Political Conflict in Gun Legislation

This project was a part of my HNRS 130 Identity Conflict class. Throughout the semester-long project, I dove into understanding the identity conflict surrounding the political deadlock in addressing gun violence in the United States. In this project I attempted to dissect why Congress can’t reach a majority decision regarding gun legislation rather than the political discussion surrounding the conflict itself. The video highlighted some eye opening findings from GMU students who believe the main problem in addressing legislation such as this one is the labels of “Democrat” or “Republican” which creates division leading to the current legistative deadlock.

Hello everyone. We’re here at George Mason University to talk to students about gun legislation and to try to see why it’s such a big conflict and trying to reach a political node over on what’s your political affiliation. I’m not really too big into politics, but I would say that unlike in the middle, leaning to the left a little, I’m more in the middle, but I lean more conservatively. I’m registered as an independent, but I am more left-leaning, so I’m not a fan of the two-party system, but I definitely aligned with the right on most social issues. I’m officially a Democrat, but I would call myself a socialist. So what does being a Republican means here? So it means, I think, a focus on personal liberties, personal freedoms, as well as like combating crime, ensuring that more moral laws are enforced. Like that. It means progressive in America, it means fighting for the people more. And what does being a Democrat or socialists me too in terms of key issues on Congress? Well, I can answer really simply to me. It simply means that we live in a society where basically we have in equal distributions of, let’s say, wealth, power equality. And I would prefer to live in a world where we have more equal distribution of everything. That’s basically what it means to me. I’d say from my perspective, I think a very big thing in this country is bipartisanship, especially when it comes to the whole Democrat, republican thing. I’m not very into bipartisanship. I think it skews a lot of people’s ideas and reasons why people do the things that they do. Which is why kind of align myself more with the socialist identity even so I wouldn’t even say to them socialist. But again, honestly, I just think bipartisanship is outdated and it’s not really the best system of politics that we could operate under. And again, I’m not an expert, but I have my critique. Can I just say to me, bipartisanship? It’s like it’s like a smokescreen really, for much greater issues that we have in society. That’s what it is to me, absolutely. So you’ve got such a very interesting issue. Labels like bipartisanship. It’s either your phone card, Democrat, given me approaching you guys with that question, you define more on a spectrum then I said one of the other. Do you think that the label of you being a Republican or Democrat creates more division than helps solve issues. I definitely agree because I think that people tend to align themselves with slick party issues. So it’s like, oh, if the Republican Party cares about this single issue, then I’m going to align myself with caring about that issue because I’m a Republican or vice versa for Democrats, I think it’s kinda the same in either party. And I think that when it gets muddled down with identity politics, that kinda loses its genuineness. Like what is it that people are advocating for change? Thor? Is it like just because you’re a Democrat, isn’t just because you’re Republican, is it because, you know, Hillary Clinton said so is because some of Trump’s at. So like, why is it that you do the things that you do? So what do you think about gun ownership? I think I don’t like I think there should be gun control. I personally wouldn’t own a gun. I can understand why some people feel more comfortable with a gun, but yeah, I think we definitely need stricter gun control laws. Without Ben control, anyone get this? And you have like open laws about guns. Like chaos can happen like anyone could be buying guns. And as you see in some states, like like, like 18-year-old kids buying guns, shooting up schools and things like things like that can happen when guns open. Is there any issues that you descend from the Republican Party? Oh, yeah. So abortion, I think is a big one. There’s some things I don’t agree with that. Gun laws, but that’s kinda very broad. I think those are the two big ones. Fall. Talking about GAN loss. Do you think that what’s your opinion on gun ownership or gun restriction? Gun restriction. I like I like I support gun ownership if it’s in the right cases. If someone’s breaking into your house, it’s you. You need to protect yourself and your family if you have a family. But there’s some things that could be improved restricted, Definitely. In my opinion, yes. You have an example. Like maybe ARs. Not having AR is maybe shotguns only for hunting. Rifle is for hunting, but not for maybe home defense or and limiting access. Definitely limiting access. So make it obviously harder to get one. Yeah. Okay. So I am Second Amendment absolutist essentially. So I believe that most gun laws are infringements. Let’s say you had a Republican candidate that all your other political views align with? Yes. But there are in favor of gun restrictions that totally deal breaker for you. It would be very difficult for me to vote for them. The only way I would vote for them probably is if the other candidate was in favor of abortion. So this is the number of gun deaths in the United States, 1999-2016. And can you take a guess on which each one of these numbers represent and these are your options. And there’s one extra one. Maybe, that one Is suicide, maybe mass shootings, legal intervention, accidental. It’s still the leading gun deaf cause. It is suicide. The second one is homicide, and the third one is Lear intervention. And the last one is measuring is why why did you make those choices as the exhaustion? I feel like maybe that because that’s what the news covers maybe. So e.g. he said to be mass shootings. It’s a big number of different from 2000 to her and tells him to barely. Do you feel like there is a perspective that the news for Jack that is not true to reality. It makes you believe that it is more than into an actual truth. I don’t think it’s necessarily on purpose, but I think it’s just because they cover more negative things. And like, I feel like school shootings are covered