Speaker 1: Good morning, Peepsen. Welcome to WIKA F Daily with Meet
Speaker 1: your Girl Danielle Moody, recording from the Home Bunker. Folks,
Speaker 1: Every once in a while, when Doctor Jonathan Mexil are
Speaker 1: in house, Doctor and I get together, we disagree, you know,
Speaker 1: and I think that we have constructive conversations on how
Speaker 1: we can get to a place of consensus. And so
Speaker 1: on today's episode, we discuss where we think the Vice
Speaker 1: president should be in her campaign as it pertains to
Speaker 1: discussing gun reform. And you know, Jonathan is our expert
Speaker 1: on gun reform and on how to speak to gun owners,
Speaker 1: particularly with his new book, What We've Become. And so
Speaker 1: we get into a conversation where we disagree, and I
Speaker 1: think that we should not run away from those conversations.
Speaker 1: I think that it is important for us to find
Speaker 1: ways to connect and understand that what works for one
Speaker 1: group of people may not work for another group of people.
Speaker 1: And you know, if you watched Vice President Harris's campaign
Speaker 1: rally in Atlanta, which my god, folks, I tell you,
Speaker 1: let me tell you, it's been a long time since
Speaker 1: I have felt hopeful. It's been a long time since
Speaker 1: I have felt possible and I am feeling all of
Speaker 1: those things and more. Her speech was absolute fucking fire.
Speaker 1: The call out, the direct call out to Donald Trump
Speaker 1: is exactly what his misogynistic in sell. You know, white
Speaker 1: supremacist organization right cult cannot stand black women in power,
Speaker 1: women of color in places of authority. And you know,
Speaker 1: having the audacity to call him out and so in
Speaker 1: doing so and doing it with the smile and doing
Speaker 1: it with swag is exactly what shows the difference between
Speaker 1: her campaign and Biden. I think that Kamala Harris's campaign
Speaker 1: right now is one that feels fresh, It feels vibrant,
Speaker 1: It is exciting, It is mimeable, which matters, right. And
Speaker 1: you know, while I will continue to say that I
Speaker 1: respect Joe Biden, I respect his act of patriotism that
Speaker 1: he did, there was a serious, heavy tone to his campaign.
Speaker 1: It was not hopeful, right, saving the soul of the
Speaker 1: nation while factual was not hopeful. And so the VP's
Speaker 1: ability to pivot from that into freedom and into using
Speaker 1: Beyonce and into using images of things that we hold
Speaker 1: dear as Americans, I think has galvanized folks in a
Speaker 1: way that we missed dearly and a way that you know,
Speaker 1: even Obama two thousand and eight. While this is reminiscent,
Speaker 1: this is wholly a separate beast, and I am just
Speaker 1: for one here for it. Coming up next, my conversation
Speaker 1: with our friend doctor Jonathan Metzel. Folks, you know that
Speaker 1: whenever we have the opportunity to speak with our in
Speaker 1: house doctor, doctor Jonathan Metzel, we are always thrilled. First
Speaker 1: of all, Jonathan, let me tell you that your book
Speaker 1: Dying of Whiteness comes up now more than ever in
Speaker 1: just regular conversation that I have, which is actually like
Speaker 1: really funny. So I don't know why that is, but
Speaker 1: it is coming up more and just casual conversation that
Speaker 1: I'm having, not even like political conversations, so you're on
Speaker 1: everybody's mind like what.
Speaker 2: Like, hey, what do you want for dinner? And somebody says,
Speaker 2: I'll have done way.
Speaker 1: It's just like, yeah, these people who are you know,
Speaker 1: obsessed with Donald Trump and this culton like look at
Speaker 1: them and the ear patches you know that he was wearing,
Speaker 1: and they're like, you know, this is the shit that
Speaker 1: Jonathan was talking about and Dying of Whiteness, Like this
Speaker 1: is this crazy shit.
Speaker 2: But the other thing, I let me just say really quick.
Speaker 2: Before we talked that. I spoke yesterday at a it
Speaker 2: was like anti racist boot camp in Minneapolis. It was
Speaker 2: a great, amazing day, and I said, do you want
Speaker 2: me to talk about my new book? And they're like, no, no, no,
Speaker 2: talk about DIAHOI does. And the reason I think it
Speaker 2: is it's just on people's minds right now because kind
Speaker 2: of the future of the country is either built or
Speaker 2: dismantled right now. And I think that all the issues
Speaker 2: that I was writing about as like almost historical, like,
Speaker 2: oh God, isn't it crazy that we almost took down
Speaker 2: our whole healthcare system during a pandemic, But now it's
Speaker 2: all coming back, Like if Trump wins, he's going to
Speaker 2: dismantle the justice system, He's going to dismantle the I mean,
Speaker 2: the affordable carecter would be gone, you know, and people
Speaker 2: like in places like New York would lose massive health insurance.
