APPENDIX: HOW TO TALK TO GUN PEOPLE AND WIN

If you take away one lesson from reading this book, let it be that in the long run, the best way to win an argument is to be armed with facts, not guns. Here is your guide for how to push back against the most common characters and arguments you are sure to encounter as you work to build a future with fewer guns.

The Derailer: This is the guy who stares at you calmly as you explain that allowing just anyone to waltz into a gun show and purchase a semiautomatic assault weapon has resulted in the deaths of thousands of people. He replies, “Well, it’s not the guns that kill people; it’s the people that kill people.” You focus your eyes on his forehead to prevent them from rolling back into yours, then calmly launch into the Derailer pushback:

You know what, you’re right. Guns themselves don’t actually kill thirty thousand Americans each year—but they do make it really easy. And as long as you’re pointing out that it’s people who are doing all the killing, then let’s actually restrict the kind of people who can get guns. After all, states with higher levels of gun ownership have gun murder rates up to 114 percent higher than states with low levels of gun ownership,¹ and a review of thirty years of crime data calculated that “for each percentage point increase in gun ownership, the firearm homicide rate increased by 0.9 percent.”²

We already have all kinds of precedent for severely restricting access to inanimate objects that are dangerous or could become dangerous. Take cars, for example. If I were to say to you, “People shouldn’t have to pass a test and get a license to legally drive a car; all we need to do is punish dangerous and reckless car owners,” you’d probably think I was crazy. Nobody would seriously argue that we should allow people who don’t know how to operate a motor vehicle to get on a highway and drive 75—okay, 80—miles an hour and only punish them if they hit another car and hurt somebody. We as a society have decided that we should protect our communities from people who don’t know how to drive because they put us all at risk. Why not apply the same logic to supersonic-projectile launching devices? Fun fact: automobiles kill approximately thirty thousand people per year, about the same number who die from guns.³

The Doc: This is anyone without a medical degree who, upon engaging in a conversation about gun safety, suddenly grows concerned about the state of our mental health system and its inadequacy for treating people who are mentally unstable—thus leading them to get guns and commit crimes.

Response: Mental illness occurs in all countries, but the United States—with gun regulation loopholes big enough to drive a tank through—has three times the homicide rate of Canada and more than ten times that of Germany.⁴ Moreover, a psychiatric diagnosis can predict gun violence, but other factors, like a history of violence and substance abuse—and access to guns—are far better indicators of future gun crimes.⁵ Oh, and by the way, statistically speaking, mentally ill people commit only a tiny percentage of violent crime—an estimated 5 percent—and are actually far more likely to be the victims of violence. They are five times more likely to die by homicide than the general population and twice as likely to die by suicide.⁶

The Censor: “Back in my day, you didn’t have the kind of gratuitous violence you kids are watching today. From movies to TV to video games: it’s all stick ’em up and bang bang bang. No wonder many young men shoot up schools or movie theaters. They’re just reenacting what they see in the media!”

Response: This argument is as old as media itself. Back in the 1920s, America’s morality crusaders were very concerned that movies with sound—talkies!—were contributing to the delinquency of youth. In the early 1950s, the media’s focus on teenagers and their bad habits similarly set off all sorts of alarm bells for reformists. Ultimately, the impact of media on people—you know, very complex human beings—is almost impossible to measure. How can you untangle the complex web that shapes and influences behavior—everything from mental health to parenting to socioeconomic status to friendships? To pull out violent movies or video games and argue that they’re a primary cause of aggression or criminal activity is to ignore the many factors that can influence a person’s decisions and actions. And of course the rest of the world watches the very same movies we do—yet has dramatically fewer gun deaths. In fact, a Washington Post analysis compared video game expenditures and violent crime rates in ten advanced industrial nations and found no relationship between increased video game playing and increased real-world killing.⁷

The Inanimate Objector: “Well, scissors and knives kill people too. Are you going to require people to apply for steak dinner licenses?”

Response: Okay, when was the last time you heard of a drive-by knifing or people dying en masse at Ruth’s Chris? More than 75 percent of mass murderers kill with guns because they know (as do you) that guns are more lethal than other weapons—and provide killers with a more impersonal, antiseptic way of taking human life. A study that compared fatal and nonfatal gun and knife assaults in Chicago over a period of three years found that “gun attacks were about five times as likely to kill as knife attacks,” and domestic assaults that involve firearms are three times more likely to result in death than those committed with knives.⁸

Uncle Tea Party: Perhaps you’ve met this guy across your Thanksgiving dinner table. “It’s a slippery slope to government tyranny,” your uncle says between his second and third helping of green bean casserole. You look down at his plate and then back at him, thinking that the way things are going, it’s a slippery slope from Thanksgiving dinner to you punching him unconscious.

