Gunfight in America, It's Not OK

To: Former VP Joe Biden, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, Sen. Bernie Sanders, Sen. Kamala Harris, Mayor Pete Buttitieg, Sen. Cory Booker, Sen. Amy Klobuchar

You are each aware that America has several gun issues that have permeated the political landscape for decades. Gun issues have been a de facto issue in every election that all of you have been involved in. Gun issues are a major contributor to the partisan divide not just in Congress but across the nation. Your campaigns have taken positions on what your policies and positions are to deal with some of these issues. This is all normal politics and unsurprisingly conforms to the long-standing partisan divide. There are some variations and differences among the plans, but it’s not obvious that the differences are such that they truly make any one candidate stand out from the rest. This does not mean that there aren’t other strategies and policies that would put any of you in the lead not just on gun issues but provide an approach to leverage (or keep) you atop the polls. There are strategies that would disarm your Republican opponents while leaving you armed to accommodate all sides of this issue. This would apply not just to your Presidential campaign but across the board for all Democratic races. It’s the consequence of a military technological advance that sweeps your opponents aside.

The recent spate of mass shootings has only increased the importance and value to a candidate who can show how to lead on an issue that is so broadly supported by voters, if not politicians who are afraid of their party or regional constituency. What’s needed is an effective strategy on gun issues that demonstrates to the public a candidate with vision, leadership skills, and the ability to solve problems, even divisive political problems, like guns. Now the current plans are adequate for that part of the public that is already in your camp or on your side of the divide; but none of them provides a path for those on the other side to easily join you. Nor do current strategies deal with the attacks that will be made and funded by opponents to any gun laws. Mostly this is because the proffered solutions don’t address those facets of the issues that the other side focuses upon. No more surprising than that their proposals don’t focus on or address those aspects of the issues that your side sees as what’s important. It why the problem is divisive.

While each camp’s proponents of their own views energize themselves, the lines get harder and the divide gets widened without any progress or resolution. Anything that does get done is watered down or eviscerated to a feeble effort unable to move the needle. The reason for this ineffectiveness can be traced back to unchallenged, unreasoned and uninspired acceptance that the opposing sides’ issues can’t be reconciled. It may be assumed that no movement can be made on the core issues, but there is nothing that validates that assumption except repeated failure of those in Congress and on each side to see that there are commonly acceptable solutions.

At the heart of the divide problem is a rather typical problem-solving error. That error is not understanding the problem(s) and the goal(s). I’m sure that each of you believes that you understand the problem, but that also is rather typical of the error. In the STEM world this is a known and understood vulnerability; if you don’t comprehend the problem adequately then you create a problem-space that may actually exclude any solution or path to a solution that you are seeking.

It may be helpful to provide an example at this point. Let’s posit that you want to enact a law that requires a background check for any sale or exchange of a firearm to eliminate individuals being able to acquire guns legally if an individual cannot pass the background check. The objective of this law to reduce the frequency, size and easy of mass-shooting events and citizens killed by individuals that would have been prevented from acquiring a gun legally. Let’s take this as an example statement of what you seek to do to solve the problem of reducing risks to the public from people who should not be allowed to acquire a gun.

Now to solve this problem, you have to define what constitutes a background check permitting the individual to acquire the firearm; this would include whom and what determines and provides eligible data/information. You must define what qualifies as a ‘firearm’ requiring a background check. You must define what constitutes a sale or exchange. You have to decide if the law will cover both or only one of public and private sales; and whether a gift from one individual is required or not. You must define how ‘gun dealers’ are uniquely dealt with in acquiring their inventory and how the background check law applies to them. You have to authorize what entity/entities are responsible and accountable for performing and enforcing background checks. You have to define what penalties and consequences there will be for violating the law and how circumstances mitigate their imposition. And I’m sure a plethora of other items that have to be defined regarding what it means to ‘require background checks’.

So, when all these specifications / requirements are defined, surely the problem is understood. Right?

No. Even if you perfectly defined everything that would be necessary to affect sound and reasoned Gun Background Checks, you didn’t understand the problem. If this sound impossible then you should be able to answer the following question: “Does solving the problem require that the law pass Congress and become an enacted law?” That answer is: Yes; or certainly ought to be, otherwise it accomplishes next to nothing. Think of this area as the following question: “Does your plan solve the problem of Sen. McConnell not letting legislation be voted on in the Senate?” A solvable problem that no one has solved yet.

What was the error in understanding the problem? It was not including in the problem statement that enacting the law was a necessary goal to any problem solution.

This raises the pertinent question about your plans, policies and proposals. Do they deliver an enacted law, or do they only mean that an attempt be made even if it fails to deliver a Background Check law? Will it pass both House and Senate, and then be signed into law by the President? Will your plan deliver a veto-override?

So, if you want an actual enacted law then you need to expand your scope of the problem to include those aspects of the problem that are essential to reaching the goal or goals that you have. This is also an important effort to attaining your goal because it will provide additional insights into how to engage with the public to secure support from those on all sides of the issues contained within the problem-space in which you are working. Perhaps more important to politicians, being able to present a proposed solution that shows how to overcome the factors that have prevented any competent resolution so far. If you can demonstrate that there are benefits you can deliver to those that have opposed a solution because of their position than you have an opportunity to stand-out. Further, if you show how to make the problem(s) that they have had before go away then their resistance would decline and some portion of them would reasonably join in supporting your policy.

This leads to the obvious question: What policy/plan solution to the nation’s gun issues would provide this opportunity?

It is a policy/plan that deals with the major gun issues. If your solution doesn’t solve these issues then you should relook and rethink your policy. If you don’t believe there is a solution to the problems that have to be confronted, then you’ve made an assumption and/or a conclusion that isn’t required to be true nor is it true. All a policy/plan needs Is to have a viable answer to these issues:

A. Gun Ownership Rights – The 2nd Amendment Conundrum

B. Open Carry Legislation

C. Background Check

D. Red-Flag Legislation

E. Gun Procurement, Gifting, and Collection Issues

F. States versus Federal jurisdictions

G. Criminal Use of Firearms

H. Responsibilities and Legal Consequences

I. Ability to pass legislative vote in Congress and secure a Presidential signature (or veto- over-ride); and that can withstand a Supreme Court challenge.

There are assuredly additional issues that would be identified by others or that are subsumed under one of the above topics, e.g., Types of firearms or firearm-related equipment that are covered as legal under Gun Ownership and those that are not.

Having a policy/plan that can address these issues provides a unique and powerful campaign message. It also would put whomever presents it in the unique position of being able to show America that they know how to lead with solutions that bridge ideologies, parties, politics, and special interests.

If your plan covers that, then you should be presenting it to the public because so far there’s no indication that anyone has or can.

If your plan doesn’t, then you should seek help or hope that someone else doesn’t.

Imagine what it would mean for the nation if you could remove guns from the political chess board. How much more could be accomplished if the time and energy spent in ‘politicizing’ guns without any value delivered in return?