I have generally had good experiences working with journalists interested in guns in America. Certainly most work within the dominant narrative of gun-pathology, but I usually feel I have added nuance or broader understanding to their work.
A recent very bad experience with a media outlet has changed my approach to dealing with journalists. I realize how many ideas I’ve produced over the years that have simply gone to waste. So from now on, whenever possible, I will two-way record any interviews I give and post transcripts or, if I give written responses, post those responses.
Below is the written response I provided to a French journalist reporting on swing states in the U.S. presidential election. She had a number of questions about gun culture and gun laws in Arizona, which I deferred to a colleague at Arizona State University, but also asked a more general question about guns in this year’s election. Her question and my brief response follow.
QUESTION: Could Kamala Harris lose the election because of the gun topic? I know she said she has one gun at home and is not against it. Is it a necessary electioneering strategy in the US?
The United States is quite polarized politically right now, and guns are definitely one of the major wedge issues exacerbating that divide. But the gun issue does not stand alone. Guns are a wedge issue because they represent larger value systems that align with our red (Republican) and blue (Democrat) divide. For example, guns represent individual freedom for many owners versus those who favor a robust state that actively intervenes in society to reduce gun violence.
(As an aside, I reject this false dichotomy between gun rights and reducing gun-related negative outcomes, but that is perhaps a story for another day. The reality is that these simplistic either/or oppositions are part and parcel of our polarized political culture right now.)
Against this backdrop, Kamala Harris saying she owns a gun and would shoot someone who broke into her house may seem hard to understand because it sounds more like Donald Trump’s talking points. I would make two points here.
First, many Americans across the political spectrum, from diverse geographies, and of all genders, sexualities, colors, and creeds own firearms for self-defense. And newer gun owners – notably since 2020 – look especially different from traditional gun owners in these respects. So, demographically we should not be surprised that a politically liberal, bi-racial woman from California owns a handgun for self-defense any more than we should be surprised that a liberal, Asian American sociology professor from the San Francisco Bay Area owns firearms for self-defense. That is, someone like me. (This is a bit orthogonal to what you’re doing, but if you’re interested you can read more in this essay I wrote back in 2021 reflecting on 2020.)
That said, a second point is in order here. There is a fundamental difference between Kamala Harris as a defensive gun owner and me and the millions of other non-traditional gun owners out there. She is running for President of the United States. What she says about being a defensive gun owner is much more politically loaded than what I might say. So, Harris’s statement to Oprah Winfrey should not be taken to mean that Harris is embracing gun rights in the way that conservatives and libertarians do. To the contrary, she is most likely using this as a strategy to deflect criticism from her political opponents that she is “anti-gun” because she favors a ban on AR-15-style semi-automatic rifles and other gun regulations designed to reduce negative outcomes with firearms.
I don’t doubt that Kamala Harris might shoot someone breaking into her house. But saying it in a very public setting while running for office is more a political strategy than a statement of fact.
Those for whom gun rights are a leading priority in their voting decisions cannot pull the level for the Harris-Walz ticket. And those for whom gun violence prevention is a leading priority must pull the level for Harris-Walz. This is the polarized reality at this moment. However, most voters have a variety of concerns they are trying to address when voting; gun rights or gun violence are just one of many. In my view, the election is likely to be decided by a relatively small number of suburban white women in a handful of swing states. I don’t think the gun issue will be decisive for them.
–David Yamane is a sociology professor at Wake Forest University and author of Gun Curious: A Liberal Professor’s Surprising Journey Inside America’s Gun Culture (Exposit, 2024).
Gun Culture 2.0 
Harris gets zero points for being a so-called “gun owner.”
She’s a textbook example of what I call “totemic gun ownership.” Maybe she owns a gun and maybe she doesn’t; it’s a moot point as there’s not a chance in Hades that someone could get within ballistic range of her house without being in the sights (literally, if not figuratively) of the Secret Service. Even with the Secret Service quickly becoming the laughing stock of executive protection, there’s zero chance of her needing to clear her house with pistol in hand.
If a journalist could ask her a question that wasn’t carefully vetted by the DNC, it should be something along the lines of, “when was the last time you practiced any defensive shooting drills?” Or, “what sort of defensive firearms training have you done?” I don’t know what California’s take is on DAs being armed and if the state provides any sort of training, but my guess is that it’s been a long, long time since she’s stood on a firing line.
Her gun ownership has nothing to do with self-defense (which doesn’t really have anything to do with the second amendment). It’s a totem; a political prop to show that she’s some sort of a middle-of-the-road politician. You know, just like us.