Response: Yes, everything can be a slippery slope. Yet we human beings have somehow managed to discern rational restrictions from extreme prohibitions: setting speed limits without completely outlawing driving, limiting how much cough syrup you can buy without pulling it off the shelves, and yes, even when it comes to guns, we’ve passed some sensible regulations without completely eliminating firearms. For instance, felons have been prohibited from owning guns since 1968, but you, dear Uncle Tea Party, are still allowed to own those eight rifles in your bedroom.

The Constitution-splainer: You know the type: MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN hat, Confederate flag bumper sticker, American flag T-shirt. As soon as you say anything at all about guns, he flips open to the Second Amendment and recites it from memory. “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” He points to the text emphatically and demands, “Show me where it says you can prohibit me from buying guns!”

Response: Well, it’s not in the actual text, but then again, none of the restrictions on our constitutional rights are. The First Amendment protects your freedom of speech, but as you probably know, it doesn’t permit you to yell “Fire!” in a crowded theater or spread slander. Many of our individual rights stop where someone else’s begin, and as Mr. Constitutional Originalist himself, Justice Antonin Scalia, pointed out in the 2008 Supreme Court case that recognized an individual’s right to possess a firearm within the home, the rights spelled out in the Second Amendment can and should be limited. “Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms,” he wrote, adding that the Court’s decision supports the “historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’”

In fact, since we’re on the topic, it’s worth pointing out that during the constitutional period, major American cities like New York and Boston actually prohibited the firing of guns within city limits. Rhode Island conducted a house-by-house census of gun owners. Maryland prevented Catholics from owning firearms. Even the so-called Wild West had strict gun laws, despite the way it’s often portrayed in popular movies and culture. Gun restrictions have been a part of our country for centuries and are as American as the Constitution itself.

The Existing Law Lover: This is the guy who—despite his great mistrust of the government—insists that rather than pass new laws, we must simply enforce the laws already on the books.

Response: The problem is that the existing laws suck—and are failing to keep guns out of the hands of killers and criminals. An estimated 40 percent of all gun sales go through private sellers who don’t even have to run the three-minute background check required of licensed federal dealers.⁹ That means we don’t know who’s buying what kind of guns or how many. One investigation discovered that 62 percent of online gun sellers were perfectly willing to sell to buyers who admitted that they were forbidden from buying a weapon from a licensed dealer. Bottom line: approximately 75 percent of the weapons used in mass shootings between 1982 and 2012 were purchased legally,¹⁰ so there is clearly something inadequate about our current gun laws.

Oh, and by the way, it’s always so rich to hear the NRA preach about enforcing existing gun laws. For decades the gun lobby has dedicated itself to weakening gun regulations and undermining enforcement. A short (and very incomplete) summary:

1. The NRA worked to defeat the current background check system legislatively and funded legal challenges once the Brady Bill became law, asking the Supreme Court to invalidate the entire statute, yet hypocritically it regularly criticizes Democratic administrations for failing to prosecute individuals who falsely claim on their background check form that they are not felons or otherwise prohibited from buying a gun.

2. The NRA successfully weakened the government’s ability to prosecute gun dealers for failing to keep records of their gun sales, which is the only way for officials to trace guns involved in crimes.

3. The NRA undermined the government’s ability to enforce the record-keeping requirements by limiting inspections to a single unannounced inspection every twelve months.

4. The NRA uses its influence over the appropriations process to push Republicans to underfund federal inspections, thus ensuring that most licensed dealers are inspected “infrequently or not at all.”

5. The NRA secured a provision that prevents the government from establishing a centralized computer database of digital records that would allow it to easily trace the serial number of a gun used in a crime in order to help identify the criminal who used it.

The Stockpiler: Because I write and tweet and talk about guns, a lot of the people I meet offer to show me their guns. They’re very proud to take me down to their dimly lit basement, unlock their large storage case, and expose fourteen semiautomatic weapons and sixty-two handguns. Yeehaw!

