Armed With Reason: The Podcast - Episode 27
A report from last month's GVP conferences in Washington, D.C.
During the last week of September in Washington, D.C., GVPedia leader Devin Hughes attended both the 10th National Gun Violence Prevention Summit — organized by the Center for American Progress (CAP) — and the States United to Prevent Gun Violence (SUPGV) conference.
In today’s episode, Devin talks with GVPedia Executive Director Caitlin Clarkson Pereira about what he gleaned from the events and the future of gun violence prevention as we approach the national November 5th election.
You can listen to the podcast via our channel on Spotify as well as watch on YouTube, or read the transcription below.
PODCAST TRANSCRIPTION:
Caitlin: Hello, everyone. Thanks for joining us here on the Armed With Reason podcast brought to you by GVPedia. We recently have been joined by some fantastic guests here, but for this episode we will be acting as the Devin and Caitlin duo. So, hey Devin, thanks for coming and chat with me today.
Devin: Yeah. Hello. First time here.
Caitlin: First time. Long time. Yes, yes. Last week was the Center for American Progress Gun Violence Prevention conference. It usually happens in December, but this year it was in September. And Devin was there in attendance. And I thought this would be a good opportunity for us to chat about that conference and give our listeners a bit of a rundown of some of the key takeaways from the speakers and the sessions that were part of the conference. So I'm sure it felt a little bit weird for it to be September this year rather than December — at least a little bit warmer, if nothing else.
Devin: Oh yeah, well, and having moved to D.C. recently, just dealing with the heat and humidity is something else. Like Oklahoma's hotter, but the humidity like it's truly about draining the swamp. And like I think the first two years, the Center for American Progress held the summit, it actually was in September. And then they switched it to December for the longest time. And now it's kind of back. But we'll probably switch back next year, I don't know.
Caitlin: And this was their 10th.
Devin: 10th year. Yeah. And I think, I didn't realize it, but I think I was at the first, because like 2015 to now would indicate that.
Caitlin: Well, yeah. So we had the opportunity, for those of us who couldn't be there in person, they were able to stream a lot of the conference, which is always great; to hear what survivors and advocates have to say about not only important topics and gun violence prevention, but just to share their stories, of course.
But something that came up which is near and dear to our hearts here at GVPedia was disinformation. So can you tell us a little bit about how the topic of disinformation came into play this year at the summit?
Devin: Yeah. And kind of before going into this part, I just want to thank Nick Wilson (Senior Director for Gun Violence Prevention at Center for American Progress), who held the conference. I know from personal experience that hosting conferences is challenging. If you are the host, you never get to enjoy your own conference. So it's a very thankless task, and lots of people tend to have, Oh can you fix this for me? Can you fix this for me, during it.
Caitlin: It's lots of running around and endless tasks for sure.
Devin: Yes. Lots of small fires to be putting out everywhere. So, yeah, it's deeply appreciated that they're hosting it. And they also hosted the States United mini-conference the day after. And so that was great as well. In terms of disinformation, a topic near and dear to our hearts, largely it arose by a lack of focus on it during the conference. Basically, they have multiple panels, multiple breakout sessions, and for the breakout sessions, you'd have to pick out like one of three. So you're always missing something.
But in terms of the panels and breakout sessions I went to, disinformation really wasn't brought up unless I asked about it during like the Q&A, and what organizations were doing to help counter it. It was kind of surprising, because while GVPedia's main focus is countering disinformation, I'm under no illusion that most organizations are likened to that similar niche. But it's still an important topic that should have at least some amount of recognition on it. Because whenever anybody in the gun violence prevention movement is putting out accurate information, the gun lobby always has a voice in how it's going to respond. And how we respond to that response matters a great deal. And there is a large section of academic research that shows just putting facts out there doesn't necessarily work. If the facts are just put out there and nobody hears them opposing disinformation, it can work. But the gun lobby has vast resources, media channels dedicated to pushing out their narrative. And so that disinformation is being spread widely.
