. In Oakland, for instance, crime experts found that about 1,000 active members of a few dozen street groups drove most homicides. That’s 0.3 percent of Oakland’s population. And even within this subgroup, risk fluctuated according to feuds and other beefs. In practical terms, the experts found that over a given stretch of several months only about 50 to 100 men are at the highest risk of shooting someone or getting shot.

      Many cities tried the strategy and some got dramatic results. Stockton saw a 42 percent reduction in monthly gun homicides over several years. Indianapolis experienced a 34 percent drop in monthly homicides. Lowell, Massachusetts, saw gun assaults fall by 44 percent.

  57. “The difference between “brakes” and “breaks” may be a mere typo on Facebook.”

    Actually, no. It’s not a typo – which would be “braeks” or “brkaes” – it’s actually ignorance, or confusion caused by a poor education, perhaps yet another demonstration of the perils of a government education…

  58. I gunspain, mansplain, and all other sorts of ‘splain all the time to people… Because they’re idiots. It’s not my fault if people don’t know their ass from a hole in the ground. I usually do it in a nice way, with a non aggressive tone of voice, in an attempt to actually talk sense into people, versus just get into a fight.

    But you CANNOT let stupidity go unchallenged. Half the reason things have got so horrible in this country is that people who knew the correct way to do shit on a lot of issues just sighed and shook their head at the idiots instead of crushing them into the dirt with their superior knowledge of the issues. The left has taken to insulting and shaming people for decades, from incorrect positions I might add, while smarter libertarian/conservatives tolerated their BS instead of shaming them right back for their stupidity.

    We, the CORRECT side, need to start insulting, shaming, and belittling these morons again. Social shaming works, and if we simply make people feel so stupid they won’t dare open their mouths every time they want to utter a word on some subject they know nothing about, THAT is how we will take back the narrative, and ultimately win. We need to stop being so nice, they just don’t deserve it.

    1. We need communists to be afraid of opening their mouths and saying out loud in public that they’re communists, for fear of being laughed out of the entire room. That’s what they’ve done to us, and it’s high time we pay them back.

      I really do feel momentum is on the side of conservative/libertarian ideas right now because of the overreach of the left, so let us not waste our opportunity to push that Overton window!

  59. “Gunsplaining” would not be needed if gun control zealots did not so frequently use fake terms or misrepresent certain guns in their attempt to create fear and panic. Calling an AR 15, a “weapon of war” or calling for a ban on “automatic weapons” is a good example of why this happens. Toss in the way the misuse facts, such as you can buy a gun at a gun show or off the internet, without talking about the very limited circumstances when this is possible. On Gabby Giffords’ website, it says that 98% of dealers at gun show are unlicensed. Technically this is true. What they fail to say is those dealers are not selling guns, but other items that do not require the seller to have a license. Bottom line, if gun control advocates are tired of “gunsplaining”, they need to do one simple thing, stop lying.

  60. “Gunsplaining,” Weinstein declares, “is always done in bad faith. Like mansplaining, it’s less about adding to the discourse than smothering it.”

    He is mansplaining and anti-gunsplaining in his crusade against gunsplaining.

    Orwellian nightmare.

  61. What amuses me most about the current round of “gun control” is the emphasis on “bump stocks”, something I can safely bet almost no Americans and nobody in Congress had heard of before Las Vegas. And let it be said: there was no evidence that bump stocks had any effect on the killings in Vegas, nor have bump stocks figured in any other mass shooting that I know of.

    But they are low-hanging fruit, and so everyone from Dianne Feinstein to the NRA supports such a ban. Feinstein because she is so stupid she thinks it will actually mean something, and the NRA because they know that stupid people like Feinstein will think they actually accomplished something with such a ban and may therefore sit down and shut up for a while.

    1. “there was no evidence that bump stocks had any effect on the killings in Vegas, nor have bump stocks figured in any other mass shooting that I know of.”

      Guns save lives. How many lives have bump stacks saved?

      1. And until their innocence can be proved, guilt must be assumed!

        1. Bump stacks have rights too!

      2. Quite a lot, when you start counting triggers that make it easier to accurately shoot a rifle!

        1. Did they save any during that recent dust up in the desert?

          1. What do you mean, “did they save any during that recent dust up in the desert?” We’re talking about future law here. The law proposed would define anything that increases the rate of fire to be a “bump stock”. That language is so ambiguous, a crisper, lighter trigger that would technically change the rate of fire from 70 rounds per minute to 80 rounds per minute, despite having to pull the trigger each time to shoot those rounds, will count as a “bump stock”.

            It is these “bump stocks” that have the potential to save lives.

            Incidentally, it’s also why the Bump Stock Ban was Dead On Arrival. They did much more than just ban bump stocks.


            1. I was curious how many lives Bump Stocks have saved.

              1. The relevant questions are “have they killed anyone who wouldn’t’ve died had the stock been absent” and “can a simple piece of plastic with a spring in it be prohibited”.

              2. When the definition of “bump stock” includes triggers (the part of the gun that allows your booger finger to make the device go “bang”) then bump stocks have, indeed, saved many lives.

  62. I wish someone would gunsplain the meaning of ‘militia.’

    1. It’s the right of the people bit that matters.

      1. Surely you can do better than ‘it doesn’t matter.’ Next you’ll be telling us that it doesn’t really matter whether I call it a bump stack or a bump stock.

        1. Assuming you were implying that “militia” means “state-sanctioned organization” rather than “private individuals”, it is, indeed, the right of the people bit that matters.

          And your spelling error doesn’t matter either. I’m not a Grammar Sturmtruppen.

