The New Yorker Radio Hour - Is the Tide Turning on Gun Reform?

Episode Date: February 8, 2019

This week, the House held hearings on gun violence, the first in eight years. In the 2018 elections, gun-reform groups outspent the N.R.A.—which appears to be in financial trouble. After years of greatly expanded gun rights, is the tide turning on gun reform? In this special episode, David Remnick talks with Lucy McBath, who ran for Congress as a gun reformer and won in the conservative district once represented by Newt Gingrich. We’ll hear from the reporter Mike Spies, the criminal-justice professor April Zeoli, the Navy veteran Will Mackin, and the gun-violence survivor Sarah Engle.  New Yorker Radio Hour listeners, we want to hear from you.  We have a few questions about the show and how you listen to it. The survey takes about twenty minutes, and your feedback will help us make our podcast better.  Take the survey here.

From One World Trade Center in Manhattan, this is the New Yorker Radio Hour, a co-production of the New Yorker and WNYC Studios. We welcome all of our distinguished witnesses and thank them for participating in today's hearing. Welcome to the New Yorker Radio Hour. I'm David Remnick. Now, if you'd please rise, I will begin by swearing you in. Last week, lawmakers in the House of Representatives held a hearing on gun violence. Raise your right hands. Do you swear or affirm? Congress holds hearings all the time on everything under the sun, but Wednesday was different.

Because Congress hasn't held a hearing on gun violence for eight years. People on many sides of this issue spoke, including a survivor of the Parkland School shooting. Rather than listen to special interests, I ask you to listen to the nation's young people and the overwhelming majority of Americans who have had enough. We have had enough of gun violence in our schools, in our movie theaters, our places of worship,

in nightclubs and restaurants on our streets and in our communities. Enough. We have all had enough. I hope you have had enough too. For many years, maybe since the expiration of the assault rifle ban, gun regulation in this country has been on the ropes. We've seen one mass shooting after another. You know the names. Virginia Tech, Sandy Hook, Orlando, Thousand Oaks, Las Vegas, Charleston, Parkland, Pittsburgh. If I read them all, I'd be talking for an hour. And through all of it, the NRA has pushed to expand gun rights. They argue that the answer to so much violence is simply more guns. President Trump has even suggested that teachers should be packing in classrooms

in order to prevent school shootings. And now the NRA is looking to expand its horizons, from the U.S. to Brazil, to Australia and other countries. So it's significant that gun regulation is back on the agenda in Washington. Whether or not it changes our laws tomorrow or even this term, we may be seeing a shift in the political winds. And that is what we're going to explore this hour. Seven years ago, my son, Jordan, was violently torn from my life,

a victim of a gun in the wrong hands. One of the people pushing the agenda is a woman named Lucy McBath, who was just elected to Congress from a particularly conservative district in Georgia. McBath's connection to the issue of gun violence couldn't be more intimate or more tragic. Her teenage son, Jordan, was shot and killed in 2012. He was sitting in an SUV at a gas station in Florida. What happened? Well, it was the day after Thanksgiving and Black Friday, November 23rd, 2012, and then boys, Jordan and three of his friends were simply going shopping. They stopped at a gas station, a convenience store, just for a matter of three and a half minutes.

Jordan, it said to the boys, if we're going to go to the next mall, you know, we need chewing gum. You know, he said, we got to have fresh breath for the girls. And so in that three and a half minutes, they stopped at the gate gas station. And Michael Dunn drives in and parks next to them on the passenger side. In that three and a half minutes, he started a verbal altercation with the boys over the volume of their music, considered them, called them gang bang. and thugs because they wouldn't turn their music down. And then he started the verbal altercation, shot 10 rounds into the car, and simply drove away. I'm so sorry. It is beyond horrendous. And it's just very hard to ask a next question.

