Republicans and Gun Control

With the horrific back-to-back mass shootings earlier this year in El Paso and Dayton, the threat of mass shootings has seemed to reach a boiling point in this country. Americans are sickened to keep seeing this happen, again and again, with no end in sight… and they want something to be done about it. Enough is enough — and people have been saying that for years now.

After every mass shooting, people’s feelings of anger and frustration quickly turn political, since Republicans are the ones who oppose the passage of new gun laws that many feel would help solve the problem. The most common explanation I’ve seen for why Republicans don’t want to pass new gun laws is that Republicans are beholden to the NRA & the gun lobby. That they can’t pass anything that would put a dent in the gun industry, for fear of losing the support of these influential donors, and ultimately losing elections as a result.

I can’t say the NRA explanation doesn’t have any validity to it — but in my view it oversimplifies a complicated situation, and it doesn’t address any of the legitimate concerns there are with passing new gun laws.

I’ve been a conservative all my life and I’ve heard all the various arguments against gun control, and I know there are some legitimate reasons why Republicans and conservatives are averse to passing new gun laws — reasons that have everything to do with public safety and saving lives, and also a belief that passing new gun laws won’t do much to stop future mass shootings from occurring.

I write this to share where conservatives are coming from on this issue, and I also think it would be a mistake to ignore these aspects of the problem when crafting solutions. It could make a bad situation worse.

So here goes… As I see it, many of the conservative arguments against gun control can be grouped into a few basic categories.

1. Guns are often used for protection and self-defense.

When conservatives think about guns, they think about people having the ability to protect themselves and their loved ones from harm. I saw a Gallup poll that said the number one reason people choose to own guns is for personal safety/protection (as opposed to hunting or other recreational uses).

And it appears that guns are used for protection more often than you might think. A major study from 2013 found that “almost all national surveys indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals.” Some surveys suggested that guns were used much more often for self-defense than for crime.

Some of the new gun laws being proposed involve banning certain types of semi-automatic weapons, typically referred to as assault weapons. But a good friend of mine who knows guns well said that the AR-15 (an assault weapon) is arguably the best weapon for home defense for the average person, due to its relatively low recoil and ease of control compared to other guns. He says the AR-15 is more accurate than handguns, more maneuverable than shotguns and traditional rifles, and its high capacity makes it more dependable than other guns (you’re less likely to run out of ammunition when defending yourself). I found a couple of gun experts online (here and here) who said similar things about the AR-15 being the weapon of choice for home defense.

I found case after case where an AR-15 was used successfully to fend off attackers and quite possibly save lives.

On the other hand, the things that make the AR-15 a great weapon for self-defense are probably also what made it a weapon of choice for numerous mass shooters in recent history. Its accuracy, ease of handling, and high capacity make for a deadly combination. Perhaps a ban on the sale of certain categories of weapons like the AR-15 would leave mass shooters without such easy options for high-volume killing, and yet still leave law-abiding people with great options for self-defense / home defense. This article, for example, found that 4 of the 8 gun experts they interviewed choose to use a handgun for home defense, as opposed to a AR-15 or other rifle.

Another element of gun control legislation has been to restrict the magazine capacity for guns. But I remember a great passage from my favorite writer Thomas Sowell on this subject:

“People who know nothing about guns, and have never fired a shot in their lives, much less lived in high-crime areas, blithely say such things as, ‘Nobody needs a 30-shot magazine.’ 

“Really? If three criminals invaded your home, endangering the lives of you and your loved ones, are you such a sharpshooter that you could take them all out with a clip holding ten bullets? Or a clip with just seven bullets, which is the limit you would be allowed under gun laws in some places?”

I think that people who fight for the right to bear arms do so mainly to make sure that good, law-abiding people have the ability to defend themselves and their loved ones as they see fit. It is about protecting and saving lives.

2. Guns deter crime, even when they’re never used. A lack of guns emboldens criminals.

I think there are more guns than people in this country, which is something a lot of people lament, but is something that arguably prevents a lot of crime from occurring.

