This seems like a great example of a piece that wouldn't fit into Matt's mandate at Vox. I appreciate how provocative and persuasive it is. I started reading it with skepticism, but was sold by the end; it reminded me of Sam Harris's "Fireplace Delusion" essay https://samharris.org/the-fireplace-delusion/
I think these facts are all known to careful readers of excellent work from German Lopez and Dylan Matthews at Vox over the years. And the political analysis is similar to what I’ve said at the Weeds over the years.
My critique not just of Vox but of internet publishing in general is that this argument won’t “go viral” because it doesn’t reaffirm peoples feelings and it also doesn’t meet an SEO need. So there’s never value on publishing it, especially since it’s sure to anger some people.
To me this doesn't read very different from where you and other Vox authors have been for a long time, as you say. The thing I don't quite understand is as a founder of Vox, didn't you have wide latitude to write whatever you wanted? My naïve take is that if you published this at Vox while it wouldn't go viral, you'd probably get a least as many views as on a paid service like this one. Of course if you couldn't publish what you wanted then the point is moot.
But there's clearly value in it for somebody (see, this thread) even if it won't go viral; so in principle so long as the marginal traffic it brings to the site is greater than the anger it should be publishable. So how does these incentives actually manifest in practice? Is it:
- editorial pushback because of the risk that there will be blowback on the article that will lead to a viral take (potentially from within the org itself) that will lead to reader boycotts thus decreasing overall site virality?
- editorial pushback because of the risk of angering talented junior writers who are creating viral content who either will leave or won't work for Vox if these kinds of pieces are published?
- editorial incentives to promote other site content on front page, etc. that has higher virality chances, thus limiting its potential scope of impact of this writing among whichever non-viral groups that matter (congressional staffers?) vs. a blog where it'll be at the top for a day or two?
The Alcohol part could go viral among conservatives. Because it does reaffirm their existing beliefs. But given your audience that would be hard to do. I guess you could pick up the phone and beg every conservative you know to re tweet it. But that seams like book promotion level of work for little blog post that doesn’t even have adds. And if it did go viral among conservatives it wouldn’t help your current businesses model because conservatives might say I like this one story but I am not giving this new liberal money.
I can't speak for Matt's Mandate at Vox but I will say that I was already aware of most the points made by Matt here specifically because of Vox pieces I've read over the years (and possibly a Weeds episode or two). The sum total of that reading was that other than straight up reducing the number of guns, the only gun control measure that would lead to the kinds of outcomes we're looking for is restricting guns from people convicted of domestic violence crimes–something I'd never heard from a politician at the time (though I recently learned that Stacey Abrams supports it–maybe she's a Vox fan).
I'm for ultra-rigorous gun control; but I found this piece highly stimulating and ultimately -- depressingly -- convincing. Like your other stuff, it shows that you're both willing and able to follow facts and reason to a conclusion in which you're not invested.
I'm getting news and commentary from a variety of good sources, but I can see that I'll have a special need for Slow Boring. Thanks.
This is such a great post, but it’s one that I find it hard to comment on. I’m a gun owner. I own an AR. I understand where people are coming from, but because gun rights is intertwined with cultural issues, people become very passionate. And I think this passion combined with cultural views, blinds people from efficient decisions.
I just want to say, that I respect everyone’s opinions. And I hope everyone has a great holiday.
Gun control is the #1 least understood topic by liberals in my opinion. When conservatives complain that liberals know nothing about guns: I completely agree with them. Not only do liberals rarely know anything about the issue itself, they typically never fired a gun either.
As a gun owner: I'm totally fine with more control. Heck, I'd even give up my gun if we as a society decided gun ownership is no longer desirable. But I can empathize with the other side; I am curious how much a complete lack of faith in institutions increases support for gun ownership.
As for alcohol, there is (I suspect) one big difference between alcohol and guns: scope. I would imagine drinking alcohol is a far more popular hobby (with more bipartisan support) than shooting guns. Just a guess.
I don't really get the point of complaining that liberals know little about guns. I know little about poisons and couldn't tell you which chemicals to ban, but I'd like a pretty aggressive poisonous chemical regulatory regime, that formulates some general rules and then applies them. Couldn't we do something similar with guns -- whether that involves capacity, firing frequency, velocity, ammunition features (hollow point, etc), or round size? Seems like we should be able to capture in regulatory language what we understand intuitively -- a retiree with a small collection of low-capacity manual rifles and handguns is fine, but a repeated violent felon under restraining order who is on a buying spree for immense amounts of high-velocity ammo, M-16-category semi-automatic rifles, and split point bullets is not.
FWIW I have done some riflery and have enjoyed shooting guns myself, though I enjoy my children not being shot by guns even more!
The maybe oversimplified response is that there's simply not a meaningful middle ground between "ban all semi automatic firearms" and "don't ban any". They're all functionally the same. If you understand how guns function you know this and you know that "ban all semi automatic firearms" is the only conclusion that can be reached that addresses then goals of people proposing "common sense gun control".
Which is a fair position to take. The mistrust comes from the political obfuscation of arguing you just want to ban the "scary" ones. No one familiar with guns falls for the "bayonet lugs and pistol grips" make them "extra" dangerous position. They just see it as lies to confuse the ignorant.
This can be your position, but it represents dramatically stricter gun control than has ever been enacted in the United States and would likely require the forced seizure of tens if not hundreds of millions of firearms by law enforcement, which is currently what the extreme-right's gun ownership fantasies are built around resisting (Boogaloo movement, for example).
"Seems like we should be able to capture in regulatory language what we understand intuitively" -- This is unfortunately just not the case. We can't even usefully differentiate between a pistol and rifle for regulatory purposes (feel free to search for "AR pistol" for numerous examples of what are legally pistols but functionally rifles or semi-auto submachine guns).
Trying to regulate guns without understanding them has got you talking about hollow points and bullet size, neither of which is important to regulate but would if anything make it harder to build a voting majority (you can't regulate ammo types and size meaningfully without effectively banning hunting ammo).
California is an amazing example of half-assed regulation by people not fully understanding firearms which just leads gunowners to believing "common sense gun control" means "prohibition through a thousand minor rules". California has strictly defined "Assault Weapons" to target AR and AK style platforms, and every few years they change a mechanical rule to make it more confusing to own one. In a response to mass shootings, they required the button you press to release the magazine to require a fine point like a bullet or pen tip to operate. Pretty quickly people made an insert you could wear on your finger that made the buttons work like before, so they added rules requiring the magazine to be "fixed" in a manor requiring the firearm to be disassembled to remove. This was bypassed by modifying ARs to use speed loading strips or clever ways of pressing a single button to disconnect the upper and lower portions just enough to legally call the gun "unable to function". One of the silliar ways of getting around all of these rules is to, without changing the actual function of the rifle at all, add a paddle to the pistol grip so that you hold the gun a little differently, thus bypassing the legal definition of an assault rifle. Alternatively, you can buy a gun like a Ruger mini-14, which is a magazine fed semi auto rifle with the exact same caliber options as most AR platform rifles that, because it is furnished like a hunting style rifle, has avoided this decade long legal battle.
