What Can I Do About Gun Safety?

The May 2022 random murders of people in Buffalo, New York; Laguna Woods, California; and Uvalde, Texas were stark reminders of the fragility of human life and how precious every child and adult is. My granddaughter went to bed crying. Barack and Michell Obama are angry. I keep asking myself, what can I do? I am still troubled by the question, but I have one idea.

First, I need to be realistic

I need to resist the temptation to think that there is any possibility that meaningful gun legislation will be passed in the next decade. On the Saturday following the Buffalo massacre, I went door-to-door canvassing for a candidate I'd like to win in November. I want to work within the system by fulfilling the opportunities that the Constitution gives me to participate in electing representatives and presidents. But, if we are worried about the safety of our children and ourselves in schools, places of worship, and grocery stores, we need to take responsibility to use our Constitutional right to change the Constitution so that gun safety policies can become law.

It is tempting to think I should give money to non-profits researching and supporting policies Americans desire regarding gun laws. But today, Congress is not prevented from passing gun legislation because of a lack of research or people who have made suggestions for them to consider. As well as non-profits, there are Universities and think tanks that have produced thousands of pages of studies and reports. Some of these organizations have done and continue to do important work. However, I am insulted when I receive a text or email asking me to send $5 or $10 immediately so the organization can accomplish its legislative agenda or impact a Supreme Court decision. Do they think I can be fooled into thinking Congress will pass a gun law this year because I give them $10? Or are they intentionally trying to manipulate my emotions of sadness and hopelessness to collect $10 to support their staff?

Social media and traditional media are full of ideas about how gun policy needs to be changed. For years, Gallup polls on guns have shown that most Americans want to see changes in the laws regarding guns. Only a small minority of Americans believe any individual should be able to own any firearm they want. Yet, the last time the federal government passed gun legislation that addresses what Americans desire for their own safety and the safety of others, Clinton was president. In 1994 the assault-weapon ban outlawed for the next ten years the sale of AR-15 rifles, like the guns used in Uvalde and Buffalo.

While nothing is completely impossible in politics, the probability of impactful gun legislation being enacted, signed by a president, and permitted by the Supreme Court in the next ten years is extremely improbable. Enacting meaningful gun legislation may be impossible until the Constitution is changed. There is one overriding reason it doesn't matter what I do to influence legislators or to elect different legislators regarding gun legislation. The Constitutional process to elect legislators results in both Republicans and Democrats having incentives to avoid enacting gun legislation.

Preventing the will of the people from becoming the laws of the land

Most Americans want to see changes in the laws regarding guns. Only a small minority of Americans believe any individual should be able to own any firearm they want. Yet, the last time the federal government passed gun legislation that addresses what Americans desire for their own safety and the safety of others was 28 years ago.

Gun legislation illustrates why the will of the American people does not become the law of the land. A governor or member of the House of Representatives decides to run for the Senate. First, the nomination must be obtained from the Democratic or Republican parties. To accomplish this, the aspiring candidate needs to win votes in a primary or gain party leadership's support. For candidates in both parties, the only thing that matters is getting votes to win elections. Winning votes requires three things: being likable (or at least avoiding being unlikable), organizing committed volunteers (sometimes called a base), and finding money to pay for advertising, staff, and other expenses.

The process by which individuals decide how to cast their ballots is certainly complicated and not completely understood. But one thing is certain. No one votes for the person they think will do the best job of passing legislation that represents the will of the American people. A candidate is likable because of what the individual voter thinks rather than because of the opinion of the majority. So, a winning candidate needs to collect votes from individuals with varying criteria for what is likable.

Money in politics

It is tempting to blame our current situation on corruption. Certainly, there is corruption.

Obviously, people who have money to spend on elections are not primarily interested in promoting the will of the American people. They usually promote the things that rich people are interested in. Sometimes wealthy people will support candidates because they happen to want something that the majority of Americans also want, but the hubris of the wealthy class make that only a coincidence.

So, it might seem that the will of the American people regarding gun legislation is unheeded not because of the Constitution but because of corruption. However, even if money were completely taken out of the calculation that politicians make regarding gun laws, the Constitutional requirement to gain votes from a geographical district would keep them from focusing on the will of the people. Politicians still need to make themselves likable and especially likable to potential volunteers in the state or district they come from.

Once elected, both Republicans and Democrats are cautious, always looking to the next election. They don't want to do something that will make voters dislike them. Between elections the system creates a situation where everyone competes to raise money. Voters pay almost no attention to what their representatives actually do. On the other hand, big donors have policy agendas and watch how the legislators vote. So, spending time raising money is a good way for members of Congress to keep busy when they are in Washington. They can talk to individual donors and lobbyists to get their money while avoiding taking public action by voting on gun legislation that might make them less likable to some voters in their district.