Walz has marginally more bonafides as a gun owner, but even those claims are sketchy on the best of days. I’ve done live-fire training with more active duty solders than I could ever hope to remember, and the vast majority of them were upping their training because the live fire training that they received in the military was pitiful. I recall one young woman serving as an Army MP, that told me that she had fired more rounds in that weekend of training (I think we were in the high three digits) than she had in the rest of her entire military career.
I know that anecdotes aren’t data, but I’ve heard the same thing often enough to learn never to overestimate the firearms proficiency of our nation’s soldiers.
Walz likes to quail hunt, or whatever, and he claims to have even beat Republicans in shooting matches. I haven’t seen Walz’s name mentioned in any of the major shooting leagues, so I imagine that this was some sort of publicity stunt at the local turkey shoot. The not-so-secret service wouldn’t allow it, I’m sure, but I’d love to see Walz shoot a three gun match—if he can tear himself away from tinkering with the cruise control on his vintage International Harvester truck for long enough, of course.
Walz isn’t any more a part of “gun culture” any more than owning a GMC makes me a part of NASCAR. He’s a carefully crafted media sock puppet; a beta-male sidekick for Harris with enough “gun guy” bonafides to convince Oprah or Taylor Swift or whatever other gun-idiot billionaire they’re trading obsequies with.
And lastly: you’re right to treat every journalist as an enemy. Record everything, and don’t be shy about that. Assume they want you to look like an idiot. Regardless of what’s asked, answer the question you want to answer.
LikeLiked by 3 people
I don’t see “journalists” or any other category of my fellow American citizens as enemies (e.g., “conservatives”), so I can’t follow you down that path.
I also don’t draw boundaries around gun culture since the vast majority of people who own guns rarely use them in any serious way. NASCAR is not a good analogy for gun culture. USPSA would be. Yes, owning a gun doesn’t make you an active part of a shooting organization. But that’s far too narrow a definition for me.
Hope we can still be friends!
LikeLiked by 3 people
Walz’ folksy “look, I hunt quail” spiel resembles his fellow Minnesotan, Amy Klobuchar’s, rhetoric that she bases her gun control positions on “how they affect my Uncle Ted in this deer stand.”
I’m not sure who this ‘Fudd’ formula persuades anymore. It blesses the ‘acceptable’ gun uses — hunting and sport shooting (GC 1.0) — but either ignores or at most gives grudging acknowledgement to self-defense (GC 2.0). Its condemnation of ‘weapons of war’ certainly appeals to the hard anti-gun Democrat base; I don’t know enough to judge how the latter plays with GC 2.0 or the gun curious.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’ve had my own experiences being (mis) quoted or having comments taken out of context, albeit in the local fish wrappers around here. I prefer to reply to journalists in an email so I have a record. Record everything, although getting corrections published is probably a faint hope.
I agree with Mr. Helms regarding Harris and Walz owning (or not owning) guns. It is a way to deflect from their actual political positions and to convince some of the less politically engaged gun owners out there that they have nothing to fear from a Harris-Walz administration. But AFAIC, anyone who takes the Second Amendment seriously as a leading concern should think twice before pulling that lever or filling in that little box on the ballot sheet.
I’ve got relatives in NYS who have to read the daily news to know what the latest gun laws are and how to work around them. Same in California. It ain’t fun, and I think a Harris-Walz administration would likely try to Federalize NY or CA style gun control.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Interesting that you mention being misquoted or taken out of context. That has never happened to me. My concern is more about all of the ideas I have shared that have gone to waste. Doing a one hour interview and having a sentence used. That kind of thing, or worse in the case of a recent experience that I will write about more later.
Certainly if guns are a leading priority in your voting, it would be hard to vote for Harris-Walz, just as if a main concern is gun violence and/or negative externalities of gun ownership then it would be hard to vote for Trump-Vance. But if your priorities diverge from that, as is the case with those who will decide the election (I believe), it’s a much different calculus.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I mostly agree on who will decide the election. Also, will depend on who gets out of the house to vote, as Michael Moore once commented on the Clinton-Trump race. There might be tired voters out there; I think neither party has stellar ideas. As it happens, my old man, a life member of the NRA, was going to vote for Biden this time and will likely vote Harris, as his priorities are not gun rights and he thinks the NRA has gone off the rails. He is more concerned with the costs of his prescription drugs, of which he has many. He joked with us at his 90th birthday dinner that someone needed to remind him when it was time for him to take his meds as we were at the restaurant rather than his home.
Spending an hour with a journalist and having one or two snippets taken out of context has happened to me (local radio station, local paper, an Everytown reporter), which gives a slanted version of the nuance in the original discussion.