The same issue has happened with the Safe Handgun Roster. Started to "protect" California gun owners from "unsafe" firearms, the roster requires companies build pistols to certain standards and then pay the state to test and certify them for sale. The gun can stay on the roster for as long as the company makes them and pays the state, but any changes (adding features, changing parts etc) require the gun to be recertified. In 2010, the State legislature passed a well intentioned but completely un-researched rule requiring all future handguns to have the ability to stamp the gun's serial number on the bullet and shell casing every time it is fired. This technology does not exist anywhere or in any firearm and is likely impossible given the mechanics of bullets and firearms, but the subsequent lawsuit determined those concerns were not enough to overturn the rule. Nowadays, the Safety Roster means all handguns legally for sale in California are older models mostly manufactured only for California, many of which lack safety features that were developed or popularized after 2010. Additionally, every year manufacturers remove handguns from the list. Most gun owners familiar with this law now see it as a very slow, deliberate effort to ban all handgun sales in the state through a wonky, technicality ridden law.
More broadly, I think the issue is that even passing familiarity with firearms leads you to realize a lot of Democratic posturing on firearms is either uniformed soundbites (ban weapons of war, whatever those are!) or clearly watering down pretty major laws. Beto O'Rourke is alive and well in gun memes because he very openly called for the forced confiscation of most semi-automatic rifles - a policy position way too extreme for most Democrats but something they often hint that they are okay with using clouded language.
As a side note, I favor lots of gun control laws. I think we should beef up the mission of the ATF to target the black market, go after stores that "lose" inventory, build a nationwide database of crime guns, implement ownership requirements like having people pass a firearms safety course (something the NRA used to recommend and still runs in tons of communities), report stolen or lost firearms within 10 days, have some basic legal liability for safe storage beyond simply "don't let kids touch it", and possibly explore requiring people to carry liability insurance if they want a concealed carry/open carry permit. None of these things actually burden law abiding people or dramatically restructure ownership but they help put the responsible gun owner rules into law, which is probably the best framing Democrats can use for changing or passing rules.
Thanks, I appreciate this context and background. It sounds like a lot of regulatory problems: a sensible set of regulations would be a big net benefit, but in reality our practical choices are more likely to be too little regulation (and too many violent deaths) or too much regulation (with some modest decrease in violent deaths, but lots of practical and political cost).
I think part of the problem is there is just a lack of openly liberal participation in the gun hobbyist community. I don't think I have ever bought a gun or ammo from a store where the owner didn't use our brief encounter to rail against "libs". The last time I went in to buy ammo the store owner started going off about how sorry he was that the government was having him run a check on me to buy ammo. I told him I was glad that he was doing that and was fine with waiting the extra 2 minutes to get my ammo. He had no idea how to respond other than to just grunt and hand me my ammo.
I think the general rule Democrats and progressives should follow is to focus on big problems which are open to solution and to avoid symbolic causes with few practical consequences but which serve to castigate the other side and signify moral virtue.
Guns are a huge problem but with no obvious solution. Therefore gun control falls into the second category. Fighting the "religious freedom" efforts to protect, e.g., anti-gay bakeries, also falls into the second category because it's such a trivial problem that will be solved by the passage of time and the building wave of acceptance of the gay community. (I imagine the children of most of these bakery owners roll their eyes at their parents' attitudes.)
Focus on big things that can be solved, like climate change and improving healthcare access. Wean activists off symbolic fights and try to get them to commit to actions that actually improve people's lives.
The analogy to alcohol and drug prohibition is a good one. These are all public health issues where the most effective solutions start with realism about what is and isn't possible in light of human preferences and behavior,.
If Democrats really wanted to reduce gun deaths they'd probably stop with the antigun rhetoric and instead try to foster a culture of responsible gun ownership and build alliances and credibility with responsible gun owners (the vast majority of gun owners). We need more organizations like what the NRA used to be, before it was captured by grifting nutcases.
I don’t think that’s accurate, exactly because most gun owners are law abiding. The vast majority of gun deaths are either suicides or murders by people with criminal backgrounds, it doesn’t seem to me that just creating a culture of more responsible gun ownership would solve those issues, or how democrats would actually go about doing it.
It's the "enemy of my enemy is my friend" point. Why don't moreresponsible, law abiding gun owners get behind reason regulations that might be effective at reducing harm, like ammunition control or registration? Most likely because they don't trust politicians who engage in moralizing, antigun absolutist rhetoric to stop there.
So your reasonable regulation you expect responsible, law abiding gun owners to support is one that would allow them to keep their firearms but not use them?
I liked this piece, and it's true that the anti-gun argument is largely beset by a misunderstanding of the scale and cause of the problem. As a prudential matter, it would obviously make a lot of sense for Democrats to more or less never talk about gun control.
The pro-gun argument however, is, if anything, built even more on faulty data and misunderstandings about the world than the naive anti-gun view. Around two-thirds of gun-owners put personal protection as the prime reason for owing a firearm*, far ahead of other reasons like hunting or sport.
In reality, though, owning guns puts you more at risk -you greatly increase the chance of accidents at home, of someone in your family taking your weapon, of making yourself a target for theft etc**.
First of all this make the comparison with alcohol moot. Our primary reason for drinking is enjoyment and pleasure and we are willing to make the trade-off with the health and societal costs (rightly or wrongly). With guns, people claim that they want them for safety, all the while gun-ownership is making them and their families less safe ! Should democrats just not mention that this a fundamentally wrong-headed calculation?
Aside from legislative decision-making, is there an argument that Dems should be making that whilst owning numerous guns to protect yourself and those around you does not make you a criminal, it does make you irrational and irresponsible?
You are absolutely right about this. But telling people they are being irrational and irresponsible is almost never good politics, especially if it's correct.
I'd push back a little on the idea that people's beliefs that guns keep them safe is irrational. That's a class-based assumption that doesn't fit with my lived experience.
Today, in my 30s, I'm a white-collar, upper-middle-class white guy living in an upper-middle class suburb. I don't own a gun. I think owning a gun would be dangerous. But, in my world, physical violence (outside of domestic violence) is almost unheard of and there are lots of eyes and ears everywhere ready to call the police at the first hint of trouble.
But I grew up on an isolated farm in a very blue collar community. The idea that a verbal dispute might turn into a physical fight was accepted in a way that just isn't where I live now. Also, we lived in the only house for roughly a mile which means there were no neighbors peeking behind window shades ready to call the police if they saw trouble. And there were no police, just the county sheriff. I don't think it's irrational to feel safer owing a gun in that scenario.