Criminals don’t want to get shot, and in many cases they have no idea who’s armed and ready to fight back. I’ve read that in America, about 28% of burglaries are committed when residents are home, whereas in Great Britain (where guns are nowhere near as prevalent as in America), about 59% of burglaries are committed when people are home. American burglars say they avoid occupied homes for fear of getting shot... British burglars have admitted that it’s preferable to steal from homes when people are home so they can take their wallets and purses — which ends up putting more people in harm’s way. This is just one data point (well, two) but I think it’s a good example of how criminals are emboldened by the lack of guns waiting for them on the other side.

A survey of criminals in U.S. prisons found that 40% of them had at some point in the past decided not to commit a crime because they “knew or believed that the victim was carrying a gun”.

How many people in America are kept safe from criminals and criminal activity due to the heavy presence of guns in this country, and the fact that would-be criminals don’t know who does / does not have a gun and is able to fight back?

I’ve always said that I wouldn’t mess with anyone wearing an NRA hat — and I don’t think anyone else would either. You don’t want to mess with someone you think might be armed.

To that end, schools and places of worship seem like such soft targets, where shooters know that people inside won’t be armed and that they can kill as many people as they want to without facing return fire. This is what’s behind the idea among conservatives that schools should have armed guards or armed teachers (if the school district approves and if teachers are trained and willing) — to deter school shootings and better protect students and teachers if anything does happen.

When it comes to implementing new gun control laws, you’ll often hear conservatives say something like, “people who are intent on committing murder are already willing to break the law; it’s only law-abiding people who will be restricted by new laws.” I think conservatives look at new gun laws as shifting the balance of firepower away from ordinary Americans and toward those who seek to do harm, just emboldening them to attack now-softer targets.

3. Conservatives believe that new gun laws would do little to stop mass shooters.

I’ve gotten the sense that a lot of conservatives feel that passing new gun laws won’t do much to stop mass shootings in America.

One reason is the general belief that anyone who is hell-bent on committing a mass atrocity (already very much against the law) isn’t going to be stopped by a new law. It seems that these people are going to do whatever they have to do — steal guns and ammo, buy them from whoever will sell it to them... they’ll find a way around whatever law you pass.

Conservatives also doubt the effectiveness of particular gun control proposals that are out there. Take the assault weapons ban that was proposed in Congress this year — banning the manufacturing or sale of all assault weapons. It just seems that there are so many assault weapons and parts already in existence, that there will be a way for sick people to get their hands on one. (Although making it more difficult for these killers to get an assault weapon should stop some from getting them.) Or perhaps they’ll just use non-assault weapons to commit their atrocity (although this would be better than the alternative, if it resulted in fewer lives lost).

Or take expanded background checks — requiring background checks for all gun sales. This sounds like a good idea, and the vast majority of Republicans polled do support this. But a New York Times analysis of 19 recent mass shootings found that in 17 of these cases, the guns used were purchased legally, with the purchaser already passing a background check. In the other 2 cases, a background check was started, but the shooter was allowed to purchase the weapon because the background check was not finished within 3 days.

Based on this, it doesn’t seem like expanding background checks to include private sales (closing the “gun show loophole”) will make much of a difference in terms of preventing mass shootings. If anything, it seems like the background check process needs to be improved and strengthened, instead of just expanded to cover private sales. In their analysis of 19 recent mass shootings, the NYT concluded, “At least nine gunmen had criminal histories or documented mental health problems that did not prevent them from obtaining their weapons.”

Back in 2015, Senator Marco Rubio said, “None of the major shootings that have occurred in this country over the last few months or years that have outraged us, would gun laws have prevented them.” This statement was fact-checked by Glenn Kessler of The Washington Post — and he concluded that Marco Rubio was correct. (This material is a bit dated at this point, but it still shows where Republicans are coming from, with some validity to back it up.)

I do think it’s important to try and decrease the number of mass shootings or the impact of them, even if you can’t stop them outright. It’s just that many conservatives doubt how effective new laws will be at doing that — and they already see downsides to gun control laws in terms of self-protection and public safety, as discussed above.

---

I would support any law I thought would make it harder for would-be mass shooters and criminals to acquire and use guns, if it ensured that law-abiding citizens would still have the ability to defend themselves effectively using guns. We wouldn't want to pass a law that saves some lives but loses even more lives in the process. This is why I support improving and expanding background checks — I think it strikes the right balance here.