And this has come to a head recently, a couple times, where John Lott — a favorite topic of GVPedia and Armed With Reason — has been basically, unofficially become a campaign surrogate for the Trump campaign on the topic of crime, and arguing that crime has skyrocketed in recent years while it plummeted under the administration of Trump — which the data shows is the opposite of true. But those claims are being put on a megaphone, as it were. And then a few weeks ago, there is a video based on John Lott's work that Elon Musk — the owner of what was formerly Twitter and the richest man in the world — tweeted out to some 11 million views. And while some gun violence prevention organizations have the budget and have had campaigns in the past that could reach millions, like reaching 11 million people just in a single post or tweet with that sort of disinformation, like that's a massive reach — and particularly in an election year where people are swayed by information or disinformation. Every little bit counts. And it was just slightly disconcerting to see that it wasn't really a topic of interest at the conference. And with these conferences, there's always like so many different things that you have to cover, and there's no way to cover them all. But disinformation is a root cause of gun violence and is something every organization is going to be facing in their work, whether they're researchers, all the way down to local programs. So, yeah, it was slightly disconcerting, but hopefully there'll be some shift to helping counter it.
Caitlin: Yeah, I'd certainly say disinformation, it's not only the root cause to gun violence, but the root cause of quite a few issues of consternation here in our country. And, you know, there's many reasons why disinformation spreads the way it does — obviously social media. And like you said, somebody sharing a video on X, formerly known as Twitter, can easily get, you know, 10 million views really without anybody having to do much work whatsoever. Certainly punctuates the ability for disinformation to spread widely and quickly.
Devin: Yeah. And when it comes to gun violence in particular, the reason people buy guns overwhelmingly is due to the belief that that purchase will make them safer. And the idea that makes them safer is disinformation. And so it's at the core of that. And most people, when looking to buy a gun aren't doing so to, Oh like this could harm others, that's why I'm doing. It's for protection. And even most people in the more pro-gun space, they don't think that, Oh we're the bad guys causing more deaths. Like they think they're making things safer, even though the evidence is against that; and the evidence that they draw on comes from disreputable sources.
And so at the root of it all is ideas, and ideas change actions and change minds. And recognizing that is something that all of us can do. And even outside of the policy work and other programs, every single organization, every single person can help on this -- regardless of what happens politically. Regardless of how much the Supreme Court mangles the Second Amendment, there is nothing in the Second Amendment that says you can't talk about how a gun makes people less safe. Like that's very much enshrined in the First Amendment.
Caitlin: For now, for today.
Devin: Yeah, like who knows what can happen in these crazy times, but it's something that we can always be making forward progress on. And while the work of swaying minds and changing minds is definitely challenging, it's very plausible. And there's no real cost or barriers to entry. You just have to be willing to look at the information, learn, and have conversations with people.
Caitlin: Definitely. Speaking of conversations, can you talk about the importance of bridge building in gun violence prevention, and what you mean by that?
Devin: Yeah. So to kind of answer the second part first. Basically, bridge building is having those sort of conversations and connections with other people, in this case, in the space. So at the conference, probably around half the people I didn't know who they were. And part of that is that gun violence is always an ever-expanding area where more and more people tragically come to the space each and every year due to losses. But a larger part of it is that there are hundreds, if not thousands, of gun violence prevention organizations across the country doing this work. And it's really challenging to know who all of them are and what work they're doing, where it is. And trying to build bridges between those organizations is a challenge, particularly if you're like me in a conference and I'm basically a hermit. Like, it goes against my introvert soul. But it's something that is important. And the point of conferences, even more than listening to the panels, is forming those sort of connections.
