Biden’s Ineffectual ‘Bipartisan Safer Communities Act’ Mocks Public Demand for Real Gun Reform

In 2018, gun rights proponents held a counter-protest near a ‘March for Our Lives’ demonstration in Killeen, Texas. Reflecting back to 2019, a survey was undertaken, against the eerie backdrop of the Parkland tragedy, to ‘determine the most effective ways of communicating with the American public about the benefits of firearm ownership.’ Oddly, the results, which were not publicized, suggested that even those individuals supportive of gun ownership could be inclined towards reforms otherwise heavily opposed by the gun industry, gun rights groups, and Republican lawmakers. At the forefront of these controversial propositions were universal background checks, red flag laws, and shockingly, a firearm registry— an idea touted by some extreme gun rights activists to have laid the groundwork for the Holocaust.

The survey was titled ‘Communicating With The American Public About Firearm Ownership’ and had been commissioned by the National Shooting Sports Foundation. This non-profit organization works as the trade group for the gun industry and was created to ensure the survival of its members which consist of firearm manufacturers, retailers, and ranges. To gain a variety of perspectives, the survey was administered online to over 4,000 American citizens and aimed to gauge the effectiveness of 24 pro-gun and 24 anti-gun messages. Among its respondents were people who possessed a ‘positive feeling’ towards gun ownership.

The Parkland mass shooting seemed to have stirred up national sentiment like no other incident since the Newtown shooting, and the demand for regulation coupled with accountability was on the rise. The survey showed that particularly young Americans, who had grown used to hearing about widespread shootings, held a negative view of guns. This trend posed a significant threat to the future of the gun business, emphasizing a shift in narrative to restore the perceived value of gun ownership.

This situation was ludicrous as the sporting shooting industry had been contributing large funds and efforts to initiatives that promoted participation in sport shooting and firearms. However, as the study points out, ‘little reliable data exists indicating which messages and communications themes work best.’ It astounds as to why the focus was on improving the narrative around gun ownership rather than addressing the crux of the issue at hand – the need for gun reforms.

Mention must be made of the unfortunate event that took place on August 27 when a 23-year-old shooter decided to open fire on a Catholic school in Minneapolis, leaving two children dead and 14 others injured. He had legally purchased the firearms recovered from the site, echoing the chilling memories of the 2022 massacre in Uvalde, Texas. It was that year when President Joe Biden chose to sign the largely ineffectual ‘Bipartisan Safer Communities Act’ into law.

In a strange contradiction, this form of legislation, which only housed politically safe alterations like allocating funds to mental health resources and school safety, was far from the significant reforms proposed by the survey. As highlighted within the survey results, many people who positively viewed gun ownership seemed to be open to a more comprehensive set of reforms than those presented by the lawmakers who were supposed to represent their interests.

The study went ahead to list out the top five arguments both for and against gun ownership, originating from individuals who expressed a ‘positive feeling’ about gun ownership. The superior arguments steered towards rights, starting with ‘Self-defense is a basic right,’ progressing onto ‘Americans have the right to own a gun,’ ‘It’s people’s right as Americans to own a gun,’ and ‘Gun ownership is protected by the Constitution.’ The remaining point, ranked third, mentioned, ‘Owning and training with a firearm teaches important skills, including responsibility, accuracy, safe gun handling, self-defense, and strategies to avoid dangerous situations.’ None of these, of course, warrant the possession of a military-grade firearm.

Interestingly, when asked to choose the ‘most effective arguments against firearm ownership,’ these same people chose policies that were actively resisted by the gun industry and Republican lawmakers. The most compelling argument, as per the respondents, was: ‘Universal background checks for gun sales and transactions are supported by approximately 85 percent of Americans.’ Other effective statements included ‘Guns should be licensed just like cars,’ ‘State red flag laws to remove guns from those who show warning signs of violence keep guns out of the hands of those who would do harm,’ ‘Gun violence is a scourge in the U.S.,’ and ‘Common sense gun laws to close loopholes in current gun laws will save lives and prevent gun violence.’ These largely ignored responses reveal an alarming disconnect between the public sentiment and those pretending to represent it.

As if to ape the public opinion, the National Shooting Sports Foundation went onto claim that a registry would ‘not stop criminals, nor reduce violent crime.’ It might be remembered that for a brief period following the Parkland shooting, there was bipartisan support for red flag laws, another name for Extreme Risk Protection laws which permit someone to request a court to temporarily remove guns from their home if they prove dangerous to themselves or others. This momentary agreement was short-lived as Republican lawmakers and gun rights groups quickly backtracked, starting a legal campaign to declare red flag laws unconstitutional.

The public also heard many other attempts at defending gun rights, but these were not considered powerful or persuasive according to the study. These weak arguments included: ‘The only thing stopping a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun,’ ‘Criminals feel safe in gun-free zones since they are the only ones with a gun,’ and ‘If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.’ These sentiments, while being emotionally strong, don’t seem to chime with what the public deems persuasive, as based on the survey.

One of the least influential pro-gun arguments revealed how Americans tend to separate firearms from other potentially harmful products. The argument stating ‘Cars kill people, should we outlaw cars?’ showed how disconnected and desperate the pro-gun narratives could become.

Overall, the overwhelming indication from the survey suggests that even staunch supporters of gun ownership are willing to consider comprehensive reforms. Popular voices appearing for gun rights might want to reevaluate their aggressive stances, considering the findings of this study and the growing sentiment among the population. Any sensible discussion involving guns and gun control should adhere to the demands and needs of the public rather than a niche political narrative.