62 Comments

I believe Michael needs to read more history. When he says that America has always had guns, the truth is that a MINORITY of Americans own guns.

I grew up in Appalachia where most people had guns- usually a .22 or a .410 shotgun for hunting. No one owned handguns or military weaponry. It was a very different style of gun ownership.

And it was only in 2008 that the Supreme Court interpreted the Second Amendment as applying to individual gun ownership.

American’s history with guns has not always been this “guns at all costs or you are infringing upon my rights” rhetoric that we now hear. In the West in the 19th century, many towns demanded that citizens not bring guns into the town.

Ronald Reagan went after gun “rights” in 1967 when he signed the Mulford Act (aimed at the Black Panthers) which profited the public carrying of loaded guns without a permit.

And In the 1920s-30s when crime could involve Tommy guns, it was only organized crime that used those guns. Common citizens did not own such weapons.

Our country’s relationship to guns has been all over the board and our current iteration of gun “rights” is due to gun manufacturers’ profits, the NRA, and lobbying from what was once considered the far right.

A knowledge of history complicates the picture in such a way that we come to understand that the interpretation of the Second Amendment that we currently cite is extremely new.

Expand full comment

Maybe I have Apple Knocker bias, but I think this man sorts out this gun control issue really, really well.

As the guy in these videos says, “Right now, there’s a whole bunch of people out there, that are pro-gun, that are like, oh yeah, hillbilly about to school these liberals on guns.”

These 3 short videos are less than 10 minutes and well worth the time.

Beau of the fifth column, Let's talk about guns, gun control, school shootings, and the "law abiding gun owner" parts 1, 2 and 3

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BxvxbZGjlv4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wNtxtuQxUz8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QbXTDuwSVkk

And just because I think it matters, I recommend these 2 short videos as well

Let's talk about being armed and black

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zL_IX8yX_JU

Let's talk about what it's like to be a black person in the US

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WD8mWq0Hdcw

Expand full comment

This Michael guy disqualifies himself in so many ways I lost count. I don't understand why you persist with someone who argues in serial falsehoods.

* self-defense. This is more of that hairy-chested Stand Your Ground BS. It's an article of faith that gun owners repel intruders and attacks 100,000 times a year, a preposterous figure that probably traces back to John Lott, who makes shit up.

* gun rights come from God. If your argument has its basis in the supernatural then you have no argument; until God can take the bench in a courtroom this is inadmissible. I know your determined civility forbids you from pointing this out but it's true.

* gun control is a non-starter. Nonsense. We banned assault rifles, mass shootings dropped. We unbanned them, mass shootings came roaring back.

* guns safeguard against tyranny. Horseshit. Only a fantasist sees tyranny in America coming from "the left" and anyone with a functioning brain sees it being actively developed on the right. The gun owners would in substantial number be enthusiastic supporters of their new right wing dictator, liberated to shoot people like you and me. And even those who opposed the tyrant would be going up against trained soldiers and would die by the thousand, probably safely killed by drones.

You can count me among those who would fully repeal the Second Amendment. Round up the guns and melt them down. Collectors could have their pieces irreversibly disabled but the age of personal firearms would draw to a close.

"The Bill of Rights must remain sacrosanct." Note the religious phrasing; your interlocutor suffers from delusions. I am SO RELIEVED that I will never be forced to let soldiers occupy my home!

The real problem with these arguments is the intense fanaticism of the gun culture. The fact that a man whose children were murdered by a deranged shooter will still adhere to his Second Amendment. We on what the uneducated call "the left" are accustomed to dealing in logic and perennially make the mistake of believing that everyone else does too. To the gun nuts any limitation is inadmissible and a step closer to slavery. You can't deal with fanatics.

Expand full comment
Jul 25, 2022·edited Jul 25, 2022

First of all, let me say I appreciate the spirit of this conversation, on both sides. I wish all our public discussion around this issue (and others) were conducted at this level of reasoned, respectful discourse.

I am a confirmed liberal democrat, small “l,” small “d.” I have never owned a firearm and wouldn’t know how to handle it properly if I did. But it is a fact, for better or worse, that the right to keep and bear arms is enshrined in our Constitution. I wish it weren’t, and I understand that—in principle, in an ideal world—everything and anything in the Constitution should be open to reconsideration and revision. That’s what Article 5 is for.