One of the ways we like to describe GVPedia is serving as a bridge between the academic and advocacy worlds. And it's also important to recognize that those bridges are two-way streets. It's not like, Oh, here's all this academic information that everybody else now needs to learn. But the advocates at the state and local level have a lot to offer to academics as well as, like, here's the pressing problems, here's what we're encountering on a daily basis, and leading to areas of study and figuring out what works and what potential methods might need to change. And so it's not a lecture, it's a dialogue.
And I don't think the gun violence prevention movement — at least since I've been in since 2012. 2013 — has done the best job in fostering those sort of bridges to where it's like almost every single organization is in its own silo doing what they consider, and often rightly so, crucial work, and just don't have the time to look up from that work and see, Oh there's other people in parallel spaces, and we could aid each other. And this can often be made worse by some of the larger funders out there who will actively play gun violence prevention organizations against each other, where it's like, Oh we're going to have 250 or so applications for a grant that only has ten slots. Please explain to me why your organization is worthy and none of the others are. And that sort of competitive, like, I can understand it from the funders' perspective because they want the money to be going to the most effective programs typically. But it creates an unhealthy competition among groups that could otherwise be working together and recognizing like, Hey, we have an advantage working in this space. You have an advantage working in this space. We can help supplement each other. And instead it's pitched as, there's only one slice of pie left at the table — fight for it. And this can often lead to groups having a lot of animosity towards each other when they're both desperate and starved of funding. Or having groups think, Why aren't you paying to groups who are pure volunteer-based because they don't have a budget?
And then a lot of other funding goes to larger organizations because they have those national connections already built in. And so basically the larger organizations tend to get larger, and the smaller ones fight with each other. And it's just not healthy, and it creates unhelpful friction that is the opposite of bridge building.
Caitlin: But I think when we become part of the movement — whether it's in a paid role or a volunteer role or, you know, a survivor role, or you're here to share your story to make sure that other people don't find themselves in the same position that you have found yourself in — I think in general people assume it doesn't matter who gets the credit as long as the work gets done and we make the progress that's required. But the catch to that certainly is if you are competing for resources, it does matter who gets the credit because that's how you continue to to prove your worthiness to the powers that be that are divvying up said resources.
So, you know, and again, with a lot of things in the gun violence prevention world, that's certainly not unique to us. But as resources are not infinite, it makes things a little more complicated. But that is the beauty of things like summits and conferences to get together, to have those conversations with people face to face.
Can you explain your concerns of saying we are leading the gun violence prevention movement with a public health approach? The caveat to this is, I feel like if I was asking you this question five years ago — well, rewind, I wouldn't be asking you this question five years ago. But we live in a different world now, post-pandemic. So I think that's why that's here in the first place. So what do you think the issues are with saying that the gun violence prevention is being led with the public health approach?
Devin: Yeah. And it's kind of an interesting paradox because a public health approach is important, but it's also in many communities as a brand seen as political poison. And so what was meant typically by a public health approach is you're not just relying on law enforcement to solve the problem by like cracking down on guns and arresting people. You're not going to arrest your way out of the problem. And so what else do we need? We need addressing root causes such as poverty, income inequality, structural factors that go all the way back to redlining.
And as a brief tangent on that, I was exploring our own Data Viz, and was looking at Washington, D.C. And I believe that there's basically this line on the map that's this one street, I believe, at 16th Street. And to the east of that it's so many gun violence incidents. To the west of it, only a handful. What's the reason for that? Well, it's where, back like a century before, it was the separation between white and black DC, and all the investment and stuff that came with that. And so you can see those historical choices still carrying out stuff today. And there's even things such as like making sure cities are greener; and making sure that dilapidated buildings that nobody can feasibly live in are taken down and converted into green spaces. And so there's many other things outside of the specific laws and policies, which are still crucial, that can be done to help. And also have counseling in hospitals, making sure you're reaching people where they're at; and community violence interruption programs. All of those fit under this framewor,k and it's an important framework.