One of your responses to the death of your son was to get deeply into politics. But the other, which is quite incredible, I think, for some people to get their arms around. You see, Michael Dunn was eventually convicted of first-degree murder, and you requested that prosecutors not push for the death penalty. We never considered pushing for the death penalty because I firmly believe that I am not the one to choose who lives and who dies. Morally and ethically, I believe that decision is left to God. We suffered so much pain and so much anguish, and I actually did not want to be the one to inflict that upon his family. And I didn't want to be rooted in those kinds of decisions because I truly believed that would be the noose around my neck and I would not be able to move forward to actively champion for safer gun laws and a safer gun culture because that's what I believe that I was given to do and I couldn't do that without forgiveness and I couldn't do that without releasing myself. Do you feel that justice has been served?

Michael Dunn is serving a life sentence in prison. Yes, I do believe that Michael Dunn is, you know, actually. in prison for the rest of us life. However, you know, justice has never really completely served because those young men that were in the car with him, they still suffer. They will still suffer from the implications of this trauma. So no, there's no justice in that. And then there's so many people around the country that still continue to suffer violently by unnecessary gun violence. And so until we can eradicate this extremist culture, still justice is not served. One of your first official acts as a newly elected member of Congress was to co-sponsor a bill that requires universal background checks for buying a gun.

Now, why did you and your fellow Democrats choose that particular issue related to gun control as your opening bid? Why universal background checks? Well, because, you know, in light of all the work that I've done around the country in the last six years, what we've begun to understand that universal background checks for all gun sales is probably the number one. most common sense way to be able to change the extremist culture that we're living under. You've got over 90% of Americans in the country, and this is including, you know, law-abiding gun owners and hunters and law enforcement that believe universal background checks is probably the greatest way to save as many lives as possible.

But I'm confused. So nationally, we've got polls that say that a lot of public support for more regulation of weapons is, well, that's growing. And in many states, including your own, legislatures are going in the opposite direction and loosening access to guns. So what's really going on politically? Well, the difference is there is that, you know, there is a lot of influence from the NRA gun lobby. And the NRA gun lobby has for years and years now pre-crafted a lot of legislation and passed it to specific legislators and said, look, you know, if you want to have our support, then you pass this legislation. And, you know, also, too, it's just, you know, the fearmongering that you.

You need to be afraid of people that don't look, think, or act like you. Everyone's coming to get your gun. And that's just once you pass background checks, then what's going to happen next? Well, you know, that's just simply not the truth. A lot of the work that I do is dispelling that false narrative. And I think specifically with the last election, we saw numbers of people going to the polls, numbers of young people going to the polls. And the number one issue that they were going on is guns. And so I think that, you know, you know, more and more members of Congress are going to have to really pay heat and attention. They're going to have to take a very critical look at, you know, trying to find some solutions to the existing gun culture that no one is immune from. I'm curious to know how you frame the issue. You won in a district that was held by Newt Gingrich. This is not a liberal district. It's not John Lewis's district in the Atlanta area. It's quite different.

How did you go about talking about guns during your campaign? managed to win. Well, you know, I did have to be very honest. There were people who kept saying to me in the very beginning, don't run on guns, you can't win, you know, there's no sentiment for it. And I basically told my story because I am a mother. I'm still a mother. And, you know, this is one of the kinds of tragedies that no mother, no family ever wants to have to consider. And as we have continued to watch over and over again, all of these tragedies around the country, and most recently, you know what happened with Parkland, I think that came too close to home for a lot of the families in my district. And so there were a lot of mothers that were appealing to me because they

know they don't want to be in my club. Now, I realize you're in a highly politicized atmosphere. You've got to hold on to your seat, even though you just entered it. It comes up every two years now. do you think the Second Amendment is something worth preserving? I am a strong supporter and proponent of the Second Amendment always have been. It's not about infringing upon the rights of people to own guns as gun enthusiasts or hunters. But what it is is getting people to understand that we have to put in place common sense measures, just basic measures, to keep guns out of the hands of individuals that should not have them. This is what's hard for someone like me who comes with all the obvious prejudice sitting where I am and I don't own a gun.