For example, I recall one night when I was maybe 15/16 years old when a group of men came to our front door looking for help. They were noticeably intoxicated and had gotten their vehicle stuck in a ditch near our house. I remember my dad taking his pistol with him on the way out the door and telling me to "keep everyone in the house if something happens" and asking "your gun's not in your truck is it?" I can't imagine having that conversation with my child today, but doesn't seem irrational given the circumstances. Very real threats of violence don't always show in the statistics.
Just for clarification you're saying if it wasn't for the gun the incident with the drunk guys would have gone differently?
A friend lives in a very rural area and her husband has a gun hidden in each room, a gun strapped under the seat in the car, carries a gun wherever he goes, etc. To hear him tell it there are gangs of "house invaders" prowling the Midwest. I asked, "Has anything ever happened?" "No."
I just get the impression that a lot of these people think the world is vastly more dangerous than it actually is.
I don't think having the gun prevented anything from happening. For one thing, I don't think they realized he had a gun. I'm just saying that I think a lot of people would agree that being alone in the dark among a group of drunk strange men is not situation they would feel safe in and it's reasonable to want to have a gun under those circumstances.
And I know/knew lots of people like your friend's husband and would agree with you that they're overly paranoid. But that doesn't mean that there isn't some level of danger in that environment that justifies owning guns as a safety precaution.
Remember, two-thirds of all gun deaths are suicides, so any safety benefit to owning a gun in rural areas would have to be enormous to justify the increased suicide risk. I'm extremely skeptical that's the case, especially since suicide is a particular problem in rural areas (side note: this excellent feature on rural suicide from Rolling Stone is well worth reading).
My parents have the same circumstances, isolated farm house. My mom told me a couple months ago about a car stopped in the road outside and hearing voices very late one night. It seems likely they were just lost as they drove away after a few minutes, but I told her if they got any closer to fire a warning shot in the air.
That's an excellent point about the alcohol comparison. In general, our society seems to lack the language necessary to even have an argument about what harmful things are enjoyable enough that they should also be legal. Look at how marijuana legalization had to sneak in through the back door of medicalization (which is the same route that psychedelics are trying now).
Lots of gun owners own guns because they enjoy them.
I strongly suspect that if every gun owner started talking about enjoying owning guns most gun control advocates would not switch their position. Lots of drinkers operate on the now disproven theory that moderate alcohol consumption, the I drink red wine a glass for health crowd, is good for you.
So I don't the comparison moot and mostly think attempts to distinguish are motivated reasoning.
Matt's point hits me as almost wholly correct. Alcohol is integrated into a lot of liberal social networks so the fact it is far more harmful is either politely ignored or explained away.
Very few people hunt with a handgun. If this were about hunting or target shooting, you could ban home ownership of handguns. In reality, of course, this would be incredibly controversial. Most gun owners buy into the self-defense thing, even though it's obviously wrong.
I believe the research about how having a gun in the household is riskier than not, but has anyone parsed the data at a deeper level? Specifically, I would really like to know if having a gun in the household is more dangerous than not for a woman with an estranged violent partner. That’s the one situation that gives me pause for massive gun confiscation. It seems that many of these women are at significantly higher risk of violent death at the hands of their former partners and it seems that this might be a case- perhaps the only case- where the personal/family protection argument might makes sense. Even if you assumed a world with ethical and awesome police forces (BIG assumption in some cases) I don’t think you’d ever get the 911 response times down low enough to protect these people. But I’d like to see data if it’s available.
Even if it's true that it's safer to own a gun in this specific scenario, there's no way to limit gun ownership to only people in that scenario. If you have widespread gun ownership, all the angry ex-husbands are going to be armed too.
You’re probably right but if we are going to go down the path of heavy gun restriction we should be prepared for the “my gun saved me from my ex-husband” attack ads.
Thanks for the comparison with alcohol -- it's a point too often left out of the public conversation. Morally it's close to an identical issue with guns, as you point out actually it's the greater evil, but liberals can't see it because with alcohol it's *their* culture, whereas guns are hick.
Another issue I think we're similarly blinded on is the personal morality of purchasing illegal drugs. Not because "drugs are bad lol" but because buying things like marijuana through illegal channels funds horrific drug massacres in Mexico and elsewhere. But bring this up to a vegan marijuana smoker who abstains from meat because of the cruelties of factory farming and you'll get shouted out of the room.
Another underappreciated demand side issue is the decline of hunting. It used to be a significant portion of the electorate owned guns for hunting, saw hunting as a family tradition and a reflection of their way of life, and that offered a way for Democrats to reach out to them.
Even the photo ops that get made fun of (John Kerry in 2004) were arguably part of a successful electoral strategy (given Matt's longstanding praise of Kerry's 2004 campaign).
With the decline of hunters, more and more the remaining gun owners are really focused on gun ownership as an expression of white cultural resentment in terms of "security" and "protecting my home and family." This influences an approach to politics that is more than just gun ownership. It combines "law and order" with a fear of "the other" which feeds into the broader xenophobic message of the GOP today.
It might be impolitic, but it's _correct_. Maybe politicians shouldn't say it in public, but this is just the comments section on a left-of-center blog--surely we can be honest here, and in fact _should_ be honest here.
It is a perfectly valid desire to want the federal government to have a light touch and respect the Constitution. Gun ownership and religion are commonplace and mainstream.
Part of my frustration with (many, not all) gun rights supporters is that their passion for freedom is selective. Not only has the NRA refused to speak about police shootings of black males (even those involving lawful gun owners like Philando Castile & Breonna Taylor), but they are also one of the most fervent supporters of "Blue Lives Matter".
Also, the NRA's push to put armed officers in school: a policy that has done nothing to make schools safer but ends up leading to a lot of unnecessary arrests & referrals to the criminal justice system, as Radley Balko has pointed out:
Also, I am disappointed that you would dismiss the relevance of the Philando Castile case. You have a lawful gun owner who was pulled over by a cop for a traffic stop, alerted that cop that he had a concealed weapon, and was subsequently killed. How is that not relevant to the NRA's core mission?
Here is my issue with that. In the rural areas I'm familiar with "everyone" is very in favor of a light federal touch. As long as you exclude the 40% of farm income that is direct cash payments to farmers. Or the massive federal subsides that allow them to have have electric and cell phone service. And then there are the massive subsidies to the local hospital and school.
But they all go through life as if those things don't exist. As if there existence in the modern world is thanks to an ocean of federal money.
It’s unclear why you believe that federal funding for local hospitals, schools, and electricity are “massive,” but whatever.
You have some heavy lifting to do to convince people that accepting money from the federal government - either directly or at the community level - means they must accept their constitutional rights being infringed.
You're leaving out doomsday prepping. If you live in or near a rural area, it's a completely reasonable thing to sink a bit of time and money into, given how many serious national- and global-scale risks exist today. Many progressives became first-time gun owners after Trump was elected. The same thing happened when the coronavirus crisis began.