The problem is that after the Covid pandemic, a lot of communities hear public health and associate that with being locked in their room for 1 to 2 years and like schools being shut down, mask mandates, and so forth. And one can argue about the effectiveness of any one of those different aspects. And like overall, the public health approach saved likely millions of lives. Particularly with the vaccines that came out. But people just remember those times as being emotionally horrible, which is definitely the case. Masks are not comfortable to be wearing around. Kids not being able to attend in person has a large impact on their future learning capabilities. And there's these trade-offs in order to try to save lives. And people remember the negative ones, not the, Oh this person is alive today when they might not have been, because you can't prove that. It's really hard to prove a negative, and that's kind of what's being required there. And so the public health brand, particularly in states that are conservative, if you're bringing a public health approach to them, like the moment you say public health, the conversation's over. And we can say that shouldn't be the case, but ironically part of a public health approach is all about meeting people where they are. And right now there's a lot of people out there where meeting them where they are means not leading with public health branding.
So in order to do a public health approach realistically in many of these places, you can't call it a public health approach. Now, fortunately you can call it a comprehensive approach or something like that. I mean, none of the policies or anything underneath we need to change, but you're just avoiding that political landmine. And I don't think that's been fully recognized in the gun violence prevention space.
One of the aspects of holding the conference in D.C. is you have a lot of people from the East Coast, which tends to be more liberal dominated, as it were, and people who are more likely to see Anthony Fauci as a hero who deserves a Nobel Prize rather than being locked in prison forever. So even kind of bringing that up, it's like, Well what do you mean? The public health approach was fantastic! But in a lot of places it's seen with horror. And we just need to be able to recognize that and move with it. And I do think where we're at now — like touting the branding of public health — is unfortunately going to be a mistake that can cost valuable opportunities.
Caitlin: Yeah, it's sort of brings the whole disinformation conversation full circle, right? The like you said, with Anthony Fauci, whether you love him or you hate him, the real reason that he was polarizing is because there was lots of information — circulating around there at a time when people were sitting inside and all they could do is scroll through social media — that was not accurate. And I've found it very interesting, again, not just in gun violence, but this is a good example when it comes to gun violence is, you won't take what a doctor says — like somebody who's been to school for an exorbitant amount of time at face value, you have to “do your own research" — but you will take something that someone says regarding your safety being exacerbated by owning a gun as gospel, even though the person who says that certainly has credentials nowhere near that of a medical doctor.
Devin: So yeah, it's like my good friend the neighbor says, guns make you safer. Like, why should I believe you with dozens of years and studying. And I mean, it kind of goes back to, like, if you're like kitchen sink is broken or whatever you call a plumber, you don't call random guy who is on Reddit railing about chem trails causing birds to fall out of the sky. I might have just created a new disinformation campaign there. For so many things in our lives we recognize that expertise does matter. Now to be fair, experts do make mistakes. Like simply because somebody has a Ph.D. does not mean that they are automatically correct. Otherwise, John Lott, who has a Ph.D.
And like with Covid, there were mistakes, particularly with messaging and mixed messaging at the beginning with masks. And there is still a robust debate on school closings and whether it could have been handled differently. And those are legitimate discussions to look back and learn from. But so often it's taken as, there is one mistake here, like never going to trust them again. Whereas, if you're scrolling through like a truth about guns posting, like they'll make six to seven factual errors in a single post, and it's like, yeah, but at least the jive is correct. That sort of thing. And so there is definitely a massive double standard. But part of it is recognizing that, yeah, that double standard is currently the reality — how do we deal with it rather than wishing away that it didn't exist?
Caitlin: Right. So the CAP summit was two days. And then on the third day you were talking about the ability to have sort of a separate entity organized. And through that opportunity, you were able to meet with the White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention. So can you briefly tell us a little bit more about the experience you had with that office?
Devin: Yeah. So the the third day was the States United to Prevent Gun Violence mini-conference where the state affiliates got together along with allied organizations. I've been involved with States United in a variety of capacities for a decade or so. Because like I was from Oklahoma at one point, it's like, Do you want the Oklahoma group? Sure, I guess. But more evolved into GVPedia. But there we are.