But there are hunters in Europe who own guns legally. There are hunters. But the structure of gun laws is so much stricter and the corresponding rate of murders and accidental deaths and all the rest is so much lower. Isn't that a more desirable way to live our lives or is it just impossible because of the peculiar nature? of American history and our relationship to guns? I would most definitely say it's more desirable to live without the carnage of gun violence. But I think, you know, based upon our Second Amendment and, you know, our founding fathers, you know, people protecting themselves and their territories and things of that nature, I think that has just guns has been a culture and a way of life for American society. Almost in a sense, guns are a religion here.

Guns are religion. Is that something that's just going to go on in perpetuity? Do you think that will fade? I think it's a matter of just trying to change a culture that has become very extremist. And that takes time and that takes effort. A lot of people really enjoy guns. A lot of people really like having guns. I am not one, but I don't want to infringe upon anyone that, you know, is law-abiding and using their guns properly.

So I understand the nature of change. It does not happen overnight. It's taken us 25, 30 years to get to this point. And if change is to be positive and effective, it is done slowly. Since 2005, I think it is, the gun industry has enjoyed broad protection from liability litigation, like the types of lawsuits, which in the end destroyed big tobacco in the 90s. Would you like to see those kind of laws repealed? Well, you know, you start talking about repealing laws immediately,

then that's when everybody gets up in arms and it makes it much harder to be able to change the laws. So sometimes it's just a matter of amending bit by bit to be able to get the law to the point where it is feasible and acceptable to gun owners and people that are not gun owners. You know, it seems that people are not going to move on this issue unless it's deeply personalized, and they see it in front of their faces. Your election is one instance of that. The other day, Senator Kamala Harris, who's running for president, told a CNN town hall that gun control would have been possible in 2012 after the massacre at Sandy Hook if legislators had been locked in a room and shown the autopsy photographs of those children. You know, I have to honestly say the biggest movement and shift that we've seen in this culture is simply because of the victims. When victims and survivors are coming to the legislative bodies and they're telling their stories and they're appealing, we've seen movement.

We've seen movement. And so it's a matter of changing one mind and one heart at a time. You change the culture and the policy change comes right on the heels of that. Lucy McBath, who is the representative from the 6th Congressional District in the state of Georgia. Thank you so much. Thank you. I'm joined now by Mike Spees, who reports for The Trace, a news website that's dedicated to covering gun issues. When we look at polls, we see extremely high numbers in favor of at least modest gun control laws,

certainly background checks and raising the age to buy an assault-style weapon, that kind of thing. And then we see a political victory like Lucy McBath outside of Atlanta. What's happening or not happening politically in the country? Is the tide starting to turn against the NRA or is that an utterly naive notion? I think the tide is starting to turn against the NRA for a couple of different reasons. One, it made a really big strategic mistake, which was that as this trend started to pick up steam and that trend is the NRA's full alignment with the Republican Party, it meant that when Republicans were no longer in power, that they were not going to have power either. What Democrats have come around to or figured out is that no matter what they do, even if they do occasionally align themselves with NRA policies, they're never going to get NRA support.

And that's coming from data. They literally don't spend any money on Democratic candidates federally. What chance does gun reform stand in Congress as we know it? It seems likely that a background check bill could pass the House, but, you know, could it possibly survive in the Senate? No. I mean, you know, obviously Republicans are still in control of the Senate. So we're going nowhere fast. We're going nowhere fast. But what happened in Florida in the wake of Parkland, I think, may end up being very instructive to Republicans at the federal level, which is that there is safety in numbers. In that case, when Florida lawmakers moved to pass some modest gun reforms after Parkland, some 66 Republican state lawmakers

with A ratings from the NRA decided to essentially walk off the cliff together. So there is really no way for the NRA to punish all of them in some kind of primary situation. What was interesting is that in the last election, in the midterm elections, gun reform groups outspent the NRA by $2.5 million. Yeah. What meaning does that have? First of all, it's an indicator of the financial shape the National Rifle Association is in, and that is, it is not in good financial shape. internally, there have been a lot of issues going on for a number of years. What kind of issues?