Politicians receive huge amounts of money from the National Rifle Association (NRA), with additional "contributions" coming from gun manufacturers, and individuals and lobbyists who have a libertarian bent believing everyone should be able to do whatever they want. After the massacre in Uvalde, The New York Times asked Republican senators about their position on gun legislation. They also published the amount of money each has received from the NRA. All 50 Republicans except the junior Senator from Florida, Rick Scott, have accepted NRA money. Some pocketed millions of dollars like the senior Florida Senator, Marco Rubio, who has been showered with $3.3 million from the NRA.

Clearly, the large amount of money that is invested in every election is problematic, but current laws and the current Supreme Court's interpretation of the Constitution establish legal cover for the existing practices. Transparency International publishes the Corruption Perceptions Index. Only 26 of the 180 countries reported have less corruption than the US. Their calculation of American corruption has changed little over the last decade.

Today, candidates for Congress cannot buy elections as they can in some countries. And today, an incumbent cannot change the vote count to ensure staying in power as former President Trump attempted. It doesn't matter how much money a candidate has or is given. A candidate needs to calculate not only how to satisfy donors, but also how to collect sufficient votes. The failure of Congress to keep us safe is built in to the way the government is designed to select legislators. Legislators must make themselves likable to more voters in their district than any other candidate. The end result is that it is not just gun policy; many other policies favored by the American people do not become laws. American politicians are, for the most part, working the system.

Taking money out of politics is a good idea. But even if that were accomplished, the Constitution still has winner takes all districts where legislators will not be motivated to fulfill the will of the American people. They will still need to focus on being likable in their district and gaining the support of volunteers.

More on being likable

In the general election, Democrats and Republicans have one goal; They want to get elected. And they don't think it will help them get elected by engaging in serious discussions about specific gun policies, helping people grapple with the complex issues of balancing rights and collective responsibility, talking about what we can learn from the experience of other countries regarding guns, or examining the hidden agendas of some of those who are not promoting the safety of Americans. In their minds, getting elected certainly does not involve talking about the complex history of the connection between racism, violence, guns, and the Second Amendment. All they want to do is figure out what people are thinking and how they can get enough votes to win.

Many are serious about their responsibilities. Once elected, some of them occasionally think about what is best for the country. Because of gerrymandering or demographic concentrations of like-minded voters, some members of Congress carry the values of the majority of their constituents on many issues. However, our system where the person with the most votes is the winner in a district always leaves some voters with a representative they do not want to make laws for them. And even in states or districts where one political party is almost assured of electing the representative, primary challenges always need to be considered by incumbents. So, calculating how to gain enough votes is necessary for every politician.

My father, Berkley Bedell, was lucky enough to be the Democratic candidate for Congress in a rural majority Republican district in northwest Iowa in 1974. The Republican incumbent was on the judiciary committee where he defended Nixon and voted against impeachment. The hearings were televised. So, enough people were offended by his willingness to put the interest of the Republican party over the interests of the country that they elected a Democrat.

He adopted a practice of holding town halls across the district. He brought up issues and asked people to give their opinions. Staff was assigned to take notes. He asked people to vote on what he should do as their representative on each topic. This worked. He was re-elected five more times, serving twelve years until he retired from politics.

One time I asked Dad how he explained that he could win elections, but since he retired, the district has been represented by Republicans. This included Steve King, who has affiliations with white nationalist organizations and made racist and anti-immigrant statements. Dad answered, "The voters liked me as a person, and they liked the town hall meetings." I asked him whether he always voted in Congress the way people recommended in town halls. His answer surprised me, "No, I never worried about that. I always voted for what I thought was best for the country." I knew that Dad believed in nuclear disarmament and was the primary sponsor of a resolution calling on the U.S. to negotiant disarmament. He believed it was in the best interest of the country and the world. I asked him if he saw it as his role as a Congressperson to help the people of northwest Iowa understand why disarmament or other issues he believed in are important. He answered, "No, I wanted them to like me."

Dad died in 2019. Since then, I have thought of another question. I wonder what went through his mind as he stood on the House floor, ready to cast his vote on the ERA Amendment. He had told my mother he would vote "yea." Did he pause and think, "The conservative voters in northwest Iowa want me to vote nay. This is one vote they may pay attention to and not like at all. It could mean I won't win the next election." Then he pushed the nay button even though he needed to go home and tell my mother what he had done.