But notwithstanding my personal feelings about guns and their effects on our society, I would strenuously oppose any effort to repeal or revise the Second Amendment. (I realize you haven’t suggested this, Steve, but there is no shortage of others who do.) Amending the Bill of Rights in any way would set a disastrous precedent, an open invitation to start chipping away at it in other ways: to, say, limit the right of trial by jury, or repeal the religious establishment clause, or revoke the “speedy and public trial” clause and the right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation, and keep people incarcerated indefinitely without charge. I’m normally skeptical (you’d probably write “sceptical”) of “slippery slope” arguments, but this is one slope I don’t want to set one toe on. The Bill of Rights, whatever its imperfections, must remain sacrosanct.

Having said that, I would hope a guy like Michael would support things like more stringent training and proficiency testing; as a “responsible gun owner,” I don’t see why he would object to this. Restrictions on fire rate, magazine size, biometric trigger locks—all these things should be possible consistent with the Second Amendment. You have to pass a road test to get a driver’s license, register your vehicle, pay an annual registration fee, display registration plates, but nobody thinks those things infringe your right to keep and operate an automobile. This is what we on the left mean by “common-sense gun regulation.” Can’t we please find common ground here?

Expand full comment

This was fantastic. I love reading you going on at length because I feel like I'm hearing a fully rounded, carefully thought-out argument. I know that writing at length isn't the point of this substack, it's literally called The Commentary and it's about sharing conversations that have been had. Pretty unique in the Substack world, which is why I'm a paid subscriber. But I for one would love to read an occasional lengthy article from you on your substack. The writing in your responses to Michael here is as engaging as other writers that I pay to read, folks like Andrew Sullivan and Freddie deBoer.

Expand full comment

A position I argue from when it comes to preventing mass shootings is bullying in schools. Nearly all the perps have this in common - they were bullied in school. I find this article to be fascinating: https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/05/27/stopping-mass-shooters-q-a-00035762

Expand full comment

Interesting read, but I didn't make it all the way to the end. I like detail, nuance and so on, but this ran a little long...

Here are a few thoughts, in no particular order from someone who often disagrees with you, but also believes you are perhaps the fairest writer on many topics, especially race/racism in America.

Guns aren't going away in this country, ever. Even if magically we could do that, the new 3D printing technology and ghost guns make it unlikely that we are ever going to be done with gun violence through laws.

Laws prohibiting stuff rarely work. Think prohibition, "war on drugs", etc. A lot of lives were destroyed by do-gooders, well-intentioned or not, determined to remake society in their image. It didn't work, and both crusades arguably aggravated the original "problem".

I grew up in rural NW NJ., Most houses had a shotgun or rifle. I lived in that town until I was 18. There were two incidences of gun violence in the town (25k population) during my youth: a murder/suicide of husband/wife and an incredibly stupid homeowner target shooting off his deck in a lake community who struck and killed a neighbor across the lake. Even though guns were readily available, it was absolutely unthinkable that they would ever be used to settle disputes, attack teachers you didn't like, and so on. We had both parents and police, and it worked just fine.

At 18, I joined the Marines, and spent 4 years in the infantry. Our government issued weapons were always kept in the armory, but many of us had personal handguns which we kept in the squad bays, which was illegal but common. Again, there was never, ever a single instance of even a threat of violence from guns in my unit. We fought with each other, and there were broken bones at times, and we fought with civilians off base, but it was completely unthinkable , not something that would ever even be discussed over large quantities of alcohol, to ever settle disputes with guns. We were young, crazy, testosterone driven men, but some things were simply off limits, by nature, by training, and by fear of consequences.

While stationed in NC, I had a girlfriend who was being relentlessly bullied by an ex boyfriend, a known drug dealer whose father was a prominent lawyer and very good friends with the local judiciary. The son was untouchable legally, and bullied and threatened anyone in his life who "disrespected" him in any way, especially women who had the temerity to leave his violent companionship. He would follow my girlfriend during the day and terrorize her wherever she went. One day I took her too a gun store, bought her a small handgun, gave her the basic lessons on loading, aiming and fire, and told her to kill him the next time he came to her house. The next time he came pounding on her door, she fired through the door, ddi not kill him, and he stayed away for a while. When he started following her car again, her brother followed his, and blew the back windshield out of the ex-boyfriend's car with a shotgun. That was the last she ever heard from him. She would most likely be dead today were the gun laws (and prosecutorial zeal) of today in force in NC in the 80s.