Frankly, just not bringing enough money. They've had to raise their membership dues a couple of times. In the recent, like the last couple months, they've gotten rid of free coffee for their employees and the water coolers. They've frozen pensions. It's an amazing thing. All these trends that you point out about the NRA's diminishing financial strength and all the rest. And at the same time, most gun owners support certain regulations.

So how does the NRE continue to persist? Its strength seems uncanny. I mean, what it does have, which is different than I think most other organizations and outside groups, is a very devoted membership that it is trained very well to take action on its issues. It communicates with its five million members directly. Whenever a piece of policy comes up that it doesn't like or it supports, it will send out, you know, emails. And basically you click a button and it auto generates an email to your congressman or your local official. And you get like 10,000 emails like in the course of 24 hours, that tends to send a very powerful message. And it also is cheap.

So let's talk about the Supreme Court. In the last decade, they've handed down rulings, which have broadly expanded gun rights. How did the court come to its current and relatively new interpretation of the Second Amendment? It's quite fascinating because it's very important to focus. on that it's new. What we're talking about is the Heller decision, which got handed down to 2008, and essentially affirmed the individual right to bear arms, disconnected from the concept of a militia. Now, that's only 11 years ago. Before that, up through the 90s, judges generally believe that the Second Amendment did not do that. Let's assume that the Supreme Court stays as it is.

health concerns off to the side here for Judge Ginsburg and all the rest. But is there anything in the records of justices Roberts, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Thomas, and Alito, a majority of the court, to indicate that they may be open to even some modest gun loss? Probably nothing in their record. And I think actually the larger thing that gun violence prevention groups are concerned about is that some case, will wind its way up to Supreme Court that will result in the Supreme Court affirming the right for an individual to carry his gun in public. So right now, you're just courting to the Supreme Court. You're allowed to possess a firearm. That the Constitution says you can do that. You can keep it in

your home, but that's all that it applies to. It's never ruled on whether or not you're allowed to carry firearm in public, which is, you know, especially relevant right now as we talk about arming teachers and, you know, as the NRA and other gun groups push college campuses to allow students to carry firearms. And this is always the part of the larger agenda, which is to allow guns in as many public spaces as possible. What about this country is so deeply different from so many other countries that you can describe that have much, much tougher gun laws and correspondingly, far, far fewer gun deaths? What this country has that other countries don't have is a very rich heritage of gun culture. It's a way of being in the world. We're talking about the good guy

with a gun is the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun. There's a larger idea at play. It means we're the protectors of society. They talk about these things called sheep dogs all the time. It's a very classic trope. It's the sheep dog is the animal that protects the sheep from the wolves, Right? So people that deeply subscribe to the NRA's philosophies see themselves in this role. And that carries a lot of meaning. And what's different about the other side, which is the gun violence prevention side, is it's not really rooted in a story. It's based on evidence, right? You know, having a gun in the home actually means that you're way more likely to get shot or shoot someone else in your family than you are to stop an intruder. But it's not a story. Mike Spee is a contributor to the New Yorker,

and he reports on guns and gun politics for the trace. You're listening to The New Yorker Radio Hour. We often talk about law-abiding gun owners and how they'll be impacted by regulation. And the overwhelming majority of gun users, of course, are law-abiding people, just like our contributor, Will Macon. Mackin spent more than two decades in the Navy.

He was deployed in Afghanistan and elsewhere, and he's got a keen appreciation of what guns can do. And as a civilian now, he loves using them. These days, that means target shooting near his home in New Mexico. So heads up, you're going to hear some rifle fire. So first thing I do is just make sure

there's nothing in there already. Pull the slide back and take a look and there's nothing in there. So push it back and hold it back. Take the magazine and slide it in. You think of like a dissoning decisive person, a person of action or whatever. And that, at least what I was exposed to growing up,

most of those people were armed and, you know, Rambo types. And then let the bulk go forward. I'm pushing this button here. Like I had G.I. Joe, I had Star Wars action figures. And their hands were like shaped to hold a gun. And if they didn't have it, they felt useless. Now there should be a bullet in the chamber, it should be ready to fire. So just pull it back and take a look.