But for a lot of the other gun control proposals, conservatives don’t feel confident that these laws will thwart mass shooters and also preserve the means of protection for ordinary Americans. That’s why conservatives tend to favor non-gun control solutions to thwarting mass shooters and gun violence, such as a greater emphasis on mental health issues (finding better ways to identify and address problems before they reach a breaking point); keeping armed guards/teachers in schools (to deter and/or minimize the impact of shootings); and longer prison sentences for violent criminals (a major source of gun violence appears to be people who had committed violent crimes in the past).

I’m no expert on the subject of gun control — I probably should’ve told you that before you spent time reading this — but I do know a thing or two about where conservatives are coming from on the major issues. And this is my honest attempt to explain why conservatives and Republicans are generally opposed to passing new gun control laws — even in the midst of these awful shooting tragedies.

Democratic Debate #2, Night 2 - $3 Trillion??

Well I tuned in to Night 2 of the debates expecting a see a slugfest between Joe Biden and Kamala Harris... and we did see some back-and-forth but no knockout blows.

One thing did catch my attention though and I think it’s worth discussing. At the start of the debate, Joe Biden pressed Kamala Harris on her new health care plan, saying that her plan to cover everyone would cost $3 trillion (I believe that’s per year) and that people would lose their existing employer-based coverage as a result. Harris responded, “You’re simply inaccurate in what you’re describing”... yet she didn’t go on to refute either of the things he said.

Then Biden repeated the $3 trillion price tag and the fact that people would lose their employer-based insurance, and he added that middle class taxes would have to go up to pay for it. Kamala Harris again had a chance to respond, and again she did not refute any of these points from Biden.

Then later, when Michael Bennet harped on the cost and problems of Harris’s health plan, she said, “We cannot keep with the Republican talking points on this. You gotta stop.”

Well forgive me Senator but I need to delve in. That cost — $3 trillion per year — is not something that should be swept under the rug. From what I’ve seen, this $3T/year would be the increased cost to the federal government on top of what they already spend on health care. (I believe Biden and Bennet are putting Harris’ plan in the same ballpark as Bernie’s Medicare For All plan, which increases federal expenditures by around $30T over 10 years.)

If this is to be paid for with taxes, consider that there are today 158 million people employed in this country. This means it would require an average of around $19,000 per taxpayer per year, in new taxes, to pay for health care. A working couple could be looking at paying $38,000/year in new taxes for health care coverage under Harris’ plan.

To put that number into perspective, I looked up and found that in 2018, the average employer-based coverage in America for an individual cost $8500/year (premiums + deductible). I didn’t find a number for copays but let’s assume $500 for copays in a year, which means a total of $9000/year today for employed-based individual coverage (with the employer paying the majority of that). Kamala Harris’s plan would cost around $19,000/year per taxpayer in new taxes.

For employer-based family coverage, the average yearly cost was $19,616 in premiums. I didn’t find numbers for deductible or copays, but let’s assume it’s double the individual numbers above. That would mean a yearly cost of $23,800 today for family coverage, compared to $38,000 under Kamala’s plan! And again, that $23,800 today is mostly paid by employers... whereas the new cost would be paid in taxes.

Now I did make an assumption here (to get a ballpark cost), which is that Harris’ plan would be paid for with income taxes — and I showed the average cost across all taxpayers. I’m sure she’d say she would tax “the rich” to pay for it. But the burden of proof is on the prosecutor here to show us how this will be paid for, and she didn’t address it during the debate. Her plan to tax Wall Street transactions and offshore corporate income doesn’t come close to paying for $30 trillion over 10 years (it would bring in about $2 trillion instead).

Kamala Harris and Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren all tout health care plans that would cost about $30 trillion over 10 years. And from what I’ve seen of government programs, there are often cost overruns compared to what’s expected at the outset.

It seems to me like a staggering cost to the middle class compared to what many are paying today for health insurance. There’s no way many families could afford to pay >$10,000 more/year compared to what they’re paying today.

