Whenever I talk gun policy with someone, the first thing I do is consider the source. I’ve got an extensive background with firearms, I was trained for and passed a law enforcement qualification, and I’ve been through a select fire course and an instructor development course for the same occupation. I’ve got numerous qualifications as an armorer for various makes to my name. I have an almost encyclopedic knowledge of guns. Understand that I’m not trying to wind my own horn. I’m trying to say that this invariably exposes a problem when trying to have an intelligent conversation about gun policy with most liberals. There are only two exceptions to this rule whom I know. One is an Army vet married to a family friend, the other is a Police firearms instructor in the county for which I work. When either speak on this topic, I’ll listen closely to whatever they have to say and ask them why afterwards because I know the background knowledge is there, so whatever opinions they hold won’t be based on ignorance.

However, when I discuss the same topic with anyone else, I’ll ask a few questions. Is the person with whom I am speaking well versed and practiced in dealing with firearms? Or are they purely an academic with no real experience with guns on a day-in, day-out basis. Can this source quickly answer without google when asked: What is a sear? What about a disconnector? A series 80 firing system? The difference between a magazine and a clip? The difference between an automatic weapon and a semi-automatic one? The difference between single and double action? If you, the reader can’t get a straight answer from your source on these very basic questions on this topic. It is a good time to strongly suspect ignorance. No, Rachel Maddow is not a firearms expert, and it is unlikely that anyone else on network TV other than Tom Selleck and a handful of others are. What I’m getting at, is that in order to have an intelligent discussion about gun policy, both parties have to have some basic knowledge of firearms. Knowledge which can only be gained by using guns. A lot. This is where things usually jump the shark.

Hands properly grasp a 45 caliber pistol being used at a target range. It’s indicative of the tone deafness of gun culture at large that the Gunsite Academy logo on the side of this pistol looks so close the third reich’s eagle standard, and no one in the gun community seems to notice or be bothered if they do. Image source http://www.gunnuts.net/2010/11/09/colt-xse-rail-gun/

Generally speaking I won’t try to change minds or educate someone on the spot. That can lead to argument with a friend whose only fault is that they lack a bit of knowledge and experience and I’m too polite to casually tell someone that they don’t have the requisite knowledge to discuss the topic. That doesn’t mean that I write off these opinions as invalid, but I do flag them as uninformed. It is akin to the problem we face in healthcare policy or sex-ed policy. Imagine how you would react if people making regulations for school health class had no medical or educational training whatsoever and couldn’t tell you the difference between the pancreas and gallbladder. Makes absolutely no sense right? The same applies to gun policy for the same reason.

There is a new term for when pro-gun people who are somewhat less polite do this, “Gun-splaining.” Adam Weinstein of Task and Purpose recently penned a piece in The Washington Post about this phenomenon. He frames Gun-splaining as the use of proper terminology to de-legitimize any argument that an anti-gun advocate might make. While I have a healthy respect for his opinions and his writing, I think he misses that this is a reaction to an exposed ignorance, in other words, a reaction to a betrayal of a lack of requisite experience. Example: If you’ve got a background in physics, and someone is talking with you about physics, and it becomes clear that they don’t know their light wavelengths or what a quantum shift is in relation to those wavelengths, that should tell you almost everything you need to know about their knowledge of physics.

The fix for this isn’t slapping a label on the exposure of ignorance. The fix is for those people who are ignorant to become educated. Knowledge and education conquer all. Who doesn’t want to be well versed and experienced? I can have a great deal of respect for someone who is simply ignorant, but I have absolutely no respect for someone who remains willfully ignorant, even when offered the chance to learn. This latter condition is one all too common among well meaning liberals and it instantly removes any validity their opinions and feelings might otherwise have on this subject.

recreational shooting at ranges like this one are a very popular destination in the United States. Many of the patrons do not own guns of their own, but rent them by the hour for use inside the range only. Many of these ranges offer classes and one-on-one time with qualified instructors. Credit http://www.sportsdesign.no/standplass.html

So if you can’t answer any of those questions which I would ask someone about action modes, sears, disconnectors, and magazines; ask one of your pro-gun friends to take you to the range. They’ll be only too happy to take you. Better yet, take a class which covers all the technical stuff and then go to the range and make it regular thing. Only then will you begin to build the knowledge and experience base necessary to inform your opinions. Begin to build. Like any other educational endeavor, this is going to cost you significant time, effort, and money. Once spent though, you’ll have a good baseline for further development, and you might just be surprised how much your opinions on guns evolve as a result of your newfound experience. Whatever you do don’t go to the range once, or take a single day class and hold yourself as having met the prerequisite for knowledge and experience. One does not go to a talk by Neil DeGrasse Tyson and then claim to have a basic understanding of Astro-Physics solely because of it.