          1. You’re a liberal at heart. The mispelling was intentional. Because of irony, a rhetorical device. Though it looses whatever potential it had for humour or enlightenment when I had to rhetoricalsplain it.

            1. Actually, it lost that potential when I decided to give you the benefit of the doubt, rather than jump at the opportunity to “gunsplain” your nomenclatural error as you clearly hoped someone would.

    2. To paraphrase @Tricky Vic (old school):

      Steady employment, being necessary to the financial security of a prosperous State, the right of the people to keep and use vehicles, shall not be infringed.

      It’s a supporting reason, not the only one.

      1. It’s in need of a less mealy-mouthed editor if you ask me.

        1. Ad-hominem. I don’t care, I didn’t ask.

      2. In a similar vein,

        An educated Electorate, being necessary for a sound and reasonable Representative Democracy, the right of the people to keep and print books, shall not be infringed.

        Are we willing to make the argument that, because the Electorate isn’t all that educated, we can stop the printing of books, and close down the libraries?

        Actually, it’s probably a good thing that the 1st Amendment wasn’t written this way, because this is exactly what Congress, and what many people here today, would probably argue…

    3. Actually, the person who WROTE the 2nd explained HIS definition of the militia years after it was written. Without bothering to google the exact quote he essentially said that the militia is all of the people in the country, except perhaps a few politicians. So if you want to know what they meant by militia, perhaps you should use the meaning intended by the guy who wrote it???

    4. The militia, as per the US Code (I’m not going to bother looking up chapter and verse at this time, but it’s easy enough for you to search for, if you really like to look for it) is “all males between the ages of 17 and 65, and all females in the reserve National Guard”. This is the “organized militia”.

      The “unorganized militia” is pretty much anyone who can shoot a gun.

      This militia is “necessary for a free State” (old-timey language that means “we cannot be a free society”), unless every man, woman, and sufficiently responsible child, can be prepared to take up arms against a tyrannical government, or an invasive foreign government, or to organize at times when the government cannot come and help. (Usually in times of natural disaster, but it’s not difficult to imagine times of foreign invasion or civil unrest to where this happens too.)
      (to be continued…)

      1. (…continued)
        The militia needs to be “well-regulated”, which is old-timey language that means “working as expected”; this means that every man, woman and child should be taught in the proper use and care of their weapons, and be prepared to use them in times of emergency. Congress has been given special charge to do this — that is, Congress can require every high school, and probably every junior high and middle school as well, to have a rifle team and to teach everyone how to use a rifle. Since Congress has not done this, the National Rifle Association was founded to make sure everyone learns this stuff. In recent decades, it has become clear that the NRA also needed to participate in politics, because if Congress had their way, no one would be able to own any sort of arm, and thus, it would become impossible for the militia to become “well-regulated”.

        /is this enough gunsplaining for you?

        (Incidentally, this isn’t the first, nor the last, time I’ve gunsplained the militia clause. Nor am I the first to do it!)

      2. Your ‘splaining doesn’t cover why the second amendment refers to “a” militia, not “the” militia, which is that each of the states was expected to maintain one, not the federal government. In fact, the Constitution has provisions in it to discourage the federal government from keeping a standing army (although keeping an active navy was OK). Like everything else in the Constitution prior to the fourteenth amendment, it was intended that each state would decide for itself how to manage its affairs, as its residents saw fit.

        You managed to get an awful lot of details wrong. (Compare your definitions with the actual ones, located at 10 U.S.C. 311.) In total, you made a critical mistake in your understanding of the Constitution (This statement “Congress has been given special charge to do this — that is, Congress can require…” is just flat out incorrect. Training the militia is expressly reserved to the states) , and several serious mistakes in your understanding of the statutes governing the militia. Then there’s this paranoid fantasy: ” if Congress had their way, no one would be able to own any sort of arm”.

        As a ‘splainer, you gots some ‘splainin’ to do, Lucy.

        1. I believe the relevant clauses in the Constitution are Article 1, Section 8, Clauses 15, 16:

          To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

          To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

          The Second Amendment refers to “a” militia, and not “the” militia, because the Second Amendment is comparing populations with a militia with populations that don’t have a militia, and concluding that populations without militias cannot be free.

          Oh, and the “If Congress had their way, no one would be able to own any sort of arm” issue would be paranoia, except for the fact that it’s not at all hard to find quotes from Congress critters expressing this exact sentiment. Indeed, the only reason why Congress hasn’t succeeded is because we the People hold their feet to the fire every time they try.

  63. I am not a paid product promoter, but the Big Horn Model 89 lever action long version in 500 S & W holds 10 in the tube and one in the chamber. The hard-cast bullet the way I load it makes 3,500 ft-lbs and will go through a buffalo length-wise. (well, pert near)

    Way back in 1941 Navy demolition teams (the pre-SEALs) carried Winchester 30-30 carbines, because they worked better than the semi-autos of the day in sand and mud after a rudimentary flushing out. Ballistics were quite similar to the 7.62×39.

  64. I know that some folks do use nomenclature as a means to avoid having to debate. Some others use it as a means to be condescending. However, some folks use just the opposite to do exactly the same. That’s how I read Weinstein’s article. He seeks to avoid debate by labeling anyone who wants to use exact definitions as “gunsplaining.” He’s condescending to those who think the terms have some value in the debate.
    I’d like to think that the vast majority of folks use nomenclature as a means of trying to communicate effectively. “Words mean things.” and it’s important to at least try to use the right words, which means it’s also important to learn what those words actually mean.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.