The path toward saner gun policies

by Rob Schofield

What it will really take to reclaim the debate and “regulate the Militia”

It’s been less than 96 hours since a pathetically troubled young man dipped into his mother’s arsenal of high-powered weapons and changed our world last Friday, but already there has been an outpouring of pent-up passion and persuasive analysis from scores of insightful political leaders, advocates, journalists, bloggers and average citizens. Across America, millions have stood up to echo the President’s conclusion in his unforgettable memorial speech of Sunday night that:

“We can’t tolerate this anymore. These tragedies must end. And to end them, we must change.”

For instance, here’s New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg speaking yesterday on behalf of Mayors Against Illegal Guns:

“Gun violence is a national epidemic – and a national tragedy – that demands more than words. It demands immediate national action, from the President and from Congress. It needs to be at the top of their agenda.”

And here’s columnist Nicholas Kristoff:

“The fundamental reason kids are dying in massacres like this one is not that we have lunatics or criminals — all countries have them — but that we suffer from a political failure to regulate guns.

Children ages 5 to 14 in America are 13 times as likely to be murdered with guns as children in other industrialized countries, according to David Hemenway, a public health specialist at Harvard who has written an excellent book on gun violence.

So let’s treat firearms rationally as the center of a public health crisis that claims one life every 20 minutes. The United States realistically isn’t going to ban guns, but we can take steps to reduce the carnage.”

Happily, the nation is actually awash in rational voices on this matter. Smart people know we must do much more and are saying it publicly. Add to this reality the news of some encouraging national poll numbers and it’s not impossible to see a path forward in which the National Rifle Association is exposed as the blowhard bully it really is and dismissed to margins of civilized society where it belongs.

The thing that’s missing  

What’s missing in all this, of course, is the same thing that’s missing in so many critical public policy debates for those who would give voice to rational, common sense solutions for the problems that ail us: money.

This sounds crass, but it’s true. The hard reality of the gun debate in the United States right now is this: On one side stands a passionate core of people for which guns are the one and only issue. They live and breathe guns “24-7” and contribute huge sums of money to the lobbying and political groups that concoct ever more extreme positions and supposed threats to justify their own existence. This group is a minority of the public, but through fanatical passion, concerted action and pooled resources it has created a feared political behemoth.

And what stands on the other side? Truth be told, it’s not much: A smattering of well-meaning anti-violence groups, an array of progressive nonprofits for which gun violence is one of 27 or so issues, some public health and law enforcement officials and a handful of courageous political leaders. The truth of the matter is that while Americans want stricter gun control by a wide margin, for most of them, guns are not a single-issue passion as they are with the pro-gun crowd.

We see this every day in North Carolina. Here, the leading anti-gun violence group is known as North Carolinians Against Gun Violence. And while it does wonderful work under tough circumstances, the group can only be described as a shoestring operation. It has a tiny budget and staff.

The results of this mismatch are predictable: As it does in Washington (where the imbalance is only slightly less egregious) the NRA and its allies rule the roost. Rather than working to combat gun violence and save innocents as has been done so effectively in so many other countries through sane gun regulations, North Carolina lawmakers fall all over themselves in their efforts to pledge fealty to the gun lobby and compete to see who can spread guns—even the concealed variety—into more and more places.

Indeed, things have gotten so absurd that just four months ago, the Speaker of the North Carolina House (and prospective 2014 U.S. Senate candidate), Thom Tillis, held a political fundraiser at a shooting range at which a simulator allowed lucky customers to pretend mowing down multiple “terrorists.” Indeed, lots of candidates for office held such events this year, including Debra Goldman, the GOP nominee for state Auditor and current Wake County School Board member!

When was the last time you heard about a politician holding a “peace and fellowship” fundraiser or something similar?

Regulating the militia  

So could a large influx of anti-gun violence money really change this equation? Could it actually help bring about a meaningful shift in the attitudes of our elected leaders—one big enough to force genuine enforcement of the entire Second Amendment (you know, including the part about “a well-regulated Militia”??

The answer here is an unequivocal “yes.”

Right now, the playing field isn’t just tilted; it’s not even a competition. Anti-gun violence advocates in North Carolina don’t have a crew of lobbyists, a team of lawyers, a fleet of writers and thinkers to help inform public opinion or a team of grassroots organizers (much less a network of for-profit businesses or a giant political action committee ready to recruit, nurture and help elect candidates) like the pro-gun crowd..

And while an influx of money could not establish such an infrastructure overnight, it could certainly make an enormous difference in reasonably short order. If you don’t think so, consider any number of powerful industries that have risen from obscurity to political prominence in recent decades. Think about how the Koch Brothers have shifted the national debate on global warming in just a few years. Sometimes, it’s amazing how the promise of large campaign contributions can win the hearts and minds (and expedite the learning curve) of politicians.

So, could this happen? If so how?  Well, right now, the man heading Mayors Against Illegal Guns, Michael Bloomberg, is worth something like $25 billion. He seems like a person capable of funding the effort on a national basis. One percent of that fortune would go a long way toward getting the job done.

But he’s far from the only one. Bill Gates wants to improve the nation’s schools, right? How about starting by keeping the kids and teachers in them alive? Heck, news reports indicate that even Rupert Murdoch has spoken out about the madness of America’s gun policies. And there are, of course, other sources of funding beyond fat cats like Bloomberg, Gates and Murdoch in the progressive foundation world. Even the American public at-large would respond if someone like the President got specific and told them where and how to contribute.

The point is, in the words of Richard Nixon, “if you need the money you could get that…I know where it could be gotten. It is not easy, but it could be done.”

Let’s hope that, in the months ahead, the plain truth of this potential solution to our national crisis begins to dawn on some of America’s more open-minded plutocrats. It may not be the most wholesome or inspiring solution to the problem, but at this point, who cares? Right now our children and teachers are being murdered. If we can save some lives by simply buying our politicians back from the gun crowd, let’s get started immediately.

Rob Schofield

Policy Director, NC Policy Watch

rob@ncpolicywatch.com; 919.861.2065