The purpose of this article is not to advocate for a specific position on gun policy. Rather, this article aims to steer the discussions on gun policy in a realistic, rather than idealistic, direction. We must confront what will happen, not what we want to happen.

This started off as a 50-word reply to a Facebook comment in an Andrew Yang group but has since turned into a short article. While scrolling through my feed on FB and Twitter, I see a lot of great discussion on Andrew Yang and the role of government in firearms regulation. Andrew’s emotional speech at the Everytown Gun Reform forum kicked off a much-needed conversation on gun policy. With his laser-focused proposals, it is much easier to have a productive conversation and predict a future with his policies in place. However, there is a framing issue that the Yang Gang fundamentally ignores — most discussion is centered around ideal theory, rather than non-ideal theory. To clarify, we should be examining the hypothetical result of a policy being passed in a real-world situation, rather than assuming that the policy’s intended effects will occur. This is accounted for in many arguments, but others not so much.

We have to remember that the right to self-defense (and more specifically in this conversation, firearms) is not granted by the Constitution. The Founding Fathers stated that the Constitution’s role was limited to protecting existing rights, not granting them. The role of the Constitution is not concrete; in the post 9/11 era, it is clear the Constitution is wielding less and less power. Rather, self-defense originates from the universal right to self-determination. More importantly, the right to self-defense is crucial to fight abusive claims that the federal government has on the monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force. Therefore, constitutionality cannot be a valid warrant in discussions involving the rights of the person.

However, we also cannot deny that the right to self-defense can be exploited to harm others. This comes in the form of violence. The founding of the United States is rooted in violence. Settler colonialism, racism, misogyny, genocide, and slavery were all employed in the pursuit of “liberty” for the white man. The people who controlled this country made violence a way of life. Otherwise, how else could they create such a powerful and expansive country? America was built by communities threatened with the barrel of the rifle, the crack of the whip, and the mob of vigilantes. The legacy of this culture is still seen today. In 2015, Dylan Roof, motivated by white nationalism, murdered 9 black Americans in Charlottesville, South Carolina. Just one month ago, Patrick Crusius, inspired by the Christchurch terrorist attack, targeted Hispanic immigrants at a Walmart in El Paso, Texas.

This bar chart shows the overall increasing trend of casualties from mass shootings.

I am not going to go into the specifics of what is and is not an assault rifle, or whether the right to self-defense extends to firearm ownership. The definition of “assault rifle” has been changed in the political sphere so much that it is impossible to decipher. Rifles that may appear to look “old” or “hunting-style” can be deadlier than a rifle that looks “military-style”. People fear guns for the wrong reason. Categorically, there is only one thing that matters: the gun is a tool designed with the capability to kill a person. It is merely a device that can enable a person to “switch off” another person’s life.

As a person who is familiar with using firearms, I can tell you from my experience that it is clear the mainstream crowd fears guns because of its unfamiliarity, rather than its absolute power to control whether one lives or dies.

Therefore, discussions on gun policy must shift from nit-picking certain firearms to viewing all firearms as possessing an equal threat (or lack thereof).

Otherwise, policymaking will devolve into a legislative arms race — a vicious cycle where politicians race to ban certain guns, while other politicians create loopholes to circumvent those laws.

An issue essential to gun policy debates, but is largely ignored, is the inevitability of the proliferation of firearms. There are multiple reasons why this will happen, even under Andrew’s policies on gun control. With the advent of 3D printing and the increasing accessibility of advanced CNC mills, firearms can be manufactured in the privacy of anyone’s home. When there is a call to disarm, gun owners rush to buy even more guns before they are banned. With the rise of white nationalist terror, police brutality, corrupt government institutions, other forms of violence in America, vulnerable communities, such as black Americans, are taking action to defend their families. The possibilities are limitless.

The National African American Gun Association empowers black Americans to protect their communities through training and instruction.

To the pleasure (or dismay) of the Yang Gang, the Freedom Dividend would accelerate the proliferation of firearms. With the factors discussed above compounded with increased power given to working-class Americans, methods of self-defense would become more accessible. I intend to use my share of the Freedom dividend to purchase assault rifles and ammunition to defend my family, friends, and community. Even if regulations tightened, desperate citizens fighting for their lives would seek help from the black market. No government regulation will be able to stop the instincts of people to preserve their own lives. This sentiment is shared among millions of Americans, including myself. Whether they are online activists or local friends, they are willing to take the risk to protect themselves and their loved ones.

So, what does this all mean to the Yang Gang? How do we shift discussions so that they move forward while producing results for everyone?

Clearly, there is no easy solution. An outright ban on firearms would hurt Americans, especially vulnerable communities who rely on themselves to defend their livelihoods. Continuing the status quo would only perpetuate the cycle of violence impacting hundreds of thousands of Americans.

First, discussions must have empathy in mind.

It is common for individuals to advocate policies that benefit themselves the most. However, the Yang Gang is different: we want to understand the experiences of others. Whether a gun hurt you or saved you, your experience matters. We must also accept that different communities have different circumstances and, therefore, must have policies that work best for themselves. Passing a one-size-fits-all gun policy will disproportionately impact communities that lack trustworthy government institutions and safe spaces for disenfranchised communities.

Second, discussions must realize that individuals have the most power in solving gun violence.

Government regulation will not solve gun violence 100%. A reason why the Yang Gang holds a solid ground is that it seeks to empower the individual to do great things. Universal Basic Income is a powerful tool that can facilitate that. With less stress on satisfying basic needs, our capacity to create positive change would be limited only by our imagination. By asking the question, “How can I, as an individual, make this world a less violent space?”, we can open a whole new discussion that can bring change to the everyday lives of all Americans.

The Yang Gang is diverse in many ways, especially in thought. Some of us may disagree with each other, or even Andrew himself, on certain issues. However, we realize that the only way forward is to help each other, not ourselves. That is what makes this campaign so beautiful and positive. The fight for a safer America will be long and difficult but changing how we discuss solutions can create a clear vision to move forward.

Special thanks to Jordan H. Barton for title suggestions and Kimia Hassibi for grammar edits.