And there it is. All right. So now I'm ready to miss the target. So the first time I held a gun was during ROTC indoctrination, which happened in Rhode Island. It wasn't a life-changing event. It wasn't like I thought, wow, I'm picking up a gun for the first time. Aren't I a badass?

It was none of that. It was just, you know, do what he says, slide to, magazine in point shoot one two three four five however many times it was drop the magazine clear it set it back down done you know you're taught above all that this is a thing that you know you have you are responsible for and you have to take care of if you broke it if you misused it if god forbid you lost it like that was a career ending type situation so there were times that were fun and exciting but it's easy for the preparation and the training and the focus and the responsibility to overshadow the actual excitement.

And this is the switch right here for safety and fire. It's an all set. The range is located about 15 miles northwest of Albuquerque. It's out in the middle of the desert. We were shooting an AR-15. The AR-15 is almost a replica of the military M-4. I mean it has the same magazine, same capacity, the same actuators and levers. And I felt like, you know, just going back to it the way I held it,

the way kind of seated in my shoulder pocket there and like squeeze back and all the, all of like the preamble that I would do came back to kind of get into the zone. So what you're trying, what I'm trying to do at least is clear my mind, focus, you know, down the site to the target, steady my body position, relax my breathing, and very slow and methodical trigger pull to hopefully, you know, when by the time the gun fires, it's a surprise to me. It's a feeling of being very aware and being very in the moment. It's a very, for me, a very even and meditative state. It is fun when it's going well and it's very frustrating, when it's not.

I had this weird experience not too long ago. A few months back, I went for a dental cleaning, and my hygienist had a picture of herself, like her whole family all holding AR-15s. Like they went to J.C. Penny to get their Christmas shots, and they all took their weapons with them. And when I didn't have pokers in my mouth, I asked her about it.

And she said, yeah, you know, she has concealed carry and they open carry, you know, when they go to Walmart. And she started talking about like a shootout scenario at Walmart. It's like, well, if this happens, you know, I'll be ready because, you know, somebody starts shooting and then I can potentially save lives. So no real details about it. No real, how are you going to target discriminate is what we call it? How are you going to break out who are the bad guys? Who are the good guys?

When everybody's running around, probably screaming. deploying with the guys I deployed with who practiced every single day in dark rooms with night vision on with smoke grenades going off with people screaming, dogs barking. They had to figure out who to shoot and carry it out.

They have to make those split-second decisions. To put that on a civilian in Walmart, I mean, I cannot even begin to comprehend it. And my first initial, My initial reaction is anger. Like somebody would expect to come out on top in that type of situation. They put us at risk more than they think.

Will Mackin has written fiction and essays for The New Yorker, and he served 23 years in the Navy. He lives in New Mexico. This is the New Yorker Radio Hour. More to come. This is the New Yorker Radio Hour. I'm David Remnick. We're talking this hour about gun violence and gun regulation.

and the impact of violence on people's lives. Hi, my name is Sarah Engel. I am from Central Wisconsin area. I have my son, who is 11 months, and walking and getting into everything. And I am a survivor of domestic abuse from gun violence. In 2008, Sarah Engel was in an abusive relationship with a boyfriend who would threaten and manipulate her.

She left him and moved in with her mother. I have never owned a gun. My mom, she had inherited a family rifle. So I think the rifle was about 100 years old. And basically my mom used it to get skunks out of the yard sometimes. She would shoot at them, and she was a horrible shooter. Her mother kept the gun in a locked box. A month after Sarah moved in, the boyfriend broke into their home and took that rifle.

What happened to Sarah after that is extremely hard to hear about, and you should be aware of that if you're listening with children. He hid his car, so if you came into the driveway, you wouldn't have known it was there. He broke into my mom's house. He cut her phone lines. and as soon as I hung up my phone and walked in the door, he came around the corner with the rifle pointed right at me, and that's when he had me take all my clothing off.