Coming from the UK, though, I don't think that comparison quite works. The UK has never had much of a broad tradition of gun ownership, and the unarmed police force long predates effective gun control, and goes back to the aftermath of Peterloo, and the need for some kind of civilian crowd control. In other words, it relates directly to the kinds of racial/class conflicts we now see in the US. Hence "the police are the public and the public are the police". The only major gun control issue the UK has had historically was service firearms linked to major conflicts. As I recall my Grandfather kept his service revolver for 30 years after WW2.
The better comparison I think is with Australia, which did have more of a US style tradition of gun ownership, and went through the process of weapons bans, mandatory buybacks and the like that you describe. The Australian example supports your overall argument better, because one of the reasons it worked is that the major step was taken by the Australian right under John Howard. Gun control is much more likely to be effective if it is brought in by the right, as part of an internal debate in a party's rural/suburban coalition, rather than as part of a partizan dispute, partly because it diffuses the tension rather, but partly also because it allows for a more honest conversation involving people who have longstanding experience of rural communities and gun ownership about what would actually be necessary.
I think a big (gigantic, really) difference between gun control efforts in Australia vs. those in the USA is the chasm between the Westminster-style parliamentary model in use in the former and the Madisonian vetocracy that prevails in the latter. Everything I've read suggests majorities of Americans favor stronger gun laws. But as is the case with universal healthcare, say, or higher taxes on the rich or affordable tertiary education or (any number of politically popular policies), America simply can't enact legislation favored by majorities (at least not to the extent other democracies can).
Absolutely - it's why I sometimes feel almost embarrassed commenting on US politics. Takes that begin "well, if you had a stable parliamentary system and completely different type of conservatism..." are not really terribly helpful
As I understand it, a number of different types of gun are flat out banned. You also need a permit to own an automatic weapon, a semi-automatic weapons or handgun, and the permit has to give a specific reason for purchase (defence/personal security doesn't count). It backed by two major buyback schemes in the late 90s and early 2000s. I am not an expert by any means however, and would be interested in learning more about the specifics myself
I think this is mostly right on. The major additional factor I'd like to hear about is: the impact of the Parkland HS shooting and subsequent youth-driven activism. I wonder if that had an effect in driving youth involvement in the 2018 mid-terms and 2020. I'm a teacher and noticed that Parkland broke through to teenagers more that most political issues (even the impeachment).
The thing about “youth driven activism” is that there’s been a substantial elite-driven fad for funding youth-driven activism. Donors need to encourage youth activists to activism on constructive issues like marijuana legalization or minimum wage increases.
True, and the Venn diagram of "wealthy liberal funders" and "people who can shape the views of 18-year-olds into activism" is, I think, quite small. (Side note: those who accuse teachers of indoctrinating high school kids usually haven't spent much time in a high school classroom.)
It maybe a numerically small group of people but you really shouldn’t discount the spending power of the small number of liberal billionaires who really care about funding liberal activism in setting the discourse
I probably was on the receiving end of those encouraged to do youth driven activism as I remember getting a lot of ads on my senior year about becoming a "manager" for "grassroots" campaigns. I even did a few interviews and everything. I didn't take up the job in the end, perhaps that's a good thing as I've heard some nasty rumors about the conditions ever since.
A lot of the big funders of "youth activism" are pretty miserable to work for and have no effect on actual politics as far as I can tell. I've heard good things about BallotReady fellowships, which are a big recruiter of new Ivy League grads, but I've never heard anything good from friends who did other ones.
also our media, especially left-leaning media, has a cultural fixation on "The Youth" that doesn't, and basically never will, reflect the median voter. Youth vote did rise to unprecedented levels - but youth vote SHARE dropped, because *everyone* was more engaged than usual, but young voters had much more room to grow.
Perhaps we could ask New Mexico Democrats for advice? That state has some of the most libertarian gun laws around, yet it's moved decisively toward Democrats over the last two decades. New Mexico Democrats control all statewide offices, and control the trifecta. I've just about reached the limit of my knowledge on this matter, but perhaps some others here might have insight as to how this has come to be.
I’ve been making a similar point to my wealthier liberal friends in a major city (Chicago) for years now, and I think it’s sinking in a bit.
Take the assault weapons ban. Per the FBI in 2017, just 4% of firearm murders were carried out by a rifle of any sort, which would include both semi-automatic rifles like AR-15 variants, as well as hunting rifles. This amount to around 400 deaths, equivalent to 4 days worth of deaths from car crashes in this country.
I’ve lived in the South as well, and I can say that a lot of the “from my cold dead hands” type are dead serious. Even if you assume that none of those 400 deaths would be carried out with a different gun, and that’s a tall order, it no way is it worth the massive destabilization that would occur if there was a serious push for just the assault weapons ban. People would think it’s just a ploy (thanks Beto) for full confiscation of the 15 million or so semi-automatic rifles in this country. It’s just not worth it. No matter how logical you think a reform would be, even if .01% of those people got violent, there could be a serious wave of domestic terrorism, which would then be countered by a civil liberties crackdown potentially like France is doing right now.
Any policy decision needs to take the facts on the ground into account. Getting normative without factoring in the descriptive is just tilting at windmills.
Hey guys, I saw that Galleta came back and went right back to being an asshole so he is now banned indefinitely.
Sorry for the trouble. Everyone else — don’t be a jerk.
Thank you. I expect I’m an exception in many political beliefs, but being an asshole is dumb.
*BOOM music swells*
This seems like a great example of a piece that wouldn't fit into Matt's mandate at Vox. I appreciate how provocative and persuasive it is. I started reading it with skepticism, but was sold by the end; it reminded me of Sam Harris's "Fireplace Delusion" essay https://samharris.org/the-fireplace-delusion/
I think these facts are all known to careful readers of excellent work from German Lopez and Dylan Matthews at Vox over the years. And the political analysis is similar to what I’ve said at the Weeds over the years.
My critique not just of Vox but of internet publishing in general is that this argument won’t “go viral” because it doesn’t reaffirm peoples feelings and it also doesn’t meet an SEO need. So there’s never value on publishing it, especially since it’s sure to anger some people.
To me this doesn't read very different from where you and other Vox authors have been for a long time, as you say. The thing I don't quite understand is as a founder of Vox, didn't you have wide latitude to write whatever you wanted? My naïve take is that if you published this at Vox while it wouldn't go viral, you'd probably get a least as many views as on a paid service like this one. Of course if you couldn't publish what you wanted then the point is moot.
But there's clearly value in it for somebody (see, this thread) even if it won't go viral; so in principle so long as the marginal traffic it brings to the site is greater than the anger it should be publishable. So how does these incentives actually manifest in practice? Is it:
- editorial pushback because of the risk that there will be blowback on the article that will lead to a viral take (potentially from within the org itself) that will lead to reader boycotts thus decreasing overall site virality?
- editorial pushback because of the risk of angering talented junior writers who are creating viral content who either will leave or won't work for Vox if these kinds of pieces are published?
