Key points from “Preventing the next Uvalde. A Live Q&A with CNN’s S.E. Cupp and Brown University’s Dr. Megan Ranney.”
This week, I was joined on the Inside Medicine Facebook group by CNN political commentator S.E. Cupp, and Brown University School of Public Health Vice Dean Dr. Megan Ranney.
S.E. turned in her NRA card a few years ago and is a moderate voice on sensible gun safety and reform. Megan is a gun safety researcher and a co-founder of AFFIRM (the American Foundation for Firearm Injury Reduction in Medicine), a non-profit organization now based at the Aspen Institute.
The goal of our discussion was to assess where we are and how we can move forward. This was a substantive discussion, not a rant. The full video is available to Inside Medicine Premium subscribers. However, a shorter free version will be available on MedPage Today starting Sunday.
Here are some key points from our discussion.
•For 24 years (starting in 1996), there was no federal funding for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to study what works to prevent gun violence.
•When we had an assault weapons ban we still had mass shootings. But data show us that when the assault weapons ban was removed there was an uptick.
•There are many possible solutions, including those that are rooted in policy (permit to purchase laws, red flag laws, etc.) and non-policy solutions (community interventions, violence prevention programs, structural changes to lessen isolation).
•From a political perspective, we have chosen not to solve this issue because it is not politically profitable for either side.
•From a public health perspective, we need to do this in partnership and make it clear that we are not here to take away people’s guns. Instead of demonizing, we need to have discussions to show people how to own a firearm safely. A public health approach is about harm reduction.
•There is this cauldron of hate that we are not doing enough about. Mass shootings are a symptom of that, but we don’t all hate each other. There are many people somewhat in the middle. Having these conversations is helpful, hopefully. It reminds us of our shared humanity.
•There is no one single thing in this world that is going to solve any health problem but that does not absolve us from taking the actions to make a difference. A physician could discuss safe storage. An ER can help reduce recurrent violence. We can add interventions and not go to extreme viewpoints.
Key quotes and exchanges from the conversation (summarized/abridge/edited).
Cupp: I’ve had to break these awful stories on the air. The way I’ve presented the debate on what to do next has changed dramatically. Let me do this differently (i.e. no longer an NRA member or Republican). There is a common ground. Let’s talk about them more.
Ranney: For 24 years we had no federal funding to study what works. The Dickey amendment was passed in 1996. What might work? Permit to purchase laws, red flag laws. There is ample evidence that preventing firearm injury lies in safe storage. Other ideas: Community interventions, violence prevention programs. There are also structural changes that lessen isolation and improve community. Overall, if we stick to only one policy we are missing the bigger picture.
Cupp: The slippery slope argument has been a bedrock for Republicans and the NRA and it has proven successful. Even studying violence was a bridge too far for the NRA. You really couldn’t get anything. There was a time when the gun rights advocates were proponents of some big changes. We have 5-day waiting periods because of the NRA. The NRA is behind the NICS (the National Instant Criminal Background Check System) system background check. There have been some changes but it’s really limited. Some Republicans like Adam Kinzinger have genuine policy ideas.
Faust: What’s a concession that the Left needs to make?
Cupp: When something is offered, I would take that and own that win. It’s frustrating to see progressives not take small wins because they are not big enough.
Ranney: From a public health perspective we need to do this in partnership and make it clear that we are not here to take away people’s guns. Instead of demonizing we need to have discussions to show people how to own a firearm safely. The public health approach is about harm reduction. It is not about being judgmental. It’s about reducing risk of injury or death.
Faust: Maybe the number of shootings hasn’t changed but the number of people killed per shooting has. Is there a denial of the facts? Or is there a denial about what to do about it?
Source: The New York Times.
Cupp: When we had an assault weapons ban, we still had mass shootings. But you can clearly see when the assault weapons ban was removed you had an uptick.
Faust: There are many models for the kinds of conversations that we should be having. One of them is that we should get people from the opposite sides of the issue together, stick them in a room with a bunch of pizza and make them talk to each other. I remember reading that this approach can actually backfire! People end up liking each other more personally, but they end up even more entrenched in their policy positions. Alternatively, people are more apt to listen to someone from their side of the issue. This is the trusted insider approach. Who should be having these conversations and what's the best approach?
Cupp: All of it. We don’t all hate each other. There are many people somewhat in the middle. Having these conversations is helpful, hopefully. It reminds us of our shared humanity. My worldview has opened and I have wanted to see other people's position. The pizza party approach could work, but it has to be over a longer period of time.
Faust: How do you convince people you are a trusted voice for them?
Ranney: Showing up day after day and proving myself. Acknowledging people’s reasons for doing things. Most people who own an AR-15 do so because it is lighter (i.e. for practical reasons). I’m not saying it should be available to 18-year-olds. But there is a greater complexity to data than just that graph.
Faust: What leads to these moments? Mental health? Our culture. Was Tipper Gore right? Is our culture too violent? Are video game the problem?
Cupp: There’s an aspect to this that is social media [and media] driven. We have a culture of oversharing and performing. Then there is this cauldron of hate that we are not doing enough about. Mass shootings are a symptom of that.
Ranney: People learn a lot about guns [through culture] but learn nothing about the potential harm of guns. There is no one single thing in this world that is going to solve any health problem. That doesn’t absolve us from taking the actions to make a difference. Physicians can talk about safe storage. Psychiatrists need to be having conversations with patients and families. We need to add interventions and not gravitate to the extreme viewpoints.
Faust: Five years from now, what can we expect?
Cupp: I am not optimistic that politics is going to improve over the next 5 years. On the bright side 2021 was a [ironically] a terrific year for mental health because a lot of people came out and talked about it publicly. But good conversations with good actors and adequate space for those conversations is key, because time on cable news is limited.
•••
❓💡🗣️ What are your questions? Comments? Join the conversation below!
Follow me on Twitter, Instagram, and on Facebook and help me share accurate frontline medical information!
📬 Subscribe to Inside Medicine here and get updates from the frontline at least twice per week.
Acknowledgements: Benjy Renton for curation.