In my view, many Democrats at this point are just looking for anyone other than Trump to be our President. I would imagine many Democrats aren’t looking for such a steep, dramatic change that would cost so much — and they certainly don’t want that to be the lightning rod in the general election against President Trump.

Democratic Debate #2, Night 1 - this Republican’s take

I thought last night’s debate had some great back-and-forth on the issues of the day - and also some great entertainment value, between someone telling Bernie to stop yelling, the fly darting around Buttigieg’s face as he was trying to deliver his closing remarks, and the incredible Marianne Williamson — who almost tripped as she entered the stage but went on to deliver the biggest applause lines of the night and get millions of Google hits to show for it.

But I just wanted to remark on a few of the points that came up during the debate, from a conservative perspective.

There was a lot of debate over whether to support big, sweeping proposals like Medicare For All and Student Loan Forgiveness (Sanders and Warren), or whether to make more incremental improvements by providing help for those who need it and leaving the existing systems in place (i.e., don’t kick everyone off their private health insurance and put them on Medicare, and don’t forgive student loans for people who already have the means to pay for it).

I do think that John Delaney and others were right when they said that the huge, sweeping proposals aren’t good politics — they won’t help Democrats beat Donald Trump — because Republicans and conservatives are strongly against such proposals and they’d rather not see the country go that way.

With health care, conservatives want to help people in need, but we’re wary of putting every single one of us on Medicare as the way to do it. As I understand it Medicare currently only covers certain things, and by putting everyone on the program and having to keep a lid on costs, it seems inevitable that there will either be major restrictions in what type of care is covered, or long waiting lines if everyone is covered for everything.

Now you could argue that private-run health insurance has its own issues, and Bernie and Warren certainly argued that last night... but when you’re proposing to move over 100 million people off of their existing private insurance and onto Medicare, you got some ‘splainin to do. Jake Tapper asked candidates whether they’d raise middle-class taxes to pay for their health care proposals, and after Warren and Buttigieg didn’t answer the question, Bernie scolded Jake Tapper, “Your question is a Republican talking point!”

Well call it what you will, but I think it’s perfectly legitimate for Americans to be informed of the full cost-benefit of such sweeping proposals. I remember one poll showing that the majority of Americans do support Medicare For All, but then when they were told they’d have to pay more in taxes, the support went down and suddenly the majority of Americans did not support it.

I think many Americans won’t sign on to the risk of switching from their existing coverage over to Medicare, if there’s a chance they’ll have to pay more for it anyway.

Student loans is a separate subject, but conservatives generally oppose large-scale student loan debt forgiveness. Again, we want to help people in need, but we also want people to be accountable for the decisions that they make — under loan forgiveness, *other* people will be held accountable for those decisions. And that’s not fair to those other people to have to now carry an additional burden (when many of them already paid for their schooling, or don’t have a degree themselves), and ultimately it’s not fair to young people to put a system in place that says no, you don’t have to worry about the cost of getting this degree - just go on and get it because other people will pick up the tab. If there is no cost to making a decision, people have much less incentive to make a good decision - one that will “help them thrive”, as Marianne Williamson puts it.

But these are just some of my musings on the subjects. And when I say conservatives want to help people in need, I’m talking about doing it through charity and safety net programs, and by lowering costs and improving job opportunities. I do think we need to address the high costs of medical care and higher education - but by actually addressing the costs and not just ignoring them and throwing them on the backs of the taxpayer.

Also one last point, on the minimum wage. Pete Buttigieg said “So-called conservative Christian senators right now in the Senate are blocking a bill to raise the minimum wage, when scripture says that whoever oppresses the poor taunts their maker”... Well, much of the opposition to raising the minimum wage comes from the thinking that companies won’t just go along and pay the new, higher wage — but instead many lower-paying jobs will go away altogether, or be replaced by automation. The CBO recently found that if the minimum wage were increased to $15/hour there would be over 1 million jobs lost. If I’m concerned about whether lower-paying jobs will vanish altogether, leaving many people without options to work their way up... can I still call myself a Christian, Pete? 🙏

Would love to hear your thoughts on these and other issues. In the meantime I am looking forward to Night 2: THE REMATCH between Biden and Kamala Harris. 🥊