Firearm Legislation: Why We Have So Much Trouble Talking About It

This past week, there was a terrible massacre at an Aurora, Colorado theatre on the opening night of The Dark Knight Rises.  The perpetrator used tear gas and a variety of firearms to inflict numerous casualties before being captured.

As with the Gabby Giffords shooting and many other high-profile acts of extreme firearm violence, there was an immediate call for increased firearm legislation.  This is an understandable reaction, but debates on the topic are almost universally unproductive, typically because they aren't actually debates.  They are usually online shouting matches and polemics that are designed to draw agreement and ire.  I'd like to give my perspective on firearm legislation and why discussions surrounding it often go so poorly.

I grew up in Wisconsin, a state with a large population of hunters.  Though my father hunted when he was young, he did not hunt at all as an adult.  I had a BB gun and a pellet gun, but never had a non-air-powered firearm.  My mother hated guns and still hates guns of all kinds.  A few years ago, I started taking handgun safety classes and eventually purchased a Colt M1991, an updated version of the .45 ACP sidearm used by American armed forces from WWI to Vietnam and beyond.  I also purchased some lever-action rifles, some military surplus WWII-era battle rifles, and a pump-action shotgun.  I went to local indoor and outdoor ranges by myself and with friends who were also interested in firearms.  I talked with range masters, gun store employees, and fellow shooters at the range on subjects ranging from practical to political.

My interests were mostly academic.  For better or worse, many video games feature firearms, and I don't like being ignorant about the things I work on.  Don't get me wrong: I also enjoy shooting and maintaining firearms, but that enjoyment followed the academic interest.  As with many of my hobbies, my interest peaked, tapered, and has fallen off.  I'm about to sell most of my firearms, mostly because I don't have any practical use for them and I just don't get out to the range that often.  I'm glad I learned what I have, but it's just not a big part of my life.  One of the most important things I've learned is what it's like to be a gun owner in America.  I believe it's helped me understand these debates much better than I previously had.

In my (admittedly short) time as a gun owner, I've heard a lot of complaints from other gun owners about why they hate gun legislation.  Some of it is rabid hostility, but it's foolish to dismiss all of it as such.  I've also had a lot of criticism come my way for owning firearms and for going to ranges.  From these two general perspectives, I have developed some theories about why gun control debates get very unproductive very quickly.

Many of the people who are most vocal about firearm legislation are the people who understand firearms the least.  A subset of these people are even proud of the fact that they don't know anything about firearms.  I believe this attitude is extraordinarily foolish.  Ignorance leads to bad legislation, regardless of the subject.  Most firearm legislation is bad because the public's understanding of the realities of firearms in America is bad.  When I say the legislation is bad, I don't mean that it's bad because it tramples rights or isn't constitutional, but because it doesn't even accomplish the things its advocates want it to accomplish.

The 1975 Firearm Controls Regulation Act (a.k.a. the D.C. handgun ban) accomplished virtually nothing because the legislation ignored the practical realities of how firearms are trafficked across state lines and how available they are across the country, legally or illegally.  The Federal Assault Weapons Ban (AWB) was similarly ineffective because "assault weapons" as defined by the AWB are used in a fraction of firearm-related crimes.

Many of the people who are most vocal about firearm legislation are transparently disingenuous about their end goals.  If your end goal is to reduce firearm-related crime, present your ideas and desires sincerely with that in mind.  If your end goal is for all firearms to be banned and all extant civilian-owned firearms to be reclaimed and destroyed by the government, be sincere about that as well.  There are many, many cases where people advocate legislation disingenuously.  They suggest a modest restriction under the pretense of reform, but their actual desire is to make the United States a nation without civilian firearm ownership.

If you wonder why some firearm owners react to talk of incremental gun control as though their houses are going to be raided and they are going to be arrested for owning a bolt-action varmint rifle, it's because they don't believe in the sincerity of people advocating incremental legislation (and they are often right not to).