- editorial incentives to promote other site content on front page, etc. that has higher virality chances, thus limiting its potential scope of impact of this writing among whichever non-viral groups that matter (congressional staffers?) vs. a blog where it'll be at the top for a day or two?
The Alcohol part could go viral among conservatives. Because it does reaffirm their existing beliefs. But given your audience that would be hard to do. I guess you could pick up the phone and beg every conservative you know to re tweet it. But that seams like book promotion level of work for little blog post that doesn’t even have adds. And if it did go viral among conservatives it wouldn’t help your current businesses model because conservatives might say I like this one story but I am not giving this new liberal money.
i posted the alcohol result from the GSS when i blogged for discover and it went viral
I can't speak for Matt's Mandate at Vox but I will say that I was already aware of most the points made by Matt here specifically because of Vox pieces I've read over the years (and possibly a Weeds episode or two). The sum total of that reading was that other than straight up reducing the number of guns, the only gun control measure that would lead to the kinds of outcomes we're looking for is restricting guns from people convicted of domestic violence crimes–something I'd never heard from a politician at the time (though I recently learned that Stacey Abrams supports it–maybe she's a Vox fan).
this german lopez "by the numbers" piece was quite informative and fits with the realities of gun deaths portion of the post https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/10/2/16399418/us-gun-violence-statistics-maps-charts
I'm for ultra-rigorous gun control; but I found this piece highly stimulating and ultimately -- depressingly -- convincing. Like your other stuff, it shows that you're both willing and able to follow facts and reason to a conclusion in which you're not invested.
I'm getting news and commentary from a variety of good sources, but I can see that I'll have a special need for Slow Boring. Thanks.
This is such a great post, but it’s one that I find it hard to comment on. I’m a gun owner. I own an AR. I understand where people are coming from, but because gun rights is intertwined with cultural issues, people become very passionate. And I think this passion combined with cultural views, blinds people from efficient decisions.
I just want to say, that I respect everyone’s opinions. And I hope everyone has a great holiday.
Gun control is the #1 least understood topic by liberals in my opinion. When conservatives complain that liberals know nothing about guns: I completely agree with them. Not only do liberals rarely know anything about the issue itself, they typically never fired a gun either.
As a gun owner: I'm totally fine with more control. Heck, I'd even give up my gun if we as a society decided gun ownership is no longer desirable. But I can empathize with the other side; I am curious how much a complete lack of faith in institutions increases support for gun ownership.
As for alcohol, there is (I suspect) one big difference between alcohol and guns: scope. I would imagine drinking alcohol is a far more popular hobby (with more bipartisan support) than shooting guns. Just a guess.
I don't really get the point of complaining that liberals know little about guns. I know little about poisons and couldn't tell you which chemicals to ban, but I'd like a pretty aggressive poisonous chemical regulatory regime, that formulates some general rules and then applies them. Couldn't we do something similar with guns -- whether that involves capacity, firing frequency, velocity, ammunition features (hollow point, etc), or round size? Seems like we should be able to capture in regulatory language what we understand intuitively -- a retiree with a small collection of low-capacity manual rifles and handguns is fine, but a repeated violent felon under restraining order who is on a buying spree for immense amounts of high-velocity ammo, M-16-category semi-automatic rifles, and split point bullets is not.
FWIW I have done some riflery and have enjoyed shooting guns myself, though I enjoy my children not being shot by guns even more!
The maybe oversimplified response is that there's simply not a meaningful middle ground between "ban all semi automatic firearms" and "don't ban any". They're all functionally the same. If you understand how guns function you know this and you know that "ban all semi automatic firearms" is the only conclusion that can be reached that addresses then goals of people proposing "common sense gun control".
Square the circle by just saying "I favor common-sense gun control, like banning all semi-automatics".
Which is a fair position to take. The mistrust comes from the political obfuscation of arguing you just want to ban the "scary" ones. No one familiar with guns falls for the "bayonet lugs and pistol grips" make them "extra" dangerous position. They just see it as lies to confuse the ignorant.
This can be your position, but it represents dramatically stricter gun control than has ever been enacted in the United States and would likely require the forced seizure of tens if not hundreds of millions of firearms by law enforcement, which is currently what the extreme-right's gun ownership fantasies are built around resisting (Boogaloo movement, for example).
"Seems like we should be able to capture in regulatory language what we understand intuitively" -- This is unfortunately just not the case. We can't even usefully differentiate between a pistol and rifle for regulatory purposes (feel free to search for "AR pistol" for numerous examples of what are legally pistols but functionally rifles or semi-auto submachine guns).
Trying to regulate guns without understanding them has got you talking about hollow points and bullet size, neither of which is important to regulate but would if anything make it harder to build a voting majority (you can't regulate ammo types and size meaningfully without effectively banning hunting ammo).
California is an amazing example of half-assed regulation by people not fully understanding firearms which just leads gunowners to believing "common sense gun control" means "prohibition through a thousand minor rules". California has strictly defined "Assault Weapons" to target AR and AK style platforms, and every few years they change a mechanical rule to make it more confusing to own one. In a response to mass shootings, they required the button you press to release the magazine to require a fine point like a bullet or pen tip to operate. Pretty quickly people made an insert you could wear on your finger that made the buttons work like before, so they added rules requiring the magazine to be "fixed" in a manor requiring the firearm to be disassembled to remove. This was bypassed by modifying ARs to use speed loading strips or clever ways of pressing a single button to disconnect the upper and lower portions just enough to legally call the gun "unable to function". One of the silliar ways of getting around all of these rules is to, without changing the actual function of the rifle at all, add a paddle to the pistol grip so that you hold the gun a little differently, thus bypassing the legal definition of an assault rifle. Alternatively, you can buy a gun like a Ruger mini-14, which is a magazine fed semi auto rifle with the exact same caliber options as most AR platform rifles that, because it is furnished like a hunting style rifle, has avoided this decade long legal battle.
The same issue has happened with the Safe Handgun Roster. Started to "protect" California gun owners from "unsafe" firearms, the roster requires companies build pistols to certain standards and then pay the state to test and certify them for sale. The gun can stay on the roster for as long as the company makes them and pays the state, but any changes (adding features, changing parts etc) require the gun to be recertified. In 2010, the State legislature passed a well intentioned but completely un-researched rule requiring all future handguns to have the ability to stamp the gun's serial number on the bullet and shell casing every time it is fired. This technology does not exist anywhere or in any firearm and is likely impossible given the mechanics of bullets and firearms, but the subsequent lawsuit determined those concerns were not enough to overturn the rule. Nowadays, the Safety Roster means all handguns legally for sale in California are older models mostly manufactured only for California, many of which lack safety features that were developed or popularized after 2010. Additionally, every year manufacturers remove handguns from the list. Most gun owners familiar with this law now see it as a very slow, deliberate effort to ban all handgun sales in the state through a wonky, technicality ridden law.