All politicians need to calculate how they can get people to like them. Most do it by announcing their positions on public policy issues. They try to find issues that people will like. Since the Constitution only requires that they get the most votes, they don't need to convince all the people to agree with what they say. They are just doing what they need to do to win elections. Working the Constitutional system is slightly different for Republicans and Democrats.

Republicans will block gun laws

Increasingly gun legislation plays a role in the conscious and unconscious calculations that Republican politicians make regarding their next election. Here the party's base is critical in the calculation. A misstep could bring on a primary challenge or reduce the enthusiasm of volunteers.

The gun law calculation is simple. Suppose the state has about 15% of the voters who favor no changes in gun laws, and almost all of those voters are part of the base of the Republican party. In this case, the candidate calculates that possibly 30% of the needed votes to win a primary will come from the "no change to gun laws" voters. Then letting the gun lobby know the campaign is open for business is a no-brainer. But the decision to commit to blocking gun laws is not based on money. It is based on the desire to be very well-liked by the base of Republican voters. The politician needs those dedicated volunteers to win. After the primary, 15% of the state's voters will be essential in energizing the volunteers needed to win the general election.

Of course, using 15% in this example is not the actual number a specific Republican candidate uses. It only illustrates how the calculation is made. According to Gallup, across the nation, the number of people in recent years who want gun laws to be "less strict" is nationally around 10%. So, when a Republican goes off to Congress, the Congressperson carries a commitment to represent the view of about 10% of Americans. And the "less strict' opinion is not even the majority opinion in the district.

Democrats and gun laws

The system puts Democrats in a slightly different situation. Here the candidate knows three things. First, a majority of both the base and the voters in the general election support changing gun laws. Second, a Democrat cannot win either a primary or a general election by getting huge amounts of money from the gun lobby and its friends. They are already committed to the Republicans. Third, a politician knows that while a majority of voters want something to be done to provide for their safety and the safety of others, the specifics are complicated. Winning the general election requires gaining votes from people who don't like some proposed gun laws. So, it is dangerous to be too specific about what is supported. Yet on the other side, voters may like you because you strongly expressed support for a very specific gun law. Some politicians like Senator Dianne Feinstein from the reliable Democratic state of California are strong public supporters of gun laws. A more cautious approach is taken by Senator Joe Manchin from West Virginia, where Republican voters have a majority. He has chosen to selectively support background checks for gun buyers.

Another reason that Democrats are reluctant to support gun legislation is that a strategy of the gun lobbyist is to invest heavily in defeating Democrats who support gun safety legislation. For example, In 2012, Mitt Romney spoke at the NRA national convention. In response, the NRA invested almost $2 million in his presidential campaign. But what Democrats noticed is that the NRA invested over $7 million in opposition to President Obama. While Obama was not defeated, the tactic makes Democrats nervous because it is also used against House and Senate Democrats.

Congressperson Ed Perlmutter represents me in Congress. He is a member of the Rules Committee that determines what legislation is debated and voted on. He told me about a situation where the Rules Committee refused to have the house debate a gun safety proposal. He said that a bill was sponsored by two Republicans. Perlmutter did not believe that either of the Republicans would actually vote for the bill. But debating the bill would force several Democratic members to take a public position on guns that could be used against them in the next election cycle. This illustrates why it is difficult for Democratic legislators to enact gun legislation. It is also an example of why the Democratic leadership will not take the lead in promoting debate on gun legislation.

Democratic politicians and congressional leaders remember what happened in the 1994 midterm elections after Democrats passed the assault-weapon ban. Long-serving and respected Democrats were replaced by Republicans. Even Tom Foley, the Speaker of the House, lost his election. In most of those elections, the new gun law was a major issue. The current Speaker, Nancy Pelosi, certainly remembers. She was a member of the House then.

The risks that Democrats see in forcing debate and then voting on gun restrictions are too great for them. Why would they risk losing seats in Congress when it is not necessary? When asked why gun laws don't pass, political scientist, Monika McDermott, says, "If someone's not going to vote them out because of an issue, then they're not going to do it."

My idea of what I can do

Since it is unrealistic to hope that electing more Democrats will result in having a law-making body dedicated to fulfilling the will of the people, another approach is needed. The lives lost in mass shootings since 2004 deserve a response that will make it possible to pass gun laws and give America a government that is responsive to the will of the people on all issues.

I can investigate what other countries are doing by electing more than one representative from a geographical district. I can consider the proposal that we select legislators by lot as some ancient Greek cities did. I can brainstorm with others about how technologies might be used like they are on TV dance and singing contests. Most of all I can talk with others about how we can use our Constitutional right to use Article V of the Constitution to create a form of government where the laws reflect the will of the people. Then we can have gun laws that the majority of people want.