So, You Want Less Gun Violence? Prove It.

In the wake of yet more mass shootings in the United States — most recently in Kalamazoo, Michigan and Hesston, Kansas— it’s now clear we have to do more than Tweet or pray or talk anymore about gun violence. We have to take measurable, practical action. To reduce gun violence, we have to put our money where our heartache is.

Researchers have found gun control works, but the political landscape is littered with guys like Kansas Senator Forrest Knox who assert it’s guns — not gun control— that keep us safe. So, where’s the disconnect? Is this just a childish fantasy? Some misguided good-guy-with-a-gun hero complex?

Nope. It’s something a lot more dangerous. It’s advertising. The gun industry gives a ton of money to elected officials. So, when politicians claim that guns keep us safe, they’re largely just doing what they were paid by the gun industry to do: protect the commercial interests of that industry.

Those of us in favor of tougher U.S. gun law rail against such tactics. We argue with anti-gun control folks online. We share the many studies showing tougher gun laws translate to less gun death—yes, even when you remove suicide data.

But Tweeting about gun violence is the secular equivalent of praying — admirable but ultimately impotent. If pro-gun control folks don’t start making bolder, worldlier moves to dislodge these NRA-greased officials, I’m worried we’re at a point where we share some of the culpability when innocent people get gunned down.

We need to be as shrewd as the gun lobby and just as willing to reach for our wallets. Imagine the message it would send if we ousted the gun industry’s most powerful political allies. We could embolden every elected official—local, state, federal—to stand up for US citizens…the ones being killed in church, school, movie theaters, or as with four older women in Kalamazoo —leaving a restaurant.

The gun industry wants to sell you a world in which those four women should have been packing heat for lunch at Cracker Barrel. Is that the world you want to live in?

If not, then there are three US senate races in swing states to which you should be paying a lot of attention right now. In all three, Democratic candidates are running against Republican incumbents elected in 2010, the year the Tea Party rose to power.

In all three races, the incumbents have accepted significant amounts of money from the gun industry. And all three races are close. It’s tough to beat an incumbent, but polls show the Democratic candidates have a fighting chance. That is significant. That is leverage: a prime opportunity to wrest power away from the gun industry.

You should give the challenger candidates some cash. Don’t do this because they’re Democrats running against Republicans or because they’ll represent you in any way. Do it because it will save lives — possibly your own. Here are the three candidates to whom you should give some money:

1. Maggie Hassan, New Hampshire Democrat running for U.S. Senate against incumbent Republican Senator Kelly Ayotte. Maggie Hassan served three terms as a state senator and is currently the governor of New Hampshire. She has a relatively high approval rating. On gun control, she rightly vetoed legislation that would have allowed New Hampshire citizens to carry concealed weapons without a permit. At the federal level, she says she’ll fight for stronger background check laws. Donate to Maggie Hassan’s campaign here.
2. Russ Feingold, Wisconsin Democrat running for the US Senate in against Tea Party Republican Ron Johnson. Feingold is known for his landmark campaign finance reform law — the McCain–Feingold Act — as well as for being the only Senator to vote against the Patriot Act in the first vote. In 2010, Feingold lost his Senate seat to Tea Party leader Ron Johnson. Donate to Russ Feingold’s campaign here.
3. Ted Strickland, Ohio Democrat running for the US Senate against Republican Rob Portman. Democrat Ted Strickland is a former Ohio governor and state congressman. He also served in the US House. Although he received an “A” rating from the National Rifle Association, the Sandy Hook shooting and other mass shooting incidents have caused him to reverse former positions. On his campaign website he says the U.S. should be “implementing commonsense and effective ideas to reduce gun violence” including instituting background checks and closing the no-fly list loophole. Donate to Ted Strickland’s campaign here.

To put this in perspective, the incumbents in these races — Kelly Ayotte, Rob Portman, and Ron Johnson—are the ones who just after the 2013 Sandy Hook Elementary School shootings looked the parents of 20 dead first graders in the eye, then voted against a bipartisan bill that would have introduced universal background checks on prospective gun buyers. That’s “bipartisan” as in, one of their fellow Republicans had co-sponsored the bill. That’s how corrupt and owned by the gun industry they are.

We need to get them out.

We need to help the candidates who are fighting to do that. We’re not really helping when we Tweet about it or debate it around the dinner table. We’re helping when we put people in the US Capitol Building who will make the laws that protect us. Doing this won’t stop every shooting in the U.S., but we know, empirically, that tougher gun laws mean less gun death.

Pro tip: you do NOT have to live in these politicians’ district or state to donate. All three of their websites make it very quick and easy to give. For me, donating to Hassan, Feingold, and Strickland took about a quarter of the time it takes to buy something online. Between sharing this article and donating, I would prefer you donate.

If you take one action on gun violence, let it be one with real impact.