More broadly, I think the issue is that even passing familiarity with firearms leads you to realize a lot of Democratic posturing on firearms is either uniformed soundbites (ban weapons of war, whatever those are!) or clearly watering down pretty major laws. Beto O'Rourke is alive and well in gun memes because he very openly called for the forced confiscation of most semi-automatic rifles - a policy position way too extreme for most Democrats but something they often hint that they are okay with using clouded language.
As a side note, I favor lots of gun control laws. I think we should beef up the mission of the ATF to target the black market, go after stores that "lose" inventory, build a nationwide database of crime guns, implement ownership requirements like having people pass a firearms safety course (something the NRA used to recommend and still runs in tons of communities), report stolen or lost firearms within 10 days, have some basic legal liability for safe storage beyond simply "don't let kids touch it", and possibly explore requiring people to carry liability insurance if they want a concealed carry/open carry permit. None of these things actually burden law abiding people or dramatically restructure ownership but they help put the responsible gun owner rules into law, which is probably the best framing Democrats can use for changing or passing rules.
Thanks, I appreciate this context and background. It sounds like a lot of regulatory problems: a sensible set of regulations would be a big net benefit, but in reality our practical choices are more likely to be too little regulation (and too many violent deaths) or too much regulation (with some modest decrease in violent deaths, but lots of practical and political cost).
I think part of the problem is there is just a lack of openly liberal participation in the gun hobbyist community. I don't think I have ever bought a gun or ammo from a store where the owner didn't use our brief encounter to rail against "libs". The last time I went in to buy ammo the store owner started going off about how sorry he was that the government was having him run a check on me to buy ammo. I told him I was glad that he was doing that and was fine with waiting the extra 2 minutes to get my ammo. He had no idea how to respond other than to just grunt and hand me my ammo.
It's also easier to make alcohol than to make a firearm and ammo.
I think the general rule Democrats and progressives should follow is to focus on big problems which are open to solution and to avoid symbolic causes with few practical consequences but which serve to castigate the other side and signify moral virtue.
Guns are a huge problem but with no obvious solution. Therefore gun control falls into the second category. Fighting the "religious freedom" efforts to protect, e.g., anti-gay bakeries, also falls into the second category because it's such a trivial problem that will be solved by the passage of time and the building wave of acceptance of the gay community. (I imagine the children of most of these bakery owners roll their eyes at their parents' attitudes.)
Focus on big things that can be solved, like climate change and improving healthcare access. Wean activists off symbolic fights and try to get them to commit to actions that actually improve people's lives.
Meta: Galleta is back and trolling relentlessly, as predicted by everybody. Time for a swift banhammer.
> Get rid of Galleta!
this but unironically
Quit dimming their brilliance Galleta! You so mean.
but but but... dey big bad ballsy menfolks... hahahahaha
You're all so pathetic.
The analogy to alcohol and drug prohibition is a good one. These are all public health issues where the most effective solutions start with realism about what is and isn't possible in light of human preferences and behavior,.
If Democrats really wanted to reduce gun deaths they'd probably stop with the antigun rhetoric and instead try to foster a culture of responsible gun ownership and build alliances and credibility with responsible gun owners (the vast majority of gun owners). We need more organizations like what the NRA used to be, before it was captured by grifting nutcases.
I don’t think that’s accurate, exactly because most gun owners are law abiding. The vast majority of gun deaths are either suicides or murders by people with criminal backgrounds, it doesn’t seem to me that just creating a culture of more responsible gun ownership would solve those issues, or how democrats would actually go about doing it.
It's the "enemy of my enemy is my friend" point. Why don't moreresponsible, law abiding gun owners get behind reason regulations that might be effective at reducing harm, like ammunition control or registration? Most likely because they don't trust politicians who engage in moralizing, antigun absolutist rhetoric to stop there.
Ok I think that is right, I retract my criticism
How would more regulations on ammo reduce harm?
Because a gun without ammo is pretty harmless. And unlike guns which can be nice collectors items and last almost forever, ammo gets used up
So your reasonable regulation you expect responsible, law abiding gun owners to support is one that would allow them to keep their firearms but not use them?
How did you get that from what I wrote?
So you just want to infringe on the right to be armed. Got it.
Not to mention, who wants pimple faced FBI spawn 18 year olds deciding adults rights?
Maybe the ignorant little asses should stop bullying geeky white boys beyond their ability to restrain.
I liked this piece, and it's true that the anti-gun argument is largely beset by a misunderstanding of the scale and cause of the problem. As a prudential matter, it would obviously make a lot of sense for Democrats to more or less never talk about gun control.
The pro-gun argument however, is, if anything, built even more on faulty data and misunderstandings about the world than the naive anti-gun view. Around two-thirds of gun-owners put personal protection as the prime reason for owing a firearm*, far ahead of other reasons like hunting or sport.
In reality, though, owning guns puts you more at risk -you greatly increase the chance of accidents at home, of someone in your family taking your weapon, of making yourself a target for theft etc**.
First of all this make the comparison with alcohol moot. Our primary reason for drinking is enjoyment and pleasure and we are willing to make the trade-off with the health and societal costs (rightly or wrongly). With guns, people claim that they want them for safety, all the while gun-ownership is making them and their families less safe ! Should democrats just not mention that this a fundamentally wrong-headed calculation?
Aside from legislative decision-making, is there an argument that Dems should be making that whilst owning numerous guns to protect yourself and those around you does not make you a criminal, it does make you irrational and irresponsible?
* https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/10/22/facts-about-guns-in-united-states/#:~:text=2Protection%20tops%20the%20list,8%25)%20are%20major%20reasons.
** https://www.vox.com/2015/10/1/18000520/gun-risk-death
You are absolutely right about this. But telling people they are being irrational and irresponsible is almost never good politics, especially if it's correct.
I'd push back a little on the idea that people's beliefs that guns keep them safe is irrational. That's a class-based assumption that doesn't fit with my lived experience.
Today, in my 30s, I'm a white-collar, upper-middle-class white guy living in an upper-middle class suburb. I don't own a gun. I think owning a gun would be dangerous. But, in my world, physical violence (outside of domestic violence) is almost unheard of and there are lots of eyes and ears everywhere ready to call the police at the first hint of trouble.
But I grew up on an isolated farm in a very blue collar community. The idea that a verbal dispute might turn into a physical fight was accepted in a way that just isn't where I live now. Also, we lived in the only house for roughly a mile which means there were no neighbors peeking behind window shades ready to call the police if they saw trouble. And there were no police, just the county sheriff. I don't think it's irrational to feel safer owing a gun in that scenario.
For example, I recall one night when I was maybe 15/16 years old when a group of men came to our front door looking for help. They were noticeably intoxicated and had gotten their vehicle stuck in a ditch near our house. I remember my dad taking his pistol with him on the way out the door and telling me to "keep everyone in the house if something happens" and asking "your gun's not in your truck is it?" I can't imagine having that conversation with my child today, but doesn't seem irrational given the circumstances. Very real threats of violence don't always show in the statistics.