I remember seeing my mom's bedroom door completely barricaded, and he told me she's fine. And I know when he was done torturing me that night is when he told me to get redress. and I did. And I remember kind of briefly falling asleep when he had me get back onto the bed. And I remember waking up and jumping out of bed.

And as soon as I did that, I remember telling myself to pretend to be asleep. And I remember falling to the floor thinking, what a weird way to pretend to fall asleep. But I now know that's when he had shot me. and that was my, I think, my brain telling him, I'm dead. I don't know how long I was out for before I got up. At that, like, when I did wake up, I hadn't known I was shot yet.

And at that point, I had a break into my mother's room to get to her. And he had shot and killed her. and I remember her just sitting peacefully on the floor and very cold. She lived out in the country, so she had a long driveway, and I remember folly, and I remember feeling the rocks on my feet going, man, I wish I would have put my shoes on.

Engel flagged down a car and was eventually treated for her gunshot wound. James LaHood is now serving a life sentence for murder and other charges without the option of parole. My dad's friend, she said she was going to get a gun to feel safe at home. So if somebody were to break in or something like that, and I'm like, that's going to probably hurt you more than help you. She was like getting agitated with me telling her that it's not safe to own one for self-protection. She's like, well, I'd still feel safer.

And I'm like, well, I'm just saying you wouldn't be safe at all. And we just kind of ended it because I didn't want her to get more uncomfortable with that. Sarah Engel now speaks widely on the issues of domestic violence. She speaks to high school students, to lawmakers, anyone who will listen. In 2014, she helped to pass a Wisconsin law to get guns out of the hands of domestic abusers. A number of states have passed measures like these. having to do with guns and intimate partner violence, and they're really significant

because these are some of the very few successful gun regulations to pass in decades. To understand what these laws have and have not accomplished, we're joined again by Mike Spees, who reports for us on gun politics. Before 1996, there was no way to prevent domestic abusers from obtaining firearms unless they committed a felony. Then that year, the Lautenberg Amendment was enacted, which sought to rectify that issue.

It was the last major piece of gun reform passed at the federal level with bipartisan support. The difference often between a beating and a murder is the presence of a gun. That's Senator Leltenberg. It's time to establish a very clear rule. If you're convicted of beating your wife or beating your child, you lose your gun. If you're convicted of abusing your child, you lose your gun. No ifs, ands or buts. In 1996, Washington was still a highly partisan place.

And yet, one thing it seemed like everyone could agree on was that it was a bad idea for domestic abusers to be able to obtain firearms. April Zioly is a researcher at Michigan State University, and she's, I think, the only academic who has truly done extensive research on the positive effects of the Lautenberg Amendment I found that it's associated with a 9% decrease in firearm intimate partner homicide.

So 9% fewer firearm intimate partner homicides after this law went into effect. Okay, so that's something, yeah. Yes. So 9% is a reduction. That's a good thing. You can't complain about 9%. I mean, it's better than no percent and it's better than 2%. But you'd hope that any law would have a far more substantive.

substantial reduction, and it probably could if the law was written without so many loopholes, which is the way it was written, unfortunately. One of the most important gaps is referred to as the boyfriend's loophole. The boyfriend loophole, pretty much exactly what it sounds like. If your significant other is a domestic abuser but does not live with you and owns firearms, then this law will not protect you. And that's one thing that states have been trying to fix. A lot of states are more expansive in their firearm restriction laws than the federal government.

And there's one approach that about eight states have taken that is particularly expansive. And they've said that if you've been convicted of a violent misdemeanor crime, regardless of the relationship between you and your victim, you are too risky to have a gun right now. And that law is associated with a 23% reduction in intimate partner homicide in my study. Yeah, I mean, it seems like common sense that domestic violence in some respects is a subcategory of a broader kind of misdemeanor violence. Part of the reason I think that in certain situations, in certain states, the NRA hasn't tried to, as it often does, block the passage of these bills, is that it's, nobody wants to be seen as. as an advocate for domestic violence. I think you're probably right.

