Editor’s Note: This article was written before Vice President Joe Biden’s announcement that he was not running for president.

Like many Americans, I am affected everyday by the legislation instituted by our Legislative and Executive branches.  With this in mind, it’s reasonable for us as citizens to desire that the legislation passed is done so by individuals with at least a working knowledge of the subject area. Yet, sadly, this has proven to be far from the truth. This phenomenon is no more apparent than in cases regarding the second amendment of the United States Constitution.  And in recent years this conversation has become significantly heightened, with the emergence of tragic losses of life throughout the nation, as well as the discussion of gun control as it relates to the 2016 presidential candidates’ platforms.

This nation has repeatedly seen legislation ushered in under the guise of “common sense,” yet upon examination by any individual with any practical knowledge of firearms, the truth becomes quickly apparent that politicians have no idea what they are talking about. The disheartening fact is that these politicians have actually been successful in passing this legislation, rather that laughed off of the Senate floor by those with actual hands-on experience with the operation and usage of firearms such as hunters, shooting instructors, soldiers, etc.  

Now I myself by no means claim to be an expert, which is why I have gone to such great lengths to go out and educate myself on the topic in both the academic and practical realms. Wise individuals are ones who understand when they are out of their depths, and consults experts whenever they wade into areas in which they are unfamiliar. That is something I have always tried to embrace whenever I have a firearms question. Although I would still gladly put my knowledge, practical experience and skill against most anti-second amendment politicians, including any of those I specifically identify today.  

With the election cycle in full swing, it’s incredibly pertinent to inspect some of the politicians who are unknowledgeable on the firearms they desire to regulate. The most significant among this group is our very own Vice President Joe Biden, a gun-control crusader and rumored Democratic candidate.

The best way to illustrate Biden’s lack of real-world defensive firearm knowledge is to look at his own words, such as those in his now famous “get a shotgun” interview.  As part of a Facebook virtual town hall meeting, Biden fielded some questions sent in by the readers of Parents Magazine in response to President Obama’s renewed push for an assault rifle ban. In answering one question sent in by a woman named Kate, the Vice President decided to describe to the American people the way that all Americans should embrace their right to self-defense:

“Kate, if you want to protect yourself, get a double barrel shotgun; have the shells of 12 gauge shotgun.”

Mr. Vice President, I ask you, “What are ‘shells of 12 gauge shotgun?’”  A shotgun is loaded with shotgun shells that traditionally fire slugs, birdshot or buckshot, but they never fire “shotgun.”  The fact that Biden lacks even the most basic knowledge of firearm operations or terminology is certainly a significant detriment to his credibility with regards to firearms.  

Now I’m willing to give Mr. Biden the benefit of the doubt. People misspeak and this could be a simple jargon mix-up that does not have to be representative of a flawed understanding of firearms.  But let’s keep looking.

“I said Jill, if there is ever any problem, just walk out on the balcony here, walk out, put [out] that double barreled shotgun, and fire two blasts.”

For those of you unfamiliar with a double barrel shotgun, this is a firearm that has two barrels, either side-by-side or on top of one another, that are each loaded individually; the entire firearm must be reloaded after every two shots.  In the most basic terms this means that after “two blasts” the gun must be reloaded, which means that Biden just suggested that his wife use all her ammunition immediately, at no specific target, in the hope that it scares any would-be criminal to the point of fleeing.  

However, what happens if the criminal, or worse criminals, don’t run away?  What happens if these criminals are armed?  Well now, your adrenaline is pumping, your hands are shaking and you are trying to fish out shotgun shells from your bathrobe (if you were even lucky enough to grab a few extras) while what might be a hardened criminal descends on you and your now empty shotgun.  

There is another massive issue with this statement, specifically with reference to, “if there is a problem… walk out… and fire….”  This violates multiple rules of firearm safety and is truly dangerous.  I wish I could say that I was the first to notice this observation, but it was actually pointed out by Attorney and NRA spokesperson Colion Noir.  He points out the Vice President is suggesting that in the case of a “problem,” one should simply walk outside and discharge their firearm.  

However, this practice breaks even the most basic firearm-handling rules.  One such rule is “know your target and what lies behind it.”  Unfortunately a “problem” is not an accurate description of a target.  Maybe screaming or the snapping of sticks characterize this problem, yet how do we know that these sounds actually characterize a threat?

At this point, the Vice President has suggested that if you are ever put in a position that requires you to defend yourself, you use “shells of 12 gauge shotgun” (a non-existent round) in your double barrel shotgun, which you then fire indiscriminately from the porch of your home until you have emptied the gun (after only two rounds mind you).  Furthermore he apparently believes that all criminals, whether they be armed, professional, motivated, trained or all of the above, are deterred by the sound of two shotgun blasts even if that second one leaves you completely defenseless for at least a few moments.

In the last few moments of the interview, the Vice President goes on to describe to his listeners what they do and do not need for self-defense, and even attempts to impart some “technical knowledge” on the inferiority of other weapons platforms.   Well Mr. Vice President, I think you have proven just how much firearm knowledge you have committed yourself to gaining before you began your crusade against them.  

It is a sad fact that this lack of regard for practical firearm safety rules is not limited to the office of the Vice President, but is also found in our legislature.  California Senator Dianne Feinstein once spent an entire press conference breaking gun handling rule number one, to keep your finger off the trigger unless you are willing to destroy what you are pointing at.

Feinstein has long been an advocate for assault rifle bans and has been an extremely vocal critic of the second amendment. She has used multiple pulpits from the Senate floor to press conferences such as the one referenced below.  Regardless of the platform, her message has always been the same: guns are dangerous and should be banned. Yet she lacks the very knowledge that would allow her to operate a firearm properly and in the same way millions of law-abiding gun owners do.

During a presentation in which she extolled the evils of firearms, she decided it would add dramatic effect if she brandished an AK-47 rifle while she spoke.  During this time, there was one occurrence that even the most novice shooter would notice: throughout the entire conference, the crowd repeatedly found themselves looking down the barrel of her rifle, with Feinstein’s finger resting firmly on the trigger. The fact that Ms. Feinstein would commit such an egregious safety omission, one that any sportsman is taught to avoid on day one, says something about her competence to comment on the issue.  It’s rather hard to have faith in anyone’s ability or knowledge on how to fix gun “issues” and rid the world of “the dangers of firearms” while staring down the barrel of a rifle they are holding with their finger pressed against the trigger.

As an American citizen I can’t directly make the laws that govern our nation, but I can hope that those who can at least take a little time learning about a topic that they know nothing about before they start grabbing for a microphone and preaching to anyone who will listen.  No one expects politician to know everything about every topic, but nothing hurts their credibility more than when they pretend to and then clearly show the opposite.  So before we mindlessly jump on the ideas of the loudest voice or most emotional appeal from the sea of politicians, let’s ask ourselves, “Do they actually know what they are talking about?”