How NOT to Talk About Guns

A holiday gift to my fellow liberals

There is plenty of blame to go around for the poor level of conversation about guns in America. Here I want to address my fellow liberals on how NOT to talk about guns, especially in the aftermath of tragedies like those at Bondi Beach in Australia and Brown University in Rhode Island.

I write as a “card-carrying” liberal sociologist who became a gun owner later in life (as a 42-year-old in 2011) and has been studying American gun culture since then. I have a foot in two worlds – liberal culture and gun culture – that see firearms very differently. This allows me to hear how things said from one side in America’s great gun debate are heard by the other.

I understand the desire to do something, anything, in the face of exceptional and everyday tragedies involving guns. I feel the urge to scream out in anger and lash out in pain at those who appear to be standing in the way of progress. But as someone who has gotten to know a great many normal American gun owners over the past decade-plus, I want to encourage my fellow liberals to be mindful of what they say in response to mass shootings, especially if they want to improve our national conversation about guns and find a way forward to a safer world with their fellow Americans who own firearms.

In responding to heinous acts of terrorism, it is essential for my liberal friends advocating for increasing regulation of firearms to understand how gun owners hear their arguments. Some demonizing language is obvious, like when protesters chant “shame on you” at NRA meeting attendees or when gaslighting commentators use terms like “insane” or “addiction” to characterize gun culture in America.

My focus here is on more subtle language that nonetheless alienates many gun owners who otherwise might engage in good-faith conversations about guns and violence.

---

“Other countries acted immediately to prevent mass shootings.”

This seemingly innocuous observation is commonly made following mass public shootings in the U.S.

The confluence of the mass public shootings in Australia and the U.S. on December 14th naturally leads to comparisons. The Washington Post ran a story with the headline, “How countries around the world have responded to mass shootings.” Even Ms. magazine weighed in with “Two Mass Shootings, Two Countries—and Two Very Different Responses.” The humorous news site The Onion regularly joins this chorus with its oft-repeated headline, “No way to prevent this, says only nation where this regularly happens.” Its biting satire represents a commonly held point of view among liberals.

But what are you suggesting when you uphold as models the actions of the British government following the 1996 Dunblane Primary School massacre, the Australian government following the 1996 Port Arthur massacre, or the Australian government today following the Bondi Beach massacre?

You are arguing that the answer to mass shootings is to ban and confiscate the most commonly owned firearms in the U.S.: semi-automatic pistols and rifles.

Although my fellow liberals try to reassure gun owners that “no one wants to take your guns,” that is precisely what the British and Australian governments did. Don’t be surprised if gun owners leave the conversation at this point.

---

“Common Sense gun laws.”

Mass shootings typically bring renewed calls for “common sense” gun laws. In his remarks after the Uvalde massacre, President Joe Biden used this phrase four times. The Brady Campaign claims it has “been about common-sense gun laws” since its founding in 1974. Brady spokesman and NBA coach Steve Kerr called for “common-sense measures” to be taken following the Brown University murders.

The adjective commonsense is not a descriptive or analytical term. It is political, rhetorical, and divisive. It says, if you disagree with me, then you don’t have common sense.

At a time when we need more and better discussions with our fellow citizens about guns, this is dismissive. Not surprisingly, it is a conversation-stopper.

My fellow liberals who recoil at Donald Trump’s use of “common sense” to score political points, including characterizing himself as the “President of Common Sense,” should appreciate this.

---

Handout at “No Kings” rally in Winston-Salem, NC, 18 October 2025. Photo by David Yamane

“Protect children, not guns.”

The Children’s Defense Fund has been using this phrase at least since 2007, but variations on the theme abound. Signs proclaiming “kids, not guns” are a regular feature at gun violence prevention rallies, as well as at other left-leaning events like a recent “No Kings” rally I attended in Winston-Salem, North Carolina in October 2025.

Few rhetorical strategies vilify one’s fellow citizens more than saying they don’t care about the safety of children. Of all people, liberals should be wary of this, having seen any number of moral crusades — historically and today — undertaken in the name of protecting children, including anti-porn, anti-gay, anti-trans, and anti-abortion campaigns.

---

I know this advice may be hard for some to hear, especially when emotions run high after tragedies. But if we are going to make progress in reducing gun deaths, we need to improve our ability as Americans with diverse values and beliefs to talk to each other about guns.

Arguments like those I highlight here may feel good and seem convincing. But as a long-time liberal and relatively new gun owner, I can assure you they alienate gun owners and inhibit the very conversations we desperately need to be having right now. Consequently, they impede us from progressing in our common desire to reduce gun violence.

---

Thanks for reading to the end. This is my final Substack post of 2025. I’m looking forward to continuing this work in the new year.

If you are interested in supporting this work financially, please consider using the button below to become a paid subscriber to this Substack, or you can make periodic or ongoing contributions through my Buy Me a Coffee patron page or PayPal.

---

---