Speaker 2: And so just the craziness that was just confined to
Speaker 2: a couple of states when I read about it, now
Speaker 2: threatens to be a national thing. And so I think
Speaker 2: people are wanting to understand kind of what we're up against.
Speaker 1: No, And I think that that's right because I think
Speaker 1: that there is safety in believing that the crazy right,
Speaker 1: and as has been aptly attributed to the Republicans, the
Speaker 1: weird can stay in their states, right, And so we
Speaker 1: who sit in coastal blue states can feel a sense
Speaker 1: of comfort like, oh, yeah, well Jonathan's book, Yeah, that's great,
Speaker 1: but like I would never live in that place. And
Speaker 1: now that I think that there is this deep understanding
Speaker 1: that what is happening, what they've been proposing, isn't something
Speaker 1: that's going to stay in Florida, isn't just going to
Speaker 1: stay in Texas. That it is something that can travel
Speaker 1: and become a national crisis, right, And that is what's conjuring.
Speaker 1: So maybe they'll want you to talk about your new
Speaker 1: book in ten years.
Speaker 2: Well that is the argument of my new book, that
Speaker 2: our gun policies don't understand that we're not talking about
Speaker 2: red states anymore. They have a national agenda.
Speaker 1: So yeah, so let's talk about where we are right now.
Speaker 1: It is, as we're recording this, we are just a
Speaker 1: little over a week since the massive seismic shakeup in
Speaker 1: our elections, where Joe Biden has stepped down, Kamala Harris
Speaker 1: has stepped in, and since then there has been a
Speaker 1: resurgence of energy, of action, of volunteerism, of excitement that
Speaker 1: we have not seen. And we know that on a
Speaker 1: lot of issues right Democrats win when Americans understand what
Speaker 1: those issues are. We know that on top right now
Speaker 1: we have issues as it pertains to abortion and reproductive
Speaker 1: rights that span from abortion to IVF to birth control
Speaker 1: and so on and so forth. But always I think
Speaker 1: at the top of many people's lists is gun reform,
Speaker 1: because every time that there is a shooting, there is
Speaker 1: always a call for gun reform and then we go
Speaker 1: back to normal. So, as you are seeing the momentum
Speaker 1: gain speed around Vice President Harris, where do you think
Speaker 1: they this campaign should be taking the gun debate? As
Speaker 1: you have said that Republicans at this point are now
Speaker 1: just pushing for everyone to have a gun. You get
Speaker 1: a gun, and you get a gun, and you get
Speaker 1: a gun, and using the shooting at Donald Trump's rally
Speaker 1: as their trampoline for that.
Speaker 2: Well, I very strongly feel, having as you know, research
Speaker 2: this issue very closely across red and purple state America,
Speaker 2: that this is an opportunity to reboot the gun debate.
Speaker 2: I think the trap that Democrats fall into and I
Speaker 2: have a lot of support for this point in my
Speaker 2: new book. What we've become. The trap that democrats fall
Speaker 2: into is conflating popular quote unquote support for gun reform.
Speaker 2: In other words, people, if you survey them, will say, yeah, sure,
Speaker 2: I support background checks. But that's really different from can
Speaker 2: you win elections based on background checks? Will people vote
Speaker 2: based on guns as a wedge issue, which they won't.
Speaker 2: We won the war of popular opinion, we've won the
Speaker 2: war of social media, but we are stuck, I think,
Speaker 2: electorally stuck by not seeing that that popular support because
Speaker 2: we've made all these assumptions, Like one example I talk
Speaker 2: about in the book is common sense gun reform, as if,
Speaker 2: of course anybody with any common sense would support this,
Speaker 2: and if you don't support it, you have no common sense.
Speaker 2: That is roundly rejected across many gun owning purple and
Speaker 2: red states. And I think we have to attack those assumptions.
Speaker 2: And so I think it's an opportunity for the Harris
Speaker 2: campaign to first, and this is just my personal opinion
Speaker 2: talk about gun ownership. In other words, what democrats so
Speaker 2: often do is they jump in and they just talk
Speaker 2: about regulation right away, like it's not like, oh, I
Speaker 2: understand why people own guns, or here's why people need guns,
Speaker 2: or here's what it means to carry a gun. Something
Speaker 2: that reflects the people who might be persuaded to vote
Speaker 2: for you if you're not going to tell them the
Speaker 2: government's going to regulate your guns, which is what people hear.
Speaker 2: And so when people vote, they hear Donald Trump's voice
Speaker 2: saying that they're coming to grