Imagine that you are the world’s leading time-travel scientist (Dr. Emmett Brown is a simpleton compared to you). You have grown tired of hearing the endless political, legal, and historical debates about the meaning of the Second Amendment, so you decide to use your scientific know-how to help shed light on the matter. After months of painstaking work and experimentation you have completed a machine that will allow you to transport James Madison – architect of the Constitution, author of The Federalist Papers, drafter of the Bill of Rights – through time and space from his Montpelier estate into your laboratory. With the flick of a switch there is a bright flash of light, a puff of smoke, and there he is standing in front of you.
You quickly exclaim, “Mr. Madison! I know that this must be confusing to you, but we are in dire need of your assistance!” You then begin to explain to him the raging constitutional debates over gun control, the Supreme Court’s ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller, the radical advances in firearms technology over the past two centuries, and the problem of mass-shootings. As you go on a look of absolute horror grows on his face. You finally ask the question that everyone wants to know, “What does the Second Amendment mean, and what types of gun control are allowed?!”
Madison’s response, however, is highly disappointing. “What on earth are those monstrosities out there?” he asks and points out the window at the nearby Interstate.
You chuckle and explain, “Oh, those are just cars and trucks. We use them for transportation, and they have completely replaced horses, carts, and carriages. I guess it is kind of a big deal, but what we really need is for you to focus on the gun control question.”
“But what would happen,” he retorts, “if one of those things hit someone?”
“Well, they would almost certainly suffer a serious injury, and there is a good chance they could die. It happens all the time.”
“ALL THE TIME! How many people do you allow to die because of these things?” You grumble a little bit about how he should really focus on the important gun control issue, but to placate his curiosity you show him the CDC report on U.S. mortality rates. To his horror, Madison finds out that 37,757 Americans were killed by cars in 2015, and that traffic accidents are the leading cause of death for those under 25.
As Madison shakes his head in disbelief you casually mention, “Yeah, on top of the traffic deaths, cars also put out a lot of air pollution and are contributing to changing the entire Earth’s climate.”
With a grim resolve, Madison declares that he is going to do something about the horrifying status quo. Interestingly enough, while he is utterly unable to adjust to the existence of automobiles, he is completely unfazed by the Internet, and takes to social media like a fish to water. After quickly skimming the Wikipedia page on cars and binge watching the entire Fast & Furious franchise, he takes to Twitter to demand action.
@RealJamesMadison: How can we be so callous about the blood drenching our streets! We need commonsense car laws now!
You think to yourself, “Uh Oh. This can’t be good.”
@RealJamesMadison: The speeds at which people drive are insane! All automatic transmissions should be banned. If someone is in too much of a rush to shift their own gears how can we expect them to drive safely?
@RealJamesMadison: Air pollution is the worst! A catalytic converter should be mandatory on all new electric cars!
@RealJamesMadison: Why are we the only country in the world where drunk drivers regularly kill people on the streets. We must ban drunk driving now!
@RealJamesMadison: There is no reason why civilians need racing cars, they should be outlawed.
When someone responded to his tweet asking what he meant by “racing cars” he responds, “You know, fast cars designed for racing, they have things like racing stripes, spoilers, and are powered by rockets that burn rice.”
At this point you decide that things have gone too far, and you must intervene. “Look, James, I know that this is all new and shocking to you, but the fact of the matter is that most Americans have simply accepted the enormous danger associated with automobiles. And while the deaths connected to cars are tragic, we simply are not willing or able to live in a world without them.
“But maybe you are right that we have become far too callous about traffic deaths. Maybe something is very wrong with our society when our typical reaction to a traffic accident is to groan and worry about how it will slow down our daily commute. There probably are things that we can do to help lower the ghastly body count.
“But you must understand that what you are doing is not helping. You are making an ass of yourself. Your ignorance about the most basic facts of how cars function and existing traffic laws is evident to everyone but yourself. There is nothing commonsense about what you are proposing. Automatic transmissions have nothing to do with the speed people drive, a catalytic converter on an electric car is preposterous since an electric car does not emit pollutants, drunk driving – which occurs all around the world – is already a crime in every state of the Union, and I don’t even know how to begin explaining to you what is wrong with your so-called ‘racing car’ ban.
“I get that you are passionate about this, but why don’t you take a break from Twitter and I’ll take you for a spin in my car. We can sign you up for driving lessons, and we can find you some serious research about traffic fatalities and what can be done to help lower the risk of traffic accidents.”
Madison turns back to his Twitter account.
@RealJamesMadison: I am sick of hearing about your “thoughts and prayers.” We must do something NOW!