The NRA is awful.  I know some firearm owners and NRA members are going to read this blog and be upset by that, but I find it hard to defend the NRA.  It's an organization that frequently rabble-rouses and presents an eternal us-vs-them conflict to firearm owners.  Many of their positions are extreme and unsupported.  The NRA, along with many firearm manufacturers and gun store owners, "predicted" a huge storm of firearm legislation after Obama was elected.

Before his inauguration, there was an astounding market run on items that they "predicted" would be legislated or banned: >10 round magazines, certain types of ammunition, and anything previously covered by the AWB (that they said would be renewed despite virtually no signs the administration had any interest in doing so).  AR-15 receivers were among the most insanely market-inflated, but many types of ammunition were also hoarded in large quantities.  Gun store clerks were even re-selling ammunition "under the table"  with dramatically increased prices.

The saddest thing is that gun owners across the country bought into it.  All of it.  For the past year, the NRA has been building up for the 2012 election, promising that Obama is going to go into firearm legislation overdrive if he is re-elected.  Again, to date, there's no solid evidence this is going to happen, but the NRA is terribly good at spreading panic.

The media is just as ignorant as the public.  It's also sensationalist.  So despite the fact that the AR-15, one of the weapons used in the Aurora killings, fires a 5.56x45mm round realistically described as "mid-powered" (its parent round, .223 Remington, was developed for hunting "varmints" -- rabbits, coyotes, squirrels, etc.), many papers and blogs describe it as "high-powered" or "fearsome".

Writers will also draw similarities between situations that aren't really relevant, but promote radical panic.  The Aurora shooter used a Glock.  Jared Loughner, the man who shot Gabrielle Giffords, also used a Glock.  These facts shouldn't be that surprising considering that the majority of police departments across the country use Glocks and it's one of the most popular brands of semi-automatic civilian handgun around.

Some people may say that these points of contention don't matter.  When it comes to legislation, those points are very important, and popular opinion often drives legislation.  When gun owners scoff at advocates of fingerprinting when people buy "handgun ammo" or restricting the sale of "assault weapons", it's because those quoted terms are vague or nonsense.  Unfortunately, many members of the public become concerned about these specific ideas because they're the things that reporters in the media promote, regardless of relevance.

Proposed actions are often radical and irrationally focused instead of progressive and comprehensive.  These discussions happen in cycles, usually launched by a national (or international) tragedy.  Specific things happen in the tragedy: Glocks are used, large-capacity magazines are used, a certain type of ammunition is used.  Instead of looking at national (and international) trends in firearm ownership and crime, people get hung up on the specifics of the tragedy: ban Glocks, ban large-capacity magazines, ban this type of ammunition.  For many reasons, it's important to talk about the specifics, but legislating around the specifics usually doesn't solve larger problems.  Most of the time, it doesn't solve any problems, and the divide between firearm owners and gun control advocates grows even larger.

Widespread firearm ownership, legal and illegal, is a practical reality in the United States.  Gun violence, even adjusted for population, is also a much larger issue here than it is in most ostensibly "peaceful" countries.  It is sad that the salient times we have to discuss these problems are often preceded by terrible events like the Aurora shootings.  It is even more unfortunate that all sides of the debate spend so much of their energy locked in fruitless arguments instead of approaching the subject with sober, sincere, and considerate minds.

on, wisconsin

In less than a month, Wisconsinites will go to their polling places to cast a vote in the gubernatorial recall election.  If you are unaware, Governor Scott Walker came under intense criticism for a series of bills he supported that weakened unions.  Of specific note, collective bargaining rights were stripped from unions.  A non-trivial section of the populace, supported by unions from within Wisconsin and from other other states, staged large protests at the capitol in Madison.

Additionally, the "Wisconsin 14", fourteen Democrats from the state senate, fled the state to stall passage of the bills.  The protests and senatorial hijinks continued for months, with counter-protests forming and the political tone in Wisconsin becoming increasingly venomous and partisan.  While I did not return to Wisconsin, I did attend a support protest at Los Angeles City Hall.