You know, when opinion polls go out, we find large support for keeping guns away from people who have been convicted of domestic violence. It's also true, you know, that a number of mass shooters, Omar Mateen, for example, the man responsible for killing out the massacre

at the Pulse Nightclub in Orlando, had histories with domestic violence. Why didn't the Lowenberg Amendment prevent them from obtaining firearms? There's one in particular, the shooter at the small church in Texas, Sutherland Springs Church, who the military had successfully prosecuted for what amounted to a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence. That man should have been prevented from purchasing a gun. The records of the conviction didn't make it into the background check system.

And essentially, it was kind of a bureaucratic figure. This is something that ultimately comes down to courthouses, you know, the person whose job it is to submit the records. Last year, as a reporter, I was at the NRA's annual meeting. Interestingly, they didn't talk about any of the major mass shootings that had taken place last year, including in Parkland, but they were very focused on Sutherland Springs, especially because, as you may remember, that shooting wasn't. some respects broken up by a local citizen who had his own AR-15. It played into their narrative, which is that the only person that can stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. Those tropes and cliches, they can become powerful narratives for the people that believe in them, and that's sort of what your research runs up against in some respects. They can become incredibly powerful.

I think that the idea that you personally may be able to stop a heinous crime if you're in the right place at the right time and you're armed, that is such a lovely idea. But it is a fantasy for the most part. I think that the idea of intimate partner homicide is difficult for people to wrap their heads around. It happens generally in the home. person on the street who has a concealed weapon isn't going to be able to prevent it. There are those, though, who do want to put more guns in the hands of intimate partner violence victims. Right, that's right. Yeah.

You know, for example, Kentucky has a law that says that if you get a domestic violence restraining order, you can get a license to carry a concealed weapon very quickly. You don't have to go through the usual hoops in Kentucky, which I think. think include training with the idea that you will then be able to defend yourself from your abuser with your gun. There are a couple issues there. When guns are in the home, research suggests it increases the risk of homicide and suicide. You increase the risk of your abuser finding the gun that you were going to use to protect yourself. If you have children, you might increase the risk of your child finding the gun.

Adding more firearms to the home, you would surmise would just make a volatile situation, probably more volatile and dangerous. Yes, that's what the research suggests. How much resistance has there been to the strengthened versions of these laws? There is some, particularly the relinquishment law. You know, sometimes I'll hear somebody say, well, You know, he's never used the gun in domestic violence. So why should he lose his right to his gun?

Right. Only matters you use it one time. Right. That's really all you need. Are there any lessons that people are interested in making reforms on gun laws should take from what occurred, you know, not just with the Lautenberg Amendment itself, but then what's taking place at the state level now, where it seems like this is one area in which there is some kind of bipartisan progress?

You know, so I think that gun safety groups are much, I don't want to say wiser, but we do see a lot more movement at the state level than we see at the federal level. There's a lot more noise at the federal level. It's a lot harder to get those conversations going and to keep them going than it is at the state level. The state legislators are more nimble and flexible, generally.

When the NRA argues against reforms, usually its chief argument is that people who are intent on doing harm will not follow the law anyway. So there's very little purpose in passing some kind of regulation that they say will only restrict law-abiding gun owners. What April's research shows is that actually those laws can change human behavior. They can save lives. It's not really up for dispute. Whether it be a 9% reduction as a result of a deeply flawed but well-meaning law like the Lautenberg Amendment or state regulation that sort of expands the scope of the Lautenberg Amendment leading to a 23% reduction in homicide.

Those numbers really mean something. Those numbers reflect a lot of lives that have been saved. Mike Spees reports for the New Yorker and for the Trace, a news site that covers gun issues. He spoke with April Zioli, an associate professor of criminal justice at Michigan State University. And that's our show for today. I'm David Remnick, and I want to thank you for joining us. The New Yorker Radio Hour is a co-production of WNYC Studios and The New Yorker. Our theme music was composed by Merrill Garbus of Tune Yards.

Special music used in this episode is courtesy of the composer and guitarist Ben Monder. The New Yorker Radio Hour is supported in part by the Turina Endowment Fund.