Response: My reaction is always the same. I’m impressed as they tell me the story behind each weapon. I appreciate how it just sings like a bird in their hands. But I can’t help but think that a gun—never mind this many guns—is statistically four times more likely to be involved in an accidental shooting than to be used to injure or kill someone in self-defense.¹¹ Kids are particularly vulnerable, as one experiment found that a full third of eight- to twelve-year-old boys who come across a handgun actually pull the trigger—despite being counseled about how to behave safely around guns.¹² Households that keep firearms also have a fivefold increase in the risk of suicide—and when a gun is used, the fatality rate is 80 percent.¹³

The Law & Order Fan: In my experience, this is the elderly woman who watches Law & Order or Criminal Minds on repeat. She may have seen that episode already, but if it’s on and you’re there, she’ll watch it with you! Should the subject of guns come up, she’ll tell you, “Darlin’, I’ve lived me some life, and I can tell you that if you start outlawing guns, the only people who’ll have guns are the outlaws!”

Response: Actually, existing gun laws are already disarming outlaws. For instance, the National Firearms Act of 1934 effectively banned machine guns from circulation by taxing them. You don’t hear about gangs roaming around with tommy guns precisely because gun restrictions work. And they do so in a targeted way. Just as the 1934 law severely restricted the availability of machine guns without wiping out all weapons, the 1993 background check law has stopped more than 2 million gun transactions—preventing outlaws from buying guns while preserving the rights of responsible gun owners to buy firearms. Some determined criminals will naturally try to skirt the law, but many will be deterred by it. For instance, one survey that asked criminals why they didn’t carry a weapon in the commission of their crimes found that 79 percent cited “get a stiffer sentence” and 59 percent said it was because it was “against the law.”¹⁴ Another showed that individuals who were denied purchases of handguns because of prior felony conviction “were less likely to commit subsequent crimes than those who had been arrested but not convicted and thus were able to obtain handguns. Denial of a handgun purchase is associated with a reduction in risk for later criminal activity of approximately 20–30 percent.”¹⁵ Ultimately, the ability of criminals to skirt the law isn’t a reason not to pass any laws at all. It’s a reason to tighten them. This is true for laws against theft and murder and, of course, guns.

The Liam Neeson Character in Taken: This guy fancies himself a Ninja avenger, a steel-jawed Man in Black wearing opaque shades. He keeps buying new guns to protect his family from intruders in the home or sex-slave abductors at the movie theater. He wears his cold heart on his sleeve: if other people know you love to shoot things, they’ll be a lot less likely to mess with you, right?

Response: Sometimes the threat is real, and in some places it’s continual. If you’re strolling through downtown Baltimore or Kabul, carrying a gun for self-protection is reasonable. Unfortunately, regular people don’t have the kind of specialized continuous training that Sam, police officers, and other law enforcement professionals undergo, training that shortens reaction time and builds muscle memory one can rely on in a crisis. Thus they often do more harm than good against an armed criminal, becoming easy targets for the killer or hitting innocent people with their bullets. That’s why, from 2000 to 2013, twenty-one active shooters were stopped by unarmed civilians while just one was stopped by a civilian with a firearm.¹⁶ Of course, it’s not really your fault. Your body undermines your ability to react. As one ABC News simulation of gun owners forced to react to an armed assailant showed, “Under extreme stress, your blood is actually pulled from your skin toward your muscles in case you need to flee, your heart is pumping three or four times the normal rate, your hands have less blood, they’re less dexterous, your reaction [is] delayed.”¹⁷ A study of seventy-seven volunteers who participated in three different scenarios—a carjacking, an armed robbery in a convenience store, and a larceny—found that those who had no specialized training performed poorly. “They didn’t take cover. They didn’t attempt to issue commands to their assailants. Their trigger fingers were either too itchy—they shot innocent bystanders or unarmed people, or not itchy enough—they didn’t shoot armed assailants until they were already being shot at,” the Washington Post reported.¹⁸ The risk of keeping a firearm actually outweighs its benefits, as the probability of shootings or suicide increases greatly when you introduce more guns into your home or community. Gun ownership doesn’t even deter burglars; in fact, one study found that a 10 percent increase in gun ownership increased burglary rates by 3 to 7 percent. The researchers assumed that the burglars specifically targeted gun-owning households to steal their guns and sell them.¹⁹

Ultimately, the truth of the matter is that Americans are far more likely to die in a homicide or suicide than commit an act of bravery and protect their families. In 2012, there were 258 justifiable killings, defined by the FBI as “the killing of a felon, during the commission of a felony, by a private citizen.” Compare that to the 20,666 suicides by gun, and 8,855 criminal gun homicides. For every justifiable gun homicide in 2012, America experienced 34 criminal gun homicides, 78 gun suicides, and 2 accidental gun deaths.²⁰ That’s part of the reason why the sixteen states with the highest rate of gun ownership have “more than four times as many gun suicides as the states with low gun ownership,” and states with the highest gun death rates overall typically have weak gun laws.²¹