Even there, the tone was often mocking and negative.  When I talked to people back home, I was dismayed by tendencies to demonize and belittle.  Even though I supported blocking Governor Walker's bills and maintaining unions' collective bargaining rights, it was painful for me to see my home's political climate, so moderate and civil in my lifetime, turn bitter, inconsiderate, and zealous.

My mother's parents were union folks. Her father helped form a machinist's union and both he and my grandmother served as local presidents.  My father's father was a shoemaker and a farmer.  There were no unions for him.  No unions for my father (sculptor) or me (game designer).  I'm fine with not being in a union.  I'm glad I am paid very well and receive good benefits, but I understand that not everyone has it so easy.  I'm glad that unions can be formed and can collectively bargain for rights.  I also understand that, like any organization, unions are made of people, and people can be bad.  Some unions are terrible, locally and nationally.

For me, the issue was never to place unions in a position superior to businesses; I don't think there's anything inherently virtuous about either group of people.  I just thought Walker's bills pushed the balance too far.  Maybe those who supported them thought they were fine, but certainly they could see why unions exist... right?  Certainly those who supported unions could see why some would criticize some union practices... right?  This is the state that produced "Fighting Bob" La Follette, and Russ Feingold, but elected Tommy Thompson governor for four terms and historically has a fair split of Democrat/Republican presidential results (excepting 1924, when it went Progressive).  We enacted the Wisconsin Idea, La Follette and the Progressives' vision of the UW system working with the government to produce better lives for all Wisconsinites.  We've been a state of farmers, cheesemakers, manufacturers, brewers, fishers, and miners.  To me, Wisconsinites have always seemed on board with working things out and using common sense.  I may have been mistaken.

When I visited Wisconsin for two weeks in February of this year, I saw more hostile political billboards, lawn signs, and bumper stickers than I had in the twenty-three years I lived in the state.  The recall primary, which took place yesterday, was months away and the protests were almost a year in the past, but people were still mad.  Mad about everything.  A family friend came over to the house.  When he walked in, he pointed to everyone in the room and said, "We're all Democrats here, right?  Right?"  He was joking, but not really.

I don't feel my expectations are too high.  I don't expect people not to be mad.  I don't expect them not to yell, not to protest, not to rally.  I just expect them to not shake and sputter with hate, not to threaten and insult those who disagree with them, not to belittle physical or other personal characteristics of their opponents.  Maybe they do that in other states, but not in Wisconsin... right?

There's a little less than a month to go before the recall.  I support Tom Barrett even though he is not "the union" candidate.  I don't feel Wisconsin needs "a union" governor.  In my opinion, it needs a governor who understands that there should be a balance between the power of unions and the power of corporations.  If you disagree in any way, that's fine.  It's all fine.  We can talk about it and vote about it (well, you can vote about it, I can pay property taxes and complain if Barrett loses).  We can be civil.  We can earnestly accept the other side is trying to do the right thing.  In the end, I'm less concerned with who winds up in the capitol and more concerned with how the electorate winds up, how we see each other and treat each other.  Though I've lived in California for thirteen years, I've always considered Wisconsin to be my home.  I don't want it to be just another place where partisans spit fire and tear each others' throats out.

Complaining About Politically Active, Intellectual Lazy People

I am fed up with the laziness Americans, in general, show toward political awareness and criticism in this information age.  By this, I do not mean that I am fed up with political apathy, nor do I mean that I am fed up with low voter turn-out.  I also don't mean to hold up other republics as shining examples in comparison to us, but we project ourselves as a beacon of what a constitutional republic should be; it would be nice to live up to that standard.  Much of what of what I'm writing is similar in tone to general critiques of political discourse in recent years.  I don't feel like I have a particularly brilliant insight into our political landscape, but I felt the need to write about it because it greatly troubles me.