At this point you give up all hope and you walk back to your time machine, flip the switch, and send the Father of the Constitution back from whence he came.
If you have managed to suffer through my bizarre story about a time traveling, tweeting James Madison, you almost certainly know that my story is not about traffic fatalities. It is about gun control, or more precisely, talking about gun control.
There are few things that will drive a gun rights advocate crazier than the incoherent things that gun control advocates say about guns. Failing to understand basic firearms terminology like the difference between automatics and semi-automatics. Talking pure gibberish such as “multi-automatic round weapons.” Demanding the ban of a barrel shroud when you have no idea what a barrel shroud is. Vilifying a nebulous, ill-defined, and ever-changing class of weapons as “assault weapons.” The list goes on.
Gun rights advocates typically respond to these inaccurate, ignorant, or nonsensical statements with a mix of anger, mockery, and occasionally a half-hearted attempt to explain the error. The Washington Post recently published an op-ed by Adam Weinstein in which he coins the phrase “gunsplaining” to describe this response. In Weinstein’s view, gun control advocates are constantly beset by “Second Amendment enthusiasts who often diminish, or outright dismiss their views if they use imprecise firearms terminology” and are “harangued with the pedantry of the more-credible-than-thou firearms owner, admonished that [their] inferior knowledge of guns and their nomenclature puts and asterisk next to [their] opinion on gun control.”
While Weinstein acknowledges that gun control advocates are often ignorant, if not downright dishonest, in their calls for new gun laws, he insists that “[g]unsplaining, though, is always done in bad faith. Like mansplaining, it’s less about adding to the discourse than smothering it.” As he sees it, gun owners need to show endless patience with the willful ignorance of gun control advocates, and any attempt to point out that ignorance is nothing more than an attempt to shame the opposing side into silence.
Imagine, however, if we were discussing a different right. A right cherished by those on the left and vilified by the right: abortion. Pro-choice advocates constantly portray pro-lifers as being anti-science, religious zealots who don’t even understand basic biology. Does anyone remember Todd Akin’s 2012 campaign for the Senate? Akin, a Republican member of the House was running for Missouri’s Senate seat. As a long-time pro-lifer Akin was asked if he thought abortions should be allowed in cases of rape, and he stated that “from what I understand from doctors, that’s really rare. If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.”
Akin was ruthlessly pilloried by the left over this comment, the entire Republican establishment denounced him and then ran for the hills, and he ended up losing a race he should have easily won. The pro-choice crowd ruthlessly mocked Akin’s comment. It was a basic and easily verifiable medical fact that Akin was incorrect. It was the kind of statement that you might expect in a junior high sex-ed class, but you would be shocked to hear it from an adult, and horrified to hear it from a member of Congress.
Was this “abortionsplaining”? Was Akin just a hapless soul who made a harmless mistake and was then “harangued with the pedantry of the more-credible-than-thou [abortion supporter], admonished that [his] inferior knowledge of [pregnancy and its] nomenclature puts an asterisk next to [his] opinion on [abortion]”? No! Akin was a member of Congress, an aspiring Senator, who voted for laws that would bring the sword of the state down upon those who preformed and received abortions. He should have known better. It was his duty to know better.
I am a staunch pro-lifer, and I am glad Akin lost in disgrace. The last thing the pro-life movement needs is some wacky Senator who makes blatantly false statements about the facts of pregnancy. It is an embarrassment that does far more harm than good.
When you want to restrict another citizen’s freedom, and then employ nonsensical arguments to support your position, your fellow citizens are not going to respond well. They will become defensive, fearful, dismissive, and angry because you have proven that you don’t have any rational reason to restrict their freedom. You are simply responding out of an irrational, gut-level hatred, and irrational, gut-level hatred is a terrifying force. This is true about abortion, it is true about gun rights, and it is true about any other proposal to ban or regulate something.
Weinstein acknowledges that, “In this kind of war over words, both sides probably need to give a little.” But he then goes on to say that, “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.” This is exactly backwards. We live in a free society, and the onus is never on the citizen to explain or justify his own freedom. Instead the onus is on those who wish to restrict the freedom their fellow citizens to familiarize themselves with basic facts, articulate coherent arguments, and draft laws that will actually address the alleged problem.
I will close by conceding that it is rarely productive to respond to the ignorance of your fellow citizens with mockery or anger. We would all be better off if we responded with a genuine attempt to educate each other. I tend to draw the line, however, with public officials. When those who are trusted with the power of government attempt to criminalize something that they are woefully ignorant about, the proper response is indeed anger and ridicule. It is their duty to educate themselves on such matters. They owe us that much.