Just for clarification you're saying if it wasn't for the gun the incident with the drunk guys would have gone differently?
A friend lives in a very rural area and her husband has a gun hidden in each room, a gun strapped under the seat in the car, carries a gun wherever he goes, etc. To hear him tell it there are gangs of "house invaders" prowling the Midwest. I asked, "Has anything ever happened?" "No."
I just get the impression that a lot of these people think the world is vastly more dangerous than it actually is.
I don't think having the gun prevented anything from happening. For one thing, I don't think they realized he had a gun. I'm just saying that I think a lot of people would agree that being alone in the dark among a group of drunk strange men is not situation they would feel safe in and it's reasonable to want to have a gun under those circumstances.
And I know/knew lots of people like your friend's husband and would agree with you that they're overly paranoid. But that doesn't mean that there isn't some level of danger in that environment that justifies owning guns as a safety precaution.
Remember, two-thirds of all gun deaths are suicides, so any safety benefit to owning a gun in rural areas would have to be enormous to justify the increased suicide risk. I'm extremely skeptical that's the case, especially since suicide is a particular problem in rural areas (side note: this excellent feature on rural suicide from Rolling Stone is well worth reading).
https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-features/suicide-rate-america-white-men-841576/
People want to believe they are in control of their lives.
Well as home invasion is less common in rural places, it does not actually sound like a rational respons to an actual increased risk.
This sounds more like isolation induced increased risk perception, leading to a gun purchase to reassure themselves.
Now peoples felling of safety and actual safety are not the same thing, but peoples feelings are very important to mental well being.
My parents have the same circumstances, isolated farm house. My mom told me a couple months ago about a car stopped in the road outside and hearing voices very late one night. It seems likely they were just lost as they drove away after a few minutes, but I told her if they got any closer to fire a warning shot in the air.
Do NOT firing warning shots. That typically constitutes a criminal discharge of a weapon.
Shows what I know. :)
That's an excellent point about the alcohol comparison. In general, our society seems to lack the language necessary to even have an argument about what harmful things are enjoyable enough that they should also be legal. Look at how marijuana legalization had to sneak in through the back door of medicalization (which is the same route that psychedelics are trying now).
Lots of gun owners own guns because they enjoy them.
I strongly suspect that if every gun owner started talking about enjoying owning guns most gun control advocates would not switch their position. Lots of drinkers operate on the now disproven theory that moderate alcohol consumption, the I drink red wine a glass for health crowd, is good for you.
So I don't the comparison moot and mostly think attempts to distinguish are motivated reasoning.
Matt's point hits me as almost wholly correct. Alcohol is integrated into a lot of liberal social networks so the fact it is far more harmful is either politely ignored or explained away.
Plenty of people own firearms primarily for enjoyment or as part of a hobby they participate in for enjoyment (hunting).
Very few people hunt with a handgun. If this were about hunting or target shooting, you could ban home ownership of handguns. In reality, of course, this would be incredibly controversial. Most gun owners buy into the self-defense thing, even though it's obviously wrong.
I believe the research about how having a gun in the household is riskier than not, but has anyone parsed the data at a deeper level? Specifically, I would really like to know if having a gun in the household is more dangerous than not for a woman with an estranged violent partner. That’s the one situation that gives me pause for massive gun confiscation. It seems that many of these women are at significantly higher risk of violent death at the hands of their former partners and it seems that this might be a case- perhaps the only case- where the personal/family protection argument might makes sense. Even if you assumed a world with ethical and awesome police forces (BIG assumption in some cases) I don’t think you’d ever get the 911 response times down low enough to protect these people. But I’d like to see data if it’s available.
Even if it's true that it's safer to own a gun in this specific scenario, there's no way to limit gun ownership to only people in that scenario. If you have widespread gun ownership, all the angry ex-husbands are going to be armed too.
You’re probably right but if we are going to go down the path of heavy gun restriction we should be prepared for the “my gun saved me from my ex-husband” attack ads.
Thanks for the comparison with alcohol -- it's a point too often left out of the public conversation. Morally it's close to an identical issue with guns, as you point out actually it's the greater evil, but liberals can't see it because with alcohol it's *their* culture, whereas guns are hick.
Another issue I think we're similarly blinded on is the personal morality of purchasing illegal drugs. Not because "drugs are bad lol" but because buying things like marijuana through illegal channels funds horrific drug massacres in Mexico and elsewhere. But bring this up to a vegan marijuana smoker who abstains from meat because of the cruelties of factory farming and you'll get shouted out of the room.
Another underappreciated demand side issue is the decline of hunting. It used to be a significant portion of the electorate owned guns for hunting, saw hunting as a family tradition and a reflection of their way of life, and that offered a way for Democrats to reach out to them.
Even the photo ops that get made fun of (John Kerry in 2004) were arguably part of a successful electoral strategy (given Matt's longstanding praise of Kerry's 2004 campaign).
With the decline of hunters, more and more the remaining gun owners are really focused on gun ownership as an expression of white cultural resentment in terms of "security" and "protecting my home and family." This influences an approach to politics that is more than just gun ownership. It combines "law and order" with a fear of "the other" which feeds into the broader xenophobic message of the GOP today.
"...an expression of white cultural resentment..."
Boy, you guys will never learn, will you? Bitter clinger rhetoric is a big reason that we have a Trump in the White house.
It might be impolitic, but it's _correct_. Maybe politicians shouldn't say it in public, but this is just the comments section on a left-of-center blog--surely we can be honest here, and in fact _should_ be honest here.
It is a perfectly valid desire to want the federal government to have a light touch and respect the Constitution. Gun ownership and religion are commonplace and mainstream.
Part of my frustration with (many, not all) gun rights supporters is that their passion for freedom is selective. Not only has the NRA refused to speak about police shootings of black males (even those involving lawful gun owners like Philando Castile & Breonna Taylor), but they are also one of the most fervent supporters of "Blue Lives Matter".
Also, the NRA's push to put armed officers in school: a policy that has done nothing to make schools safer but ends up leading to a lot of unnecessary arrests & referrals to the criminal justice system, as Radley Balko has pointed out:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2018/02/22/putting-more-cops-in-schools-wont-make-schools-safer-and-it-will-likely-inflict-a-lot-of-harm/
.
The NRA exists for a narrow set of purposes. Why should they lose focus on their core missions to engage in political fads?
Also, I am disappointed that you would dismiss the relevance of the Philando Castile case. You have a lawful gun owner who was pulled over by a cop for a traffic stop, alerted that cop that he had a concealed weapon, and was subsequently killed. How is that not relevant to the NRA's core mission?
Sorry, but you're wrong. The NRA has repeatedly criticized "Black Lives Matter" & defended the police:
https://www.thetrace.org/2020/07/the-nras-unshakable-support-for-police/
"Commonplace and mainstream" is not at all incompatible with being an expression of white cultural resentment.