Specifically, I am filled with intense disappointment for an American voting society that has such incredible and unprecedented access to a wide spectrum of information but chooses to squander it -- a society that dehumanizes and demonizes political opponents that are more visible and exposed than ever, simplifies complex discourse to snide partisan jokes, and overlooks sober political debate in favor of media cheerleading.

Despite all of the incredible communication and education resources available to us, as a society we generally remain politically hostile, obstinately partisan, short-sighted, lazy, bull-headed, and willfully ignorant.

In 1993, I turned eighteen and became eligible to vote.  Since then, in less than twenty years, here are some of the things that I, and many other internet-active Americans, can now do that were not possible (or at least practical for many people) then:

* Look at the full text, often with ongoing edits, of bills submitted to state and federal legislative bodies.
* Read the non-partisan analyses of bills by government officials, such as a legislative analyst.
* Look up how any representative has voted on any given bill ever.
* Look up the historical context of almost anything in our own past or the past of any civilization ever recorded.

In addition to those enormously valuable things, we also have the ability to do things like:

* Stream major legislative sessions from C-SPAN or look them up later on a variety of video sites.
* Read myriad sides and aspects of political debates in literally hundreds of venues that are friendly, hostile, or mixed relative to our own views.
* Watch, read, listen to, and respond to to the broader opinions and concerns of political figures, professional journalists, bloggers, private citizens, and all sorts of people from different backgrounds all over the world.
* Have our internet browsers automatically translate foreign websites into languages we can read, giving us access to primary documents, news articles, conversations, etc. -- basically everything we see above, but for the entire world.

Most people who are politically active on the internet do not do these things.  I feel comfortable writing this because the evidence, though based on casual observation, is impressive in its consistency.  People do not look at, much less read, the full text of bills.  They wouldn't even be able to tell you where to find the text of bills, nor do they seem to care.  The blogs that cover events of political significance rarely even bother to give the names of the very important bills being discussed, and almost never the numbers by which they can be properly identified.  I will stop short of speculating on the reasons for these omissions, but I will say that it is lazy, unhelpful to serious political analysis, and intellectually indefensible.

In general, politically active people do not read non-partisan analyses of a bill; they read partisan analyses of those non-partisan analyses.  They don't look up voting records themselves; they listen to the cherry-picked, context-free slams from polemicists.  Voters don't learn historical facts, absorb different analyses, and formulate their own opinions; they listen to other people spin historical narratives that wrap up selective facts into a story that fits their predispositions.  We don't seriously read the "other side" of a debate to understand perspectives; we skim selective quotations that cast our most disagreeable political opponents in the harshest light.

Despite having enormous resources of information available to us, every day our society largely spurns the opportunity to learn more about how our world has worked, how it has failed, and what people are trying to do about it today.  So much more is immediately available to us, both passively and actively, than ever has been before.  A lot of it is irrelevant, confusing, and infuriating.  Too bad.  It requires our effort to sort through.  Whatever your education, whatever your background, whatever your occupation, the world is constantly changing, and we all must continuously engage the rest of the world to make any serious critical analysis of how we should move forward.  If we float along on a sea of second-hand information and opinions put out by partisans and media outlets, we're politically active while being politically brain dead.

We become politically active to accomplish things.  If a goal is well-reasoned and a course is sound, all the critical analysis, slams, and distractions in the world can't detract from that.  I work with a literacy program that promotes literacy in part because it is believed to be an essential part of participating in a democratic society.  There are millions of people in this country who strive and struggle every day to read, write, listen, and speak with the people around them -- simply to do basic things.  If you're reading this right now, you have the ability to access and analyze -- and contribute to -- a staggering, unprecedented amount of information that can inform your participation in our government and in political culture.  I'm not saying it's easy.  I'm not saying it doesn't take time.  But compared to the entire history of the world, it has never been easier than it is right now.