What Happened When Guns Rights and Gun Violence Prevention Advocates Spent 80 Hours Talking to Each Other?
A report from inside the "Bridging the Divide on Firearm Policy" initiative
I have been studying American gun culture for 14 years now. In that time, I have assiduously avoided proposing or endorsing gun policies because I am not an expert on the Second Amendment, on gun-related harms, or laws concerning either. I have also tried to stay neutral to protect my reputation as someone trying to understand American gun culture as objectively as possible.
Which is not to say I do not have views on the Great American Gun Debate.
My views are informed by the Liberal Gun Owners’ distinctive mission of “simultaneous proponency”: equal support of both firearms ownership rights and the reduction of firearms-related injury and death.
I believe that getting beyond the firearms ownership VERSUS public safety false dichotomy can be facilitated by having civil conversations about guns with those with whom we disagree.
I take these opportunities whenever possible, from the Vail Symposium to the California Rifle and Pistol Association and many others.
The most ambitious of these opportunities came in the fall of 2024, when Dr. Michael Siegel from Tufts University made me an offer I couldn't refuse: to engage in an extended deliberative dialogue with a diverse group of stakeholders representing a truly broad range of perspectives on firearms in America.
The group's name is “Bridging the Divide on Firearm Policy,” but in my mind, we were actually bridging the divide between gun rights and public safety. We were engaging in simultaneous proponency by overcoming the idea that the two are somehow fundamentally incompatible, by getting beyond the notion that we can only advance one at the expense of the other.
As the project’s website states, “We are dedicated to working together to reduce gun harms while protecting the rights of responsible gun owners.”
Here’s what we did. The two dozen panelists engaged in a deliberative dialogue throughout 2025. This included monthly Zoom meetings, additional meetings of working groups, and two face-to-face meetings (in Denver in June and Portland in November). Someone in the group calculated about 80 hours of formal deliberations. This led to a package of eight extensive policy proposals designed to be introduced into state legislatures.
In my experience as a panelist, the initiative was notable for both the process and the product. Let me touch on each in turn.
The Process
The panel was composed of serious people with seriously different views, from Jonathan Lowy, whose Global Action on Gun Violence sues gun companies, to Rob Pincus, who is a part-owner of the gun manufacturer Avidity Arms.
Given these differences, it was important for us to begin our work by getting to know each other as people, seeing that we share beliefs and values, and developing trust and empathy.
And as we engaged in our ongoing dialogue, we respected certain ground rules, including: speaking only for ourselves and not for others, asking questions for clarification and understanding not to criticize, and observing time limits for expressing opinions.
This structured dialogue was facilitated by Essential Partners, an organization that specializes in fostering healthier communication across differences to reduce polarization on controversial issues — like guns.
The process was unprecedented in its form, length, and goals.
Even if we didn’t agree on any policy proposals, I would have considered my involvement a success because the panel demonstrated that civil conversation on guns is possible, even among people who disagree strongly.
That is a win, even if no state passes our package of proposals—which were designed to be considered as a whole rather than piecemeal.
The Product
On our emerging foundation of trust and empathy, we began developing policies that we agreed would protect gun rights, encourage responsible gun ownership, and reduce firearms-related harms.
In the end, the “Bridging the Divide” initiative developed policies in eight broad areas:
Prohibiting Factors for Firearm Purchase and Possession
Background Checks
Extreme Risk Protection Order
Dealer Regulation and Gun Trafficking
Child Firearm Access Prevention and Responsible Gun Storage
Firearm Suicide Prevention
Firearm Injury Prevention Education
Community Violence Intervention
Although these topics are familiar to those who have worked on gun policy before, the details of these proposals are atypical.
To take just a couple of examples, we propose a comprehensive state-level background check system that includes private sales in order to identify more prohibited purchasers. This is typical. What is atypical is our proposal that the system establish logical exemptions from background check requirements (e.g., for mutual members of gun clubs) and include a mechanism for individuals to perform background checks in private sales separate from federal firearms licensees (FFLs).
We seek to reduce gun trafficking by focusing attention on ensuring legal compliance by the 5% of firearms dealers who are responsible for selling 90% of traced crime guns. This is typical. What is atypical is our proposal to protect responsible gun dealers from legal liability by codifying the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) at the state level.
Again, the project website has all of the information in detail, including a brief outline of the policies and the full (60-page) policy package.
Coda
I’m not certain where the Bridging the Divide policy proposals will go from here, but I am certain that I am better off for having participated in this dialogue. One photo truly encapsulates why.
The photo below shows several members of the panel gathered at a common table after a long working session in Portland, Maine in November 2025. At the table were: Rob Pincus — gun educator and gun manufacturer (Avidity Arms); Jonathan Lowy — President of Global Action on Gun Violence; B.J. Campbell — writer for Recoil Magazine and Open Source Defense; Cedric Dark — author of Under the Gun: An ER Doctor’s Cure for America’s Gun Epidemic; Nick Wilson — Senior Director for Gun Violence Prevention at the Center for American Progress; and me.
The moment captured in this picture is remarkable because it shows what can happen when people engage each other with curiosity, foster trust, and develop empathy, not to erase disagreements, but to see each other as fellow citizens with common interests despite them.
I didn't see a number of names I would have thought would be there, such as Emmy Betz or Cass Crifasi. Or Andrew Papachristos. Or names I recognized from the Duke U. law project on gun laws. Interesting.
The Brief Outline looks interesting (no gun bans, sanity on FFLs, a community violence initiative) but the devils are always in the details. Like Paul, I'll read that and then comment. But the fact that this group could agree on even broad ideas is promising.
I read the broad strokes.
I will read the 50 pager before further comment.