I woke up Sunday, not knowing that the following day a fellow classmate would accuse me of supporting school shootings. I walked downstairs, the smell of bacon and eggs wafting from the kitchen. I saw my dad. Reading glasses on with coffee in hand, but forgotten, staring intently at the Sunday paper. He was reading a article from The Washington Post. Being the nosy gremlin that I am, I promptly looked over his shoulder to see what article could possibly be so captivating.
It was titled: “How the NRA uses jargon to bully gun control supporters”. The article was based on arguments made by the NRA and many pro gun people that many Anti-gunners should not be taken seriously because they think that AR-15’s are machine guns, Don’t know the difference between a magazine and a clip, Think that “assault rifle” is a static class of weapon, ect ect ect. God forbid pro-gun people expect their opposition to know what their talking about right? sarcasm aside, I want to acknowledge the hypocrisy bleeding from the articles very title. The NRA uses jargon to bully gun control supporters. In this article, Adam Weinstein calls this “gunsplaining”
The Hypocrisy of this is truly astonishing. Anti-gun people, like Piers Morgan for example, tell pro-gun people that if they don’t support the brand of gun control that the anti-gun person supports, it’s because they just don’t care enough about the child victims of school shootings. Astonishing. So lets think about this, according to anti-gunner logic:
Pro-gun people expecting anti-gun people to be literate in the object they want to ban: Bullying
Anti-gun people saying Pro-gun people are complicit in the murder of children: Not bullying
The realization of this hypocrisy made me feel somewhere between amazed and frustrated. Despite this, when I got up this morning, I had almost forgotten about it. I would be reminded before I got home from school. The day went by smoothly, before I knew it, I was in my last class of the day. I was sitting in a group of about three other students, we had finished our work early, so we were just talking causally. Another student (who I will refer to as “Tom” for the purpose of identity protection) decided he’d ask me if I would be joining in on the school gun-control walkout protest tomorrow.
I told him I would not be joining the protest, and he asked me why with a smile and said “Just don’t feel like it?” and I said, “No, I just don’t believe in more gun control.” Instantly his eyes narrowed on me, the casual atmosphere was dead. A blanket of tension covered us. He ended up telling me that by not supporting increased gun control, I was supporting school shootings. That I was complicit in murder.
Tom was not giving a new argument. It’s not a argument at all really. It’s a old, tired statement made by people who base their arguments around the idea that their opposition is a bad person. Not that they have a flawed argument, or idea, but that they as a human being are flawed. This is a common leftist argument. Don’t like socialized medicine? you just don’t care about the sick. Don’t like social security? You just don’t care about the elderly. It’s amazing how they grant themselves this moral superiority.
You know how you come up with the best responses for arguments after they happen? If I could go back in time to when Tom said that to me, here’s what I would want to say: “To understand how I feel about that statement, Imagine how you would feel if I said that if you didn’t support President Trump’s Travel Ban, that means you support terrorist attacks on Americans by ISIS.” To clarify, I didn’t support Trump’s travel ban. However, this argument is structured the same way as one of the left’s. “if you don’t support my politics it’s because you’re just not as good of a person as me”.