Me, personally? I would have a real, real, real hard time voting for the GOP ticket. So it would be the choice of Harris/Walz or writing in Alfred E. Neuman/George Papoon.
LikeLiked by 1 person
On the point about treating journalists as enemies, it is imperative. Too many times I have done interviews and later, when I read the product, had the “But I didn’t say that” moment. Can just as easily happen with video interviews as well.
Beyond that, anyone taking Harris at her word that she owns a pistol and would use it, that she doesn’t want to “take away anyone’s guns” and pulling that lever, will deserve the government they get. If she owns a gun, it is symbolic, nothing more. There is far too much tape of her stating her positions for anyone to believe that she has had an epiphany as opposed to having recognized – or coachd on – the need for political expediancy. Of course, this is true on a range of her “policies”, none of which she has been challenged on.
Walz is no different, he is a chameleon, and a huckster. I thank him for his service, even if he feels he had to lie about ome of it and use it for his personal/political gain. Unfortunately not all NCOs adhere to the NCO Creed.
Lastly, I would agree that those who want to reduce “gun violence” might believe that a vote for her is mandatory. But that is fraught with many misconceptions. “Gun violence” is a mantra they use to get vote, but, in practical terms, means nothing in relation to solving the problem. Violence is the problem, not guns. But that requires deep introspection with regard to many issues in our culture, and to which few are inclined.
LikeLiked by 4 people
Fascinating differences. I have done over 200 interviews in my career, most of them on guns, and have not ever had an “I didn’t say that moment.” My point about recording was more to cover the 60 minute interview/1 line quote challenge that is a more common experience for me.
It sounds like we have a choice between two sets of chameleons and hucksters in this election! Which hucksters we choose depends on how we prioritize different issues. I’m less concerned about someone taking my guns — which is preventable — than someone taking away women’s control over their bodies — which has already happened in many places and which one set of hucksters will try to further.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I have done interviews on different topics (e.g., drug/alcohol use, PTSD) and have had that experience several times. As happens in politics, a sentence or phrase, taken out of the full context and not including the full logic, is used. I suppose at some point we have to talk to journalists like we might a young child and not expect an appreciation for complex, nuanced arguments.
Exactly! I think most political races are likely fraught with that conundrum. To be honest, that is what made me a one-issue voter. And the democrat/liberal stance on the 2A is what made this one-time liberal and staunch, yet independent, conservative. I have always been a strong supporter of individual rights, but will not support someone else’s rights to the detriment of my own. So, even if faced with 2 such candidates, I feel I am reduced to voting for the one who will do my rights the least harm. Sad, but inescapable to me.
LikeLike
Crime and violence are for the most part not Federal issues. States make most criminal laws and state/local judges, DA’s, and juries adjudicate them. And crime is not evenly distributed, but rather, concentrated in subsections of local areas (East Buffalo, central Albuquerque, etc).
Even with a more restrictive Federal gun law, should Dems take both houses of Congress, there are so many guns out there that guns will continue to find their way into the “wrong hands” and given the state of society, there will continue to be many “wrong hands” for guns to fall into. I think that violence and especially “gun violence” is a fake Federal issue, but it gets out the vote.
LikeLiked by 1 person
My neighbor, a liberal gun owner, said to me: “isn’t at least one thing you can like about Kamala is she’s a gun owner like us?” But my neighbor was already voting for Harris no matter what.
Harris’ mention of her gun (no revelation to those of us from the Bay area) seems part of a strategy to relate to middle America, along with Tim Walz’ hotdish recipe and the astroturfed White Dudes For Harris. It is possible that the Harris campaign has identified a dem-leaning demographic that might break the other way over Kamala’s previous calls for gun confiscation, etc. In any case, such ham-fisted pandering reflects the Democrat elite’s ever-widening detachment from the lives of ordinary Americans, not to mention its assumption of their gullibility. It’s about as subtle as the now memetic Steve Buscemi gag, ‘How do you do, fellow kids?’
On the GOP side, I do know there are efforts underway to get gun owners who habitually don’t vote to turn out for the first time this November.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Perhaps the point about “treating journalists like enemies” is less about going being hostile or expecting hostility, but rather to accept the adage that you plan based on an enemies capabilities, not their (perceived) intentions.
Openly recording everything yourself may even act as a deterrent to those who might find themselves pushed, or inclined, to “juice” the interview for any reason.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Lively conversation!
LikeLiked by 2 people
Also, I think it is worth accepting that a “gun positive” person viewed as a non-threat, a curiosity or potential ally, is going to get a different reception from most journalists than someone perceived as an “extremist” or as a politically active political opponent who may need “taking down” from their political mindspace.