And so half the day was like talking about a variety of topics of importance to the states. And then we had the opportunity to visit the White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention, which is in the West Wing. So you're able to see the White House off to the side, but you're in a large building with a bunch of other offices. And we got to meet with Rob Wilcox and Greg Jackson. And it was important to see the work that they've accomplished.
A lot of it is just getting governmental agencies and organizations talking with each other, and outside of their silos, and kind of going back to the bridge building. A ton of what the White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention is bridge building within the government, almost behind the scenes, to be able to respond to tragedies where it's like, Hey the FBI has its response, but we can also get housing and urban development if a shooting occurs in a space that's government subsidized, they can help then. There's like environmental stuff, potentially. All these different agencies have a role to play and frequently don't talk with each other, but now are able to through this office. And basically showing like, Hey, here's the federal resources.
Also recognizing how limited the federal resources still are, because like with Gun Violence Archive data, there's now around 600 mass shootings a year where four or more people are shot. The Office of Gun Violence Prevention is able to respond to maybe eight of those. And that leaves a lot of the smaller mass shootings that don't get national attention, they're out of luck, at least at the national level. But many states are also creating their own offices of gun violence prevention, and hopefully the national one can serve as a template or model for those other ones and basically providing like, Hey, here's the resources; if a tragedy happens, here's how to direct people, and really trying to build those bridges. So that work's positive. One of my fears with the Office is if the coin flip that is the November election goes a certain way, that Office could very easily be disbanded, or worse you have John Lott at the head of it. And once you have that, like what sort of disinformation is going to be pumped out into the system? Like what sort of relationships are just going to be tarnished and damaged. And it's hard because it's super important to have the Office, but at the same time, that Office can be potentially weaponized.
And I think it's super important for the gun violence prevention movement as a whole to start making sure that those sort of bridges, that sort of work is preserved in some fashion to where if the worst does happen, here's what we can do to make sure that all of that knowledge and expertise is not lost. And like the White House Office itself, can't really do that because there're still very busy building bridges and such. But it's something all the rest of us can hopefully help to do, and create that network and structure that's resilient enough to last another four, eight, or however many years.
Group photo from States United to Prevent Gun Violence conference; Devin Hughes, top right (photo courtesy of Sonya Y. Coleman)
Caitlin: Yes, absolutely. Well, thank you for giving us a rundown of the conference. It is October now, which is hard to believe. And October is Domestic Violence Awareness Month, which, unfortunately, we know guns play a huge part in domestic violence in this country. So I am just putting it out there here in this podcast to anybody who's listening that — while we have some individuals whose stories we would like to share as survivors that we've reached out to and that we are have plans with to to put some to put some of their stories forward to our listeners and our readers on Substack — if you can think of anybody who is a survivor, or if you yourself are a survivor and you are interested in sharing, please reach out to us. We certainly can share your story in a way where you don't have to use your name or any photos or anything like that. So again, one of the big reasons why we felt like it was so important to launch Armed With Reason a year and a half ago now was to amplify stories of survivors. So this month is, every month is really important with all the themes related to gun violence, but but this one particularly so. So please, again, please feel free, if you have anything that you would like to share with us, or anybody who you would like to recommend that we reach out to.
All right, Devin. Well, I think that's it for this episode. And in addition to Domestic Violence Prevention Month, as usual, if readers want to be in touch with us about any other topics, we're certainly interested in hearing about those too. So, hopefully it cools down a little bit for you there in Washington, D.C.
Devin: Still working on draining that swamp.
Caitlin: The humidity is no joke, but who knows? You might have snow cover sooner than you would like, so be careful what you wish for.
Devin: Yeah, I'll take the cold over the hot.
Caitlin: All right. Well, thanks everyone for listening, and we will talk to everyone soon.
Devin: Thank you.