It was only yesterday morning when The Washington Post ran an embarrassing piece on “gunsplaining” — essentially the piece argued that gun control advocates with no hands-on experience with guns were being “harangued with the pedantry of the more-credible-than-thou firearms owner” who actually knew the difference between a magazine and a clip.

But as many have pointed out: words and definitions matter, especially when legislators with no knowledge of guns and how they work are writing legislation to ban their sale or possession.

Vox’s Zack Beauchamp must have decided it wasn’t too late to soak up some of the mockery that the Post’s piece engendered, so he offered up a similar hot take using heroin as an analogy.

Um …

But seeing as we’re dealing with one of Vox’s “explainers” here …

We’re glad he agrees that the people writing the legislation should know what they’re talking about. But do they? We’re reminded they don’t every time Sen. Dianne Feinstein calls an AR-15 a “weapon of war.”

A reporter who mistakes earplugs for rubber bullets might want to brush up on gun terminology too.

But Parkland survivor Emma González said it was just that simple: “just remove the guns that cause the most carnage.”

Anyway, back to the war on drugs, um, guns:

 

Obligatory:

Yeah, it’s him.


Related: