5 Thoughts About the Future of Gun Violence Prevention
A report from the two GVP conferences in DC last week
Devin Hughes
Last week in Washington, DC, 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. This is Hughes’ report from the events which included inspiring connections and conversations, but also stark realities concerning the ability of disparate non-profits to successfully coordinate.
By: Devin Hughes
Last week, I had the opportunity to attend both the Center for American Progress's 10th Annual Gun Violence Prevention Summit, as well as the States United to Prevent Gun Violence conference, which included a visit to the White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention.
Both conferences were deeply informative, and I want to extend my thanks to both Nick Wilson and Jeremy Stein for hosting the events. Having hosted a conference with GVPedia back in 2019, I know just how challenging it is to put together a successful conference, and to keep it running smoothly.
While these conferences generated a host of thoughts and insights, here are the five that struck me the most profoundly.
1. Disinformation is a Root Cause of Gun Violence
For the past few years, GVPedia has sought to illuminate the fundamental reality that disinformation is a root cause of gun violence. People buy guns because they believe that those guns will make them safer. Research shows that this belief is false, and the promotion of this falsehood has been the center of the gun lobby’s Firehose of Falsehood strategy for the past 50 years.
Yet, unless I brought the topic up during Q&A sessions throughout the conferences, there was no discussion of the importance of countering disinformation. Root causes of gun violence were frequently invoked, but disinformation was never listed among them.
The importance of facts, data, and research were underlined, but nothing about countering falsehoods. This is especially troubling given that the primary source of many data-based gun violence myths — gun lobby mouthpiece John Lott — is currently being touted by the Trump campaign and Elon Musk, a cultural influencer and the world's richest man.
Further, countering disinformation is something every organization and individual can do, regardless of political climate or funding. No matter how badly the Supreme Court mangles the original interpretation of the Second Amendment, such decisions will never impact the ability to explain that a firearm in the home doubles the risk of homicide and triples the risk of suicide.
At its most fundamental level, defeating the Firehose of Falsehood is about connections and conversations. It takes time and is not easy, but is a path forward that is always available.
Substantially reducing gun violence will be impossible without countering disinformation. It is not the only strategic imperative that is required, but it is an important one that deserves discussion — and from more than just a small non-profit like GVPedia — on the front lines of this battle.
L-R: GVPedia board members Devin Hughes, Allison Jordan
2. Building Bridges
A major strength of conferences is that you can meet people you wouldn’t encounter otherwise and hear the stories of individuals and organizations whose paths you may never have stumbled across. This is particularly salient in gun violence prevention where hundreds of organizations are working on the issue — from local community violence interruption programs, to state-level advocacy groups, to academic researchers, to broad coalitions, to major national organizations.
The advantage of having so many organizations is that each one can dedicate its focus and hone its expertise on whichever aspect of gun violence it chooses. This grassroots approach also allows for a degree of flexibility and resilience not present in rigid, top-down hierarchies.
However, the dispersal of GVP efforts across hundreds of organizations also has significant weaknesses. Coordinating efforts and campaigns across so many organizations is incredibly challenging.
Knowing who best to contact should a specific situation arise is a daunting task. Vital information can often get lost in the overwhelming cacophony of press releases, announcements, and reports. Merely keeping on top of changes in leadership and staff across groups can seem like a full-time job.
Unfortunately, major funders often play organizations against each other, which creates rifts among groups that are otherwise working toward a common cause, and forces fierce competition for scarce funding opportunities.
Meanwhile, smaller or less aware funders gravitate towards the most established groups — meaning large organizations get larger and small organizations scramble to stay afloat. This competitive funding free-for-all produces perverse incentives to clash and undermine each other rather than collaborate. This needs to stop.
Additionally, a lot more work needs to be done to build bridges between organizations at all levels. Local, state, national, and research efforts need each other to effectively counter the gun lobby and enact lifesaving policies and programs.
A bridge can only be built though if the people at either end know each other. At GVPedia we often describe ourselves as a bridge between the academic and advocacy worlds, helping to translate often complex research and data to a broader audience, which in turn allows that collected knowledge to be used effectively. Yet at the conference I knew less than half the people in the room, which means I have a lot more bridges to help build as well.
If you are involved in the gun violence prevention world and we don’t know each other, please reach out and introduce yourself. I’d love to hear about your work.
3. Rebranding Public Health
Both conferences featured panels touting the benefits and importance of a public health approach to reducing gun violence. Such an approach recognizes that no one policy or program is going to end gun violence, and relying solely on law enforcement is not the way forward.
Instead, a comprehensive approach drawing from not just laws, but also community-led programs, education, the health care sector, and addressing the many root causes of gun violence are all essential.
States United to Prevent Gun Violence (photo via Sonya Y. Coleman)
One of the primary doctrines of a public health approach is meeting people where they are, both physically and ideologically. However, what was left unmentioned during the panel discussions was that this produces a paradox in the public health approach. Namely, after the COVID pandemic large swaths of the country — and particularly people in conservative areas — now associate public health (including Federal agencies like the CDC and HHS) with lockdowns, shutdowns, and mandates that are quite unpopular.
Regardless of how many lives public health saved during the pandemic (and the evidence indicates it was a lot), that does not remove the reality of public health’s unpopularity among many segments of society.
As such, to meet people where they are we cannot afford to lead with public health branding. We can still promote all the policies and programs involved with the approach, but change the way we message it. Such an approach is comprehensive and can easily be named as such without tarnishing all the effective proposals within.
4. Sustaining the GVP Movement Post-Election
It is an election year, and the national election is currently a coin-flip, one with seismic potential for GVP efforts.
Should the next administration be one that is hostile to gun violence prevention efforts and pursue a guns-everywhere agenda, GVP organizations as well as funders at every level need to have contingency plans.
We face some serious potential realities: the elimination of federal dollars to Community Violence Interruption programs and research funding; punishment of state-level governments for criticizing the President; bad legislation everywhere (such as Permitless Carry and National Reciprocity); and disinformation pouring from the highest levels of government.
The GVP movement needs to establish secure funding channels to continue lifesaving work; and organizations need to cooperate with each other more than ever to survive and preserve the knowledge and expertise we have gathered. It is vastly easier to demolish than to build, but what we as a movement have built is too valuable to give up.
Should the coin land in a positive way, such contingencies will not be wasted, because at some point in the future control of the Executive Branch will flip again, and there will be even more work to preserve. Sustaining GVP against future hardships will only make organizations stronger and more resilient.
It was a welcome sign that the Center for American Progress conference took such contingencies seriously with an entire session based on scenario mapping, but more still needs to be done.
Meeting with the White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention
5. Education is Paramount
Nobody in GVP has all the answers or knows all there is to know about the topic.
Every level of GVP — whether local, state, national, or a research organization — has important insights to offer to others. There is so much information and knowledge that is currently siloed, and even more knowledge that has yet to be uncovered about GVP. And while building bridges between these silos is a good first step, it is crucial to recognize that each bridge is a two-way street for building knowledge. Nobody is too busy to learn.
In the coming weeks and months, I look forward to learning even more and helping to build more bridges.
Were you at the conferences? What were your takeaways? Tell us in the comments.
Devin Hughes
Devin Hughes is the President and Founder of GVPedia, a non-profit that provides access to gun violence prevention research and data.
👍🏻👍🏻