Playing the Excruciatingly Long Game on Guns
The case for tantric lawmaking
I hate our dialogue about guns. To cut to the chase (because the main thing we all want to know when we read a political article is whether the author shares our opinion): I think that America would be better off with far fewer guns. If you don’t like that opinion, you might want to sit this one out. Though you don’t have to, because this article is written in my typical “heterodox” style that usually pisses off literally everyone. So, maybe stick around — I’ll probably say something shitty about someone you hate!
Democrats typically “react” to mass shootings by calling for measures that wouldn’t have stopped the shooting they’re reacting to. Which is a bit like “reacting” to low office morale by proposing a Venetian-style masked orgy: It smacks of opportunism and causes people to question your motives. Democrats’ approach hands Republicans a counter-argument: They can say “this wouldn’t have stopped that” and actually be right. By framing the issue in incredibly narrow terms, Democrats lose; we look like ineffectual scolds engaged in moralistic grandstanding to please our base. And we’ve been known to sail into those waters before.
But lawmakers aren’t really to blame. Democrats propose puny gun laws because those are the only laws that won’t cause them to suffer Elden Ring-style immediate, brutal death in the next election. The entire debate gets framed in a way that misses the point. The “fewer guns” side is losing the argument, and worse yet: It doesn’t matter if we win. I think we’d be better off acknowledging that our current debate is mostly pointless and focusing on bringing about the day when it’s possible to pass a law that matters. Even though that day won’t come for at least several decades.