Isn’t it a significant difference that by drinking a beer I cannot kill (simply the act, not drinking too much and driving ...) but I can by discharging a gun intentionally, recklessly, negligently or unintelligently? Further, watch Chris Rock: “we don’t need gun control, we need bullet control. If a bullet cost $5,000 there wouldn’t be any stray bullet shootings. He must’ve done something to get two bullets in his ass ... “
As someone who’s spent a decent amount of his career working on red state democratic campaigns, it’s always been obvious to me that red state candidates need a high profile issue or two they can break with national democrats on to say “I’m not like those other democrats” and fundamentally I’d much prefer it were guns then women’s rights or racial justice. Guns seem like a small price to pay against those larger apostasies.
I believe the morally extreme thinking (signaling) comes from the fact that mass-shootings are a uniquely, horrifying spectacle. People are not statistical thinkers. It's hard to drum up mass concern about quiet suicides (even though they are the largest part of the problem). I can't think of a similar alcohol-related phenomenon. I still agree with the comparison, but I think those events are the shrapnel breaking down an otherwise (mostly) functional approach to this topic.
The comparison to alcohol isn’t particularly compelling to me. Sure, I support alcohol being legal to own, consume, and sell, but with significant restrictions on it. Liquor licenses are required for businesses that want to sell alcohol, laws exist to curb public consumption of alcohol, and drunk driving checkpoints and arrests are common. Most alcohol drinkers frown upon drunk driving, and agree with laws that penalize it harshly.
Let’s take another norm - driving cars. Car accidents are a major cause of injury and death in the United States. An estimated 38,000 people died in car accidents in the US in 2019. Yet we mostly accept the norm of driving cars on our streets and highways. Yet we have this very restrictive policy that requires training and license to operate a motor vehicle, and we accept restrictions on the speed at which we may travel. And we are accustomed to the norm of police monitoring roads and highways and requiring you to stop if you drive too fast. And you can be jailed for driving without a license, or a suspended license. In fact, you can be compelled to provide documentation not just of your license to drive, but proof of liability insurance! And yet somehow we mostly comply with these laws, and do not perceive them as government tyranny, but sound and sensible policy.
So advocacy of a popular policy ("close the gun show loophole") leads voters to associate you with a a much less popular one ("get the guns"). In another context, advocating "limited amnesty" will raise the ire of those who know that deep down you must really want to have "open borders" even if you say no such thing. Factoring in other examples like healthcare ("socialized medicine") or police reform ("defund the police") it starts to feel like this dynamic impedes incremental, progressive reform on very many issues.
So maybe we shouldn't be fighting for gun control, but how do we credibly signal moderate/pragmatic positions on the issues we do focus on?
One issue you surprisingly left out here is that the Supreme Court will not allow any regulation of guns that could possibly meaningfully decrease gun ownership. An en banc call in the Third Circuit on an opinion upholding *magazine limits* just narrowly failed today.
One example of this is Rob Sand, who's the great hope of the Iowa Democratic Party because of his apparent skill at holding down rural margins and emphasizes his love for bowhunting constantly in all of his media. He's a state auditor so gun policy isn't part of his portfolio and he never talks about it as far as I know. Watch out for him in a high-profile race in 2022; my hunch is he will run for governor but there's a lot of speculation that he'll run for Senate if Grassley retires.
One thing the Democrats should be more honest about, especially internally, is that the real objective of the assault weapon ban and the reality of how it was written and how states have tried to implement their own versions. When people talk about weapons of war and the like, they are frankly saying semi automatic magazine fed rifles. Almost all legislation tries to much more narrowly define that to basically ban the cosmetic features of the AR-15 and AK-47 platform. If this is the policy goal, you have to be honest about it. Banning the features of them is like trying to ban sports cars by making it illegal to have racing stripes or a car model named "Mustang". I don't think "forcibly confiscate tens of millions of rifles from millions of Americans" is a real policy goal Democrats have, but they work themselves into winking at this (thanks Beto!) which is a lose-lose of implying you have an extreme policy while actually only having the stomach for a mild one.
I don't think mass-confiscation would work, or is a policy Democrats could ever win an election on (this is also the thing all those militias talk about, look up the boogaloo movement) so Dems should drop that language and focus up on things that involve enforcing laws against black market dealing and straw purchases or work towards making basic responsible firearm ownership rules and guidelines (safe storage, liability, strict rules preventing carelessness, reporting stolen guns) state and federal law.
The alcohol analogy is really poor. The vast majority of alcohol related deaths are self inflicted. And they are non violent, and slow, and preventable and/or treatable. This is just a really weak comparison to gun deaths, with which they have almost nothing in common. (In category terms at least - clearly the Venn diagram has some overlap. But only a small proportion of alcohol deaths are also gun deaths).
Matt sometimes you have to step back and look at the big picture. Gun violence (not just deaths) is a terrible thing in American society. The activists who campaign for gun control are on the right side of history. Politics is a process yes but it sometimes calls for real leadership. Even if it starts slow with minor tweaks in regulation, even if it costs them votes, the Ds should be acting on this and should be fighting the NRA because that is the right thing to do and if you aren't doing the right thing for your people why even be in politics?
Taken to an extreme your argument could be extended to anything - Ds should embrace Racism to win Trump voters! No. NO NO NO NO NO.
In Australia and New Zealand, it is not difficult to get a licence for a rifle, but it is very hard to get a handgun licence. Gun ownership is quite common in rural areas, but the firearms fatality rate is pretty low.
Hi, Matt. Has your analysis changed at all given Biden’s new push for an assault weapons ban?