To deny that is a huge trend in journalism in regards to pro-gun politicians in particular isn’t realistic.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Somewhat related, from Andrew Sullivan.
https://andrewsullivan.substack.com/p/why-vance-matters-8a4?r=2mnqb&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&triedRedirect=true
LikeLiked by 1 person
How is that at all related to this conversation?
LikeLike
Hi Dave,
Harris’ bloviation about guns is factually insincere.
1. As pre-AG (SF DA) she signed onto USSC amici *against* Heller v DC:
that is, she did not recognize – nor want it to be recognized – as a
fundamental individual right. I am unclear on her official position (can’t
recall if she filed amicus) on McDonald v Chicago “incorporation” case.
2. During her tenure as SF DA, she was trying (in cooperation with a lawyer
at DOJ to generate arrests and get certain legal configurations of rifles
categorized as ‘assault weapons)’. One case we (Calif Gun Rights
Fndn) were dealing with was stretched out in duration trying to grasp
at anything in trying to felonize the case to scare off legal AR owners in
CA [there are special configuration hoops to jump thru.] Later, via a Fed
USC 1983 civil rights case (Haynie/Richards v Harris) the AG did
grudgingly acknowledge the legality of these configurations.
Oh – while she was performing these shenanigans as SF DA, she did
not use escalated penalties for the killing of SFPD Officer Issac Espinoza.
nor could we find out via records acts (“continuing investigation”) whether
or not the gun used by gang member David Hill was a legally-defined
‘assault weapon’, which smacked to us like she was playing name games
to further support a ban.
3. 2011/12 there was SB249, which was trying to redefine ‘assault weapon’ to
ban the ‘bullet button’ special mag release device for nondetachable
magazines. Harris’ spokeshole was interviewed on KPIX (Ch5) TV news;
the reporters asking about legality of the device saw Harris in nearby hallway
and she then ran from reporters – quite humorous.
This was only slightly before SB249 proponent, her friend Leland Yee, was
arrested for arms smuggling. (When I heard this on the TV news, I thought
colleagues had pranked my TV set – we were going to go to a Yee ‘pancake
social’ breakfast and ‘express our opinion’.
4. California has a ‘Roster’ of ‘Approved Not-Unsafe Handguns’. This was
initially developed around 1999 (SB15) with the underlying goal of banning
large numbers of handguns via trivial date matters, etc. being masked as
a safety issue. (The cheap ‘ring of fire’ guns they wanted to ban fully
passed all safety checks.) As time moved on, more ‘features requirements’
were added to the Roster regulations: one of these was ‘microstamping’,
for semiauto pistols. However, the technology was not remotely ready
nor certified. We renewed the ‘interfering’ Lizotte patent for another year
or two to extend the window for mfgrs to be able to still Roster more guns
with this impossible-to-usefully-implement technology; Harris had wanted
to ‘certify it’ right then. This blocked a huge number of guns from the
market and the only new handguns available were ones that were already
grandfathered in and could get no new changes. New & revised handguns
could no longer be sold new in CA except to exempt cops.
5. More importantly, re: (4) above, the DOJ on Harris taking AG office, started
to push a new stance: Rostered handguns that received even minor mfg
changes (pins, springs, better alloys, supplier change) could no longer be
Rostered and needed a full re-test – AND required the impossible
microstamping technology. With this ‘underground regulation’, mfgrs had
to freeze all production; in cases where even a trivial parts supplier went
out of business m the gun was considered a ‘redesign’ and could not be
Rostered regardless of compliance with all other-than-microstamping
features. The available handgun market shrunk signifcantly; Glock kept
making Gen3 Glocks for CA alone even though improved Gen4s became
available in 48 other states. (The microstamping requirement has
recently been lifted due to Fed litigation and the Roster is growning again.)
Her handgun – given age/provenance – that Harris bragged about owning
could not be sold as a new, retail item in CA because it very likely is not on
the Roster and fell off because of her shenanigans (although as “Law
enforcement”, she is exempt.)
Everything she grudgingly said in interview ‘stance’ has been proved a lie
given her massively documented past antigun actions. These actions had
little or nothing to do with crime/safety, but merely technical criminalization
of oddments.
Bill Wiese
San Jose CA
LikeLiked by 1 person
The gun topic? It’s not sex. No need to hide it from the kids.
LikeLike
I agree, and have in fact compared some approaches to gun safety with sex ed. But as you know from reading the post, the “gun topic” language is from the journalist who asked the question, who is not a native English speaker. Hence the awkward phrasing.
LikeLike