in the news a lot. Like mass shootings in the United States? Yes. Do you believe that there is a issue there that there is increasing and mass shootings every day creases number of victims. I think strings are a problem for sure. I don’t think that it is as big of a problem as the media makes it out to be. That being said, it is still a tragedy every time it happens. And I think that there should be steps taken to reduce mass shootings in America. Now, do you think that gun restriction of laws would help decrease? I think that in terms of decreasing mass shootings, no, I think that it might they might affect the type of weapon used maybe, but even then I think that sort of like a complete buyback and ban, we wouldn’t see any real change in terms of mass shootings. Not do you think that health care interventions, first assessments, and other ways that don’t really mess with the second amendment would be a better improvement than gun restrictions. Absolutely. I think that the end of the day, people targeting gun legislation as a means to solve the issue of mass shootings are ultimately treating a symptom rather than the underlying problem. I think that the underlying problem in this country is mental health. And like outlets for mental health as well as a lot of young men. I feel like, especially in this culture and society, feel like they are not being listened to, being heard and feel like they don’t have any purpose. And I think if we combat the mental health, as well as trying to give these young people more of a fulfilling role in society, it would drastically cut down on the number of disaffected young men who feel like they need to lash out. So a lot of Republicans say that it’s not the gun that kills people. It is the person. What do you think about that statement? I mean, obviously it’s not the gun that kills, but when people have access to get those guns, they’re going to get them and then they can still use them to kill. Not everyone thinks the same. Some people, there’s some crazy people out there. You don’t know who’s gonna do. What would they have the ability to do what they want? How about what are you guys feeling about gun ownership? Um, my dad doesn’t affect own a gun. He was not in the military. He just has this little quirks that’s used to build them and sell them. And now he just has one to have one. But I think on the issue of gun control, it’s always been such a loaded issue for me and I’ve never really been able to just sit down with it because I remember being in high school and it was such a big thing when I was in high school with Parkland and things like that. And I just think there’s so many sides. That’s not really a consideration. Yeah. Not even that. I think it’s like there’s gun control as a political issue and control as a personal issue. And I’ve always found it so difficult to come to consensus, especially because those two things are so separate. Like you you would have to consider good control on a personal level like your dad having guns versus, you know, because it’s so multifaceted that I feel like it’s there’s a reason that no one’s really come to a consensus because it feels it possible to come to one. There’s current that lock-in Congress regarding how to handle gun legislation. Democrats want to restrict it, and Republicans want to preserve the current setting. Do you think there’s any chance that they could find a middle ground on how to let’s say. Restrict a little bit on a ship, but at the same time have Republicans keep their freedoms? I mean, if I’m being honest and realistic, I don’t think they can find a middle ground because everyone’s always going to find a way to be dissatisfied with the situation. Like it, especially when it comes to those types of things, abortion and gun control, between the Democratic and Republican. There’s not really much of a middle ground when they come, they can’t find the one. That’s why they’re always arguing or something. Something always is off to the other party who talks about how you’re very pro Second Amendment. It true or politician. And you’re under his gun legislation debate where there’s just been a mass shooting and people are trying to figure out how to solve the problems. How would you go on about it without making any concessions about? Yes. So I would probably try and introduce a bill or support legislation that specifically overhauls mental health spending as well as programs that would have greater mental health access for, for instance, especially for people in schools. I feel like we already have school counselors. I feel like it would be a really good step in the right direction to see on staff, school psychologists that would be free of charge for students, as well as having like a kinda like a national hotline almost which would coordinate with local law enforcement if need be, and local clinics and mental health providers. I think that that would be a great step in the right direction. Yeah. And then none of that would include any kind of gun legislation. And Leslie, I wanted to ask, do you feel like that locking Congress? Congress is in deadlock because people can make concessions. A set of concession is find a middle ground instead of being black and white. Yeah. So like we were kind of talking about this earlier. We’re saying there are so many parts to bipartisanship. Democratic Party, the Republican Party, especially the Republican Party. Again, we were talking about the whole idea of pro Trump and Trump Republicans. And we were saying that, again, I think with issues like that, it’s not necessarily people being unable to decide or not reaching a consensus. I think it’s merely explain it. I feel like it’s essentially like this group of people has this set idea and we’re going to stick to it because I feel like a lot of politics now are. So set. The precedent like, Oh, this is what our party represents like this is traditionally the values that we adhere to regardless of current events. And that’s not saying that political parties that can’t keep with the times. But again, I think it’s still says a lot regarding this uptick in gun violence in America. I mean, I feel like I don’t know the specific statistic, but I feel like gun violence has been an all-time high even in the first half of 2022. Like, I don’t know, I think it’s just identity politics. I think that’s mainly it. Like people are so set in their ways when it comes to bipartisanship that no one’s going to budge. No one can really make any set decision. Well, thank you guys so much. I appreciate it. Thank you.