Isn’t it a significant difference that by drinking a beer I cannot kill (simply the act, not drinking too much and driving ...) but I can by discharging a gun intentionally, recklessly, negligently or unintelligently? Further, watch Chris Rock: “we don’t need gun control, we need bullet control. If a bullet cost $5,000 there wouldn’t be any stray bullet shootings. He must’ve done something to get two bullets in his ass ... “
As someone who’s spent a decent amount of his career working on red state democratic campaigns, it’s always been obvious to me that red state candidates need a high profile issue or two they can break with national democrats on to say “I’m not like those other democrats” and fundamentally I’d much prefer it were guns then women’s rights or racial justice. Guns seem like a small price to pay against those larger apostasies.
Bear, not bare:
"but research does not bare that out."
Matt, do you want to be told about your typos?
Is this a good place to tell you?
Thanks! <3
I believe the morally extreme thinking (signaling) comes from the fact that mass-shootings are a uniquely, horrifying spectacle. People are not statistical thinkers. It's hard to drum up mass concern about quiet suicides (even though they are the largest part of the problem). I can't think of a similar alcohol-related phenomenon. I still agree with the comparison, but I think those events are the shrapnel breaking down an otherwise (mostly) functional approach to this topic.
The comparison to alcohol isn’t particularly compelling to me. Sure, I support alcohol being legal to own, consume, and sell, but with significant restrictions on it. Liquor licenses are required for businesses that want to sell alcohol, laws exist to curb public consumption of alcohol, and drunk driving checkpoints and arrests are common. Most alcohol drinkers frown upon drunk driving, and agree with laws that penalize it harshly.
Let’s take another norm - driving cars. Car accidents are a major cause of injury and death in the United States. An estimated 38,000 people died in car accidents in the US in 2019. Yet we mostly accept the norm of driving cars on our streets and highways. Yet we have this very restrictive policy that requires training and license to operate a motor vehicle, and we accept restrictions on the speed at which we may travel. And we are accustomed to the norm of police monitoring roads and highways and requiring you to stop if you drive too fast. And you can be jailed for driving without a license, or a suspended license. In fact, you can be compelled to provide documentation not just of your license to drive, but proof of liability insurance! And yet somehow we mostly comply with these laws, and do not perceive them as government tyranny, but sound and sensible policy.
So advocacy of a popular policy ("close the gun show loophole") leads voters to associate you with a a much less popular one ("get the guns"). In another context, advocating "limited amnesty" will raise the ire of those who know that deep down you must really want to have "open borders" even if you say no such thing. Factoring in other examples like healthcare ("socialized medicine") or police reform ("defund the police") it starts to feel like this dynamic impedes incremental, progressive reform on very many issues.
So maybe we shouldn't be fighting for gun control, but how do we credibly signal moderate/pragmatic positions on the issues we do focus on?
One issue you surprisingly left out here is that the Supreme Court will not allow any regulation of guns that could possibly meaningfully decrease gun ownership. An en banc call in the Third Circuit on an opinion upholding *magazine limits* just narrowly failed today.
One example of this is Rob Sand, who's the great hope of the Iowa Democratic Party because of his apparent skill at holding down rural margins and emphasizes his love for bowhunting constantly in all of his media. He's a state auditor so gun policy isn't part of his portfolio and he never talks about it as far as I know. Watch out for him in a high-profile race in 2022; my hunch is he will run for governor but there's a lot of speculation that he'll run for Senate if Grassley retires.
One thing the Democrats should be more honest about, especially internally, is that the real objective of the assault weapon ban and the reality of how it was written and how states have tried to implement their own versions. When people talk about weapons of war and the like, they are frankly saying semi automatic magazine fed rifles. Almost all legislation tries to much more narrowly define that to basically ban the cosmetic features of the AR-15 and AK-47 platform. If this is the policy goal, you have to be honest about it. Banning the features of them is like trying to ban sports cars by making it illegal to have racing stripes or a car model named "Mustang". I don't think "forcibly confiscate tens of millions of rifles from millions of Americans" is a real policy goal Democrats have, but they work themselves into winking at this (thanks Beto!) which is a lose-lose of implying you have an extreme policy while actually only having the stomach for a mild one.
I don't think mass-confiscation would work, or is a policy Democrats could ever win an election on (this is also the thing all those militias talk about, look up the boogaloo movement) so Dems should drop that language and focus up on things that involve enforcing laws against black market dealing and straw purchases or work towards making basic responsible firearm ownership rules and guidelines (safe storage, liability, strict rules preventing carelessness, reporting stolen guns) state and federal law.
The alcohol analogy is really poor. The vast majority of alcohol related deaths are self inflicted. And they are non violent, and slow, and preventable and/or treatable. This is just a really weak comparison to gun deaths, with which they have almost nothing in common. (In category terms at least - clearly the Venn diagram has some overlap. But only a small proportion of alcohol deaths are also gun deaths).
In 2018, 61% of US gun deaths were from suicide.
*Democrats should avoid culture war issues like this and focus on issues which have a direct impact on people’s economic well being.*
Is there a way to post this comment on every post on this blog?
Matt sometimes you have to step back and look at the big picture. Gun violence (not just deaths) is a terrible thing in American society. The activists who campaign for gun control are on the right side of history. Politics is a process yes but it sometimes calls for real leadership. Even if it starts slow with minor tweaks in regulation, even if it costs them votes, the Ds should be acting on this and should be fighting the NRA because that is the right thing to do and if you aren't doing the right thing for your people why even be in politics?
Taken to an extreme your argument could be extended to anything - Ds should embrace Racism to win Trump voters! No. NO NO NO NO NO.
ok michael kinsley
In Australia and New Zealand, it is not difficult to get a licence for a rifle, but it is very hard to get a handgun licence. Gun ownership is quite common in rural areas, but the firearms fatality rate is pretty low.
Great post. Solid arguments.