EDMUND BURKEAt least 83% of Americans favor universal background checks for gun purchases. At most, 15% oppose them. According to one survey, even 75% of NRA members support universal background checks. Why then will it be difficult to amend federal law to require that all gun sales be subject to background checks?
The answer has to do with the intensity factor. Some fraction of those who oppose universal background checks feel so strongly about the issue – and indeed any form of gun control – that they will make this question the deciding factor in the voting booth. They tell their elected representatives: Unless you vote against gun control measures, I will not vote for you. They mean it; and politicians know they mean it. By contrast, few, if any, gun-control supporters are “single issue voters.”
I was on the governing board of the organization now known as the Brady Organization during its battle to pass the Brady Bill – legislation that, as originally proposed, would have created a seven-day waiting period for handgun purchases, and required police to perform background checks on putative purchasers during that period. Internally, leaders of the Brady Organization predicted that the bill would be quickly enacted by Congress. It was so reasonable, so modest – even milquetoast – a measure that no one could oppose it without looking like a madman, a fool, or a toady of the firearms industry.
During that battle, I saw every poll on the issue. If memory serves, there was not a single poll – including in states such as Montana, Virginia, and Texas – showing support for the Brady Bill at less than 88%. National figures were even higher. A 1990 Gallup Poll showed that 95% of the American public supported the Brady Bill. And yet it took a bruising seven-year fight to get that legislation through Congress.
Seven years.
The intensity dynamic was well known, even then. I remember discussing the issue with a liberal Democratic congressman from a mid-Atlantic state who represented a district that included suburban and semi-rural areas. He was not inclined to support the bill, even though he knew his constituents favored it by overwhelming margins. Even if this will cost you votes, I told him, at the very most it will be 1% of general election voters. Well, he asked, did I know what his margin of victory had been in the last election? The answer was about 1%. This, he told me, was not an issue over which he was prepared to give up his seat.
What needs to be done to get universal background checks and a ban on high-capacity magazines – the two simple measures the nation needs right now – through Congress?
The intensity factor has to be raised for at least some small fraction of the people who support these measures. And because majorities of voters support these measures, it is really just a small portion of supporters who have to make these controlling issues.
How can that be accomplished?
First, the intensity factor needs to be explained to the public. People have to be asked to consider writing their senators and congressmen and women and tell them: If you oppose these measures, do not expect my vote. Once they make that pledge, they are likely to stick to it. People also need to thank their representatives who vote in favor of these measures. The message they help send is this: It’s not just gun zealots who follow this issue and know how their representatives vote on it.
Second, congressional votes on these issues need to be portrayed as transcending gun control. They should be considered a litmus test on whether a member of Congress is willing to put the good of the nation ahead of his or her political self-interest. Members of Congress who are willing to sell out public safety for an “A” NRA rating are likely to be willing to sell out the public interest on other, less-visible issues too. While most responsible Americans may never be single issue voters on gun control – or any other discrete policy issue – they will be reluctant to vote for someone whom they cannot trust to put the public interest first. In one way or another, “Trust” must become a slogan of the campaign for universal background checks and a ban on high-capacity magazines.
Third, a brighter spotlight needs to be cast on the people who control the NRA. Even most NRA members will be shocked if they take a look at who sits on the governing board of their organization. (You can learn more about NRA board here and here.) Their friends and neighbors need to ask genuinely patriotic NRA members: Do you vote in NRA elections? (Only something like 7% of NRA members vote for members of the board.) Do you support candidates who are willing to reconcile the interests of sports hunters and shooters with those of public safety and security? If you can’t find such candidates on the NRA ballot, are you willing to work with other NRA members to find responsible people to run for the board? If you’re not willing to do this, how can you justify your continued membership in this organization? A wider understanding of who controls the NRA will disgust many voters and increase intensity of gun control issues.
Surely, there are many other things that can be done too. New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg and other leaders of the gun control movement must make “intensity” or “salience” the highest priority of their campaign for these measures.