I live in Detroit. Virtually everyone owns, and carries a gun, almost always handguns. Some are legal, many are not. Some are legally acquired guns carried concealed without a permit. There are hundreds of killings per year here, almost all from driveby shootings or turf disputes among gangs or something as simple as a fender-bender n the Home Depot parking lot. It is completely tolerated, and accepted. There is no protest here, unless the shootings are done by the police, in which case every suburban activist dresses ups in BLM gear to descend on the City to (selectively) denounce gun violence. The amount of children shot in this city is out of control, and you will never, ever hear about it on the news, because it isn't news.

So what to do?

I am firmly on the side of responsible gun ownership, with the emphasis on responsible. I would, and do support some sort of mandatory training and (short) waiting period before purchasing guns. Obviously, this would only help matter out in instances where the guns were being purchased legally. Here in Detroit , such restrictions wouldn't have even a marginal effect, since the overwhelming percentage of gun crimes are being committed by felons who aren't supposed to be anywhere near firearms to begin with .

The spate of suburban teenage/young adult male mass shootings is a new phenomenon in my life. it seems to coincide with the rash of new drugs, prescription and others, that have flooded our country, whether under the guise of "anti-depressants" or other pretenses. Most of the shooters seem to have been prescribed, at some point , drugs with a frightening list of potential "side effects". I know coincidence doesn't prove causality, but there is something to look at here. This sort of shooting simple didn't exist when I grew up, and guns were, and are, readily available.

We need, desperately, the PARENTS of this country to parent, and to raise responsible, compassionate, and discerning children. We need the parents back. If we don t parent, we will need to police ever more, and that is no substitute. We, as a culture, need to go back to what worked, what worked, imperfectly, but much better than what we have in 2022. It isn't difficult. It has nothing to do with race or poverty or anything else but a spectacular decline in personal responsibility, and a lack of appreciation for what we do have, which has been replaced with a unrelenting drumbeat of complaints, victimization and overall whining about what is wrong.

Will some laws restricting gun ownership, in some instances, reduce some typos of crimes? I would guess yes, but we aren't going to legislate our way out of this problem. We need responsible, mature, adult citizens and strong neighborhoods and communities to collectively address the problem of gun violence, and so many other problems, not more laws.

Expand full comment

I like seeing this sort of debate at length, not just the edited highlights. It gives all sides space to make their points & bring in different contextual information, rather than having a simplistic, reductionist argument - even when the contextual information contains completely self-defeating claims like saying that the right to own a gun is god-given, in a country that (at the moment) claims to have separation of church & state.

Something did occur to me while I was reading, though.

How many mass shootings are committed by women?

That should be easy info to get hold of.

Perhaps logically the US should only allow women to own rapid-fire guns with large magazine capacity... now that would put the cat among the pigeons, wouldn't it?

I think the issue here is with men feeling that they have the right to protect "their women", instead of understanding that women, like men, should always be respected as individuals & anyone who places people somewhere where they need protection is mentally ill. Even if they're a senator, or a president, or extremely rich, they need treatment in a secure institution until they understand why this is wrong.

Like I said, just putting cats among pigeons here. Food for thought.

Expand full comment

This commentary seems to be finished but I've got to get this off my chest.

While Snowden informed us that the government spies on us and keeps data forever, not deleting it after legal time limits, they don't know about the guns you got from grandpa. The latest gun control measure from the house is specifically to address that. They want to know where they all are because it is a prerequisite for confiscation. There is no other purpose for registration, except taxation, than to enable confiscation.

The nebulously defined "assault weapon" is about all semiautomatic firearms which are widely produced and owned in modern America. This should be obvious to anyone capable and willing to think critically about the true, thinly veiled gun control agenda. The NRA or more specifically the NRA/ILA has nothing to do with that being obvious. The NRA is not needed to see that.

I understand that there are many who want a ban and confiscation. I don't write this thought with regard to the good or bad of that agenda, just to dismiss the "Oh, nobody wants to take away your guns. That's just NRA Kool-Aid" nonsense. When it comes to political things, people who are presumably capable of critical thought refuse to do it if it can shine a light on something they would rather not see. It's not a wild, unwarranted conspiracy theory, it is plainly obvious in the activity of those who prefer a defenseless population.

If you want to end firearms ownership that's your opinion that I disagree with, but it is a different issue than denying the end goal to deceptively take progressing small steps toward it.

Expand full comment

I have something to add after some of the research I did yesterday for an article I'm working on on the connection of domestic violence to mass shooters, and general violent history for young 'longer' mass shooters. The media really seems to have picked up on this DV connection and I wonder whether guys like this guy are freaking out because if people start demanding that the gov't crack down on people with violence in their past, maybe their precious guns will get taken away, or they won't be allowed to have any.