As if only white people are gun owners or religious.
That's a fair point.
I wonder what the rate of gun ownership is along the border in South Texas.
Here is my issue with that. In the rural areas I'm familiar with "everyone" is very in favor of a light federal touch. As long as you exclude the 40% of farm income that is direct cash payments to farmers. Or the massive federal subsides that allow them to have have electric and cell phone service. And then there are the massive subsidies to the local hospital and school.
But they all go through life as if those things don't exist. As if there existence in the modern world is thanks to an ocean of federal money.
It’s unclear why you believe that federal funding for local hospitals, schools, and electricity are “massive,” but whatever.
You have some heavy lifting to do to convince people that accepting money from the federal government - either directly or at the community level - means they must accept their constitutional rights being infringed.
You're leaving out doomsday prepping. If you live in or near a rural area, it's a completely reasonable thing to sink a bit of time and money into, given how many serious national- and global-scale risks exist today. Many progressives became first-time gun owners after Trump was elected. The same thing happened when the coronavirus crisis began.
Good piece - it persuaded me to subscribe!
Coming from the UK, though, I don't think that comparison quite works. The UK has never had much of a broad tradition of gun ownership, and the unarmed police force long predates effective gun control, and goes back to the aftermath of Peterloo, and the need for some kind of civilian crowd control. In other words, it relates directly to the kinds of racial/class conflicts we now see in the US. Hence "the police are the public and the public are the police". The only major gun control issue the UK has had historically was service firearms linked to major conflicts. As I recall my Grandfather kept his service revolver for 30 years after WW2.
The better comparison I think is with Australia, which did have more of a US style tradition of gun ownership, and went through the process of weapons bans, mandatory buybacks and the like that you describe. The Australian example supports your overall argument better, because one of the reasons it worked is that the major step was taken by the Australian right under John Howard. Gun control is much more likely to be effective if it is brought in by the right, as part of an internal debate in a party's rural/suburban coalition, rather than as part of a partizan dispute, partly because it diffuses the tension rather, but partly also because it allows for a more honest conversation involving people who have longstanding experience of rural communities and gun ownership about what would actually be necessary.
Would welcome your thoughts on this!
I think a big (gigantic, really) difference between gun control efforts in Australia vs. those in the USA is the chasm between the Westminster-style parliamentary model in use in the former and the Madisonian vetocracy that prevails in the latter. Everything I've read suggests majorities of Americans favor stronger gun laws. But as is the case with universal healthcare, say, or higher taxes on the rich or affordable tertiary education or (any number of politically popular policies), America simply can't enact legislation favored by majorities (at least not to the extent other democracies can).
Absolutely - it's why I sometimes feel almost embarrassed commenting on US politics. Takes that begin "well, if you had a stable parliamentary system and completely different type of conservatism..." are not really terribly helpful
I, for one, appreciate the sympathy!
Interesting. Are you able to speak to what Australia’s current gun regime is? What is/ is not allowed and how tightly regulated?
As I understand it, a number of different types of gun are flat out banned. You also need a permit to own an automatic weapon, a semi-automatic weapons or handgun, and the permit has to give a specific reason for purchase (defence/personal security doesn't count). It backed by two major buyback schemes in the late 90s and early 2000s. I am not an expert by any means however, and would be interested in learning more about the specifics myself
I think this is mostly right on. The major additional factor I'd like to hear about is: the impact of the Parkland HS shooting and subsequent youth-driven activism. I wonder if that had an effect in driving youth involvement in the 2018 mid-terms and 2020. I'm a teacher and noticed that Parkland broke through to teenagers more that most political issues (even the impeachment).
The thing about “youth driven activism” is that there’s been a substantial elite-driven fad for funding youth-driven activism. Donors need to encourage youth activists to activism on constructive issues like marijuana legalization or minimum wage increases.
True, and the Venn diagram of "wealthy liberal funders" and "people who can shape the views of 18-year-olds into activism" is, I think, quite small. (Side note: those who accuse teachers of indoctrinating high school kids usually haven't spent much time in a high school classroom.)
It maybe a numerically small group of people but you really shouldn’t discount the spending power of the small number of liberal billionaires who really care about funding liberal activism in setting the discourse
I probably was on the receiving end of those encouraged to do youth driven activism as I remember getting a lot of ads on my senior year about becoming a "manager" for "grassroots" campaigns. I even did a few interviews and everything. I didn't take up the job in the end, perhaps that's a good thing as I've heard some nasty rumors about the conditions ever since.
A lot of the big funders of "youth activism" are pretty miserable to work for and have no effect on actual politics as far as I can tell. I've heard good things about BallotReady fellowships, which are a big recruiter of new Ivy League grads, but I've never heard anything good from friends who did other ones.
also our media, especially left-leaning media, has a cultural fixation on "The Youth" that doesn't, and basically never will, reflect the median voter. Youth vote did rise to unprecedented levels - but youth vote SHARE dropped, because *everyone* was more engaged than usual, but young voters had much more room to grow.
Encourage youth activism on marijuana legalization?
Hmmmmm
That’s kind of happening already.
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/08/07/black-lives-matter-movement-marijuana-policies-392434
https://fightfor15.org/about-us/
Perhaps we could ask New Mexico Democrats for advice? That state has some of the most libertarian gun laws around, yet it's moved decisively toward Democrats over the last two decades. New Mexico Democrats control all statewide offices, and control the trifecta. I've just about reached the limit of my knowledge on this matter, but perhaps some others here might have insight as to how this has come to be.
I’ve been making a similar point to my wealthier liberal friends in a major city (Chicago) for years now, and I think it’s sinking in a bit.
Take the assault weapons ban. Per the FBI in 2017, just 4% of firearm murders were carried out by a rifle of any sort, which would include both semi-automatic rifles like AR-15 variants, as well as hunting rifles. This amount to around 400 deaths, equivalent to 4 days worth of deaths from car crashes in this country.
I’ve lived in the South as well, and I can say that a lot of the “from my cold dead hands” type are dead serious. Even if you assume that none of those 400 deaths would be carried out with a different gun, and that’s a tall order, it no way is it worth the massive destabilization that would occur if there was a serious push for just the assault weapons ban. People would think it’s just a ploy (thanks Beto) for full confiscation of the 15 million or so semi-automatic rifles in this country. It’s just not worth it. No matter how logical you think a reform would be, even if .01% of those people got violent, there could be a serious wave of domestic terrorism, which would then be countered by a civil liberties crackdown potentially like France is doing right now.
Any policy decision needs to take the facts on the ground into account. Getting normative without factoring in the descriptive is just tilting at windmills.
I know that there's no such thing as a truly new take, but Tyler Cowen made much the same comparison between guns and alcohol in 2013: https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2013/04/the-culture-of-guns-the-culture-of-alcohol.html