Maybe this guy is a responsible shooter with no violence history, or maybe it's simply not on the record and he's running scared. The 'boyfriend loophole' that Biden's new gun law closes really isn't that big a deal; it only prohibits guns for men with DV *convictions*, and most women will never push it that far. But...what if people like me, and I say this in my article, take a more proactive approach to reporting potentially violent people to the police since I argue that DV is no longer a woman's private matter - it now potentially affects all of us, although it's always affected more than just the woman and her children.

What if people could report 'problematic' people to the police, so that he might be 'known to police' even if he's never had a run-in himself?

You'd think a 'law-abiding' guy like this NRA Koolaid-drinker would be all in favour of going after the 'non-law-abiding' gun owners, esp potential mass shooters who make *all* of them look bad.

It's almost as though he has something to fear.

Expand full comment

In this case, the link was interesting enough that I stayed with it. I don't have a solution; I wish I did, but "We've got to do something even if it is wrong" is often wrong.

If the shit hits the fan and there is a breakdown of society, I might regret not buying an AR-15. An EMP or severe solar storm that kills power (with no functioning gas pumps) and the internet (access to your money) will be a SHTF event. Big cities grocery stores will be completely empty in three days, and nothing will be coming when the truckers are out of fuel. Starving people will be coming for what you've got, and they will kill you to take it.

Expand full comment

Whew! Yes I actually read the entire conversation. Somehow it was riveting, sobering and occasionally like banging your head into a post. (A little head banging may be beneficial at times.) I also learned at least one reason you have such an admireable degree of patience and persistance: your training in martial arts.

Also, I had to chuckle at the god thing. As a happy a-the-ist it never occurred to me that a god bestowed rights to humans or that people actually believed this. Of course the pantheon of gods in human history were mostly quite violent and created of war at the slightest infringement of their whims. Every type of gun ever made was designed to kill. Period.

It seems to me that proponents of the "guns for my/our protection" philosophy are simply on the edge of who can kill who first and feel righteous about it. Whether animal or human, they will feel justified in their act.

Expand full comment

How did I miss this? I've been waiting for it. Several points worth mention (according to me):

When people think of mass shootings they think of the spectacular ones (schools, churches, shopping centers) but the FBI sets a very low bar for calling something a mass shooting. Years ago, I did a search on mass shootings where I live. Four guys in a parking lot where a drug deal went south. Another (unsolved) someone went into a home and shot four people. The number of mass shootings cited are not necessarily what people are thinking of when they think of mass shootings.

The age of adulthood Michael mentioned is a sticky one. I returned from Vietnam as a sergeant with a couple of rows of ribbons. I was 20, at that time too young to buy alcohol (or vote) so my wife bought it for me. The problem with what age for what is that your prefrontal cortex (the part of the brain for clear adult thinking) is undeveloped until about the age of 25. Governments want young men in the military precisely because of that. I was willing to do things that a 30-year-old man would say "hell no!" to. The government wanted us to kill people. I think there is logical argument for drinking, voting and buying certain firearms at 25 though I'm not advocating it. In a few words, I don't think that a one age fits all occasions is a reasonable argument.

You mentioned the Marines, so you know I'll chime in (I haven't watched the video). I'll probably get long winded with this.

As a Marine I was governed by the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), not the US Constitution that I had sworn to defend. Stateside on a base, firearms were locked in an armory. In bootcamp we locked our rifles to our racks with Master bicycle locks, but we had no access to ammunition. The jelly doughnut private in the movie Full Metal Jacket had a magazine on twenty rounds but in reality, that was not going to happen (jelly doughnuts either). As a Marine while on a Marine base I did not have the access to firearms that I have now as a civilian. The base had controlled access, armed guards at entry points and roving security. There are no Marines out defending my home.

In Vietnam I was in possession of my rifle at all times. Took it to shit and shower. Inside the wire we carried magazines but didn't put them into our rifles or chamber a round until we went thru the wire. We were well trained and disciplined, something that cannot be said for all Americans. But we also had perimeters with armed Marines with fully automatic rifles, grenades, grenade launchers and at night, Claymore mines. I don't have that around my house and that's not around our schools, churches or shopping centers.

I'll have to watch the video later but without seeing it I can safely say that comparing the civilian world with a Marine Corps base has issues.

I don't have any firearms that hold over 10 rounds and have a gun safe that is bolted to a wall. Should it be OK for the police to come in and inspect for that? I'm not a fan.

Firearms for the day the shit hits the fan? Years ago, a Mormon friend said, "What are people going to do with their guns, go out into the desert and hunt to feed themselves and their families?" My reply, "You have a year's supply of food for your family of five. Some of them are probably planning to come to your house to take it. Can you defend it?" The police won't be there to defend you or your family.

The issue that I see that I agree in part with Michael to the call of "We've got to do something!!!" is "What." As the late Fred Reed wrote, "If it's politically possible, it won't work. If it will work, it's not politically possible." Trust, or the lack of it, is the showstopper. Can you fruitfully negotiate where there is no trust?

The problem is that short of magically making all firearms vanish, and it would take magic in America, what effective thing is left? But then of course we'd have to have knife control like in London. Then we would need to ban the sale of propane tanks, fertilizer, gasoline, chlorine at swimming pool supply stores, etc. to prevent other forms of mass murder. Yes, that could be called hyperbole, but just as in the Arab story of the Camel's nose, incrementally banning tools (that's what guns are) could very well lead to us sleeping in the sandstorm while the camel enjoys our tent.

Expand full comment

There's some definite confirmation bias in the articles Michael is sharing. When there are about 50 million school children in America and 19 of them died in the shooting you both reference you don't even need the back of an envelope to determine that the 1 in 10 million odds number being put forth is not an accurate estimate.

Expand full comment

Ugh, this guy was doing nothing but parroting the NRA party line. You responded well to it. You have way more patience than I; I would have been like, "This shit has all been debunked and I'm not getting into it here because you are a True Believer."

The shit about the Good Guy With A Gun - an FBI report from about ten years ago showed that 3% of shooters - mass or otherwise - were stopped by civilians with guns. The vast majority of mass shooters were brought down by unarmed civilians.

The notion that anyone who's untrained and doesn't practice regularly - which that same FBI report brought out - is going to be crap in a fight. There are YouTube videos showing guys shot by a paintball 'mass shooter' before they even got their gun out of their shorts. As for women, I looked into this a few years ago when I started writing for Medium and talked to my friend's kid whom I've known all my life - he fought in both Afghanistan & Iraq, and between what he told me and some videos I watched on how to become effective in self-defense, I came to the conclusion that it just wouldn't work for most women, who have neither the time nor inclination to practice, and you have to practice every damn day and you may still not rid yourself of the 'freezing', deer in the headlights response.

Y'all focused so much on mass shooters you forgot the other big piece to America's gun homicide problem - urban gangs and black guys killing black guys. hey, black lives matter! <sardonic smile> No, I know you're aware of it.

I think where I'm going to go with these True Believers is to start really hammering them on *why* they think they need all these silly-ass weapons. I'm old enough to remember America when "guns for protecting, guns for hunting," were far more reasonable and the biggest controversies we had with gun people was whether they should be shooting animals at all. That wasn't my debate....that was between the animal lovers and the hunters. I quietly shut up because I'm from a French family where it's 'interdit' to not eat meat ;)

They're really struggling because they're losing this battle and they know it. They've gotten the America they wanted but it's turned out to be more violent than they envisioned, and there is nothing worse than being faced with having been hideously wrong.

Oy. Because of this I googled "latest mass shootings' because I have no idea what the most recent ones you referenced were and found....the latest one was this morning in Langley, BC....

Canada has been having more of these too....nowhere close to the US rate but....maybe....the late '80s early '90s rate? :(

Expand full comment

I think Steve speaks like a foreigner. I usually agree with him quite a lot, but for someone outside the country to snipe at us without being here, experiencing life and the constitution, it doesn’t work. America has always been a violent place, much more so than Sweden, England, or Britain. Steve can dish out a stream of unworkable ideas, but that doesn’t really help. The solution isn’t “fix the gun problem”. People were armed to the teeth 50 years with rather nasty guns, but people didn’t kill each other nearly as much. How hard was it to get a gun 50 years ago? I believe far easier than today. Gun regulations arose to stop black people, like the black panthers, from getting guns. There is a societal shift that has caused this uptick and that has to be addressed rather than magical solutions that never actually work. Ban people under 21 from having guns? Works great for alcohol and cigarettes. Steve’s wrong about the murder statistics. Murder decreased steadily since the assault weapons ban ended, not increased (at least until the 1619 crime surge). If it was as easy as Steve says, we’d have done it already. Are we mentally paralyzed and need Steve on his high, British throne to dispense his wisdom to us unwashed colonials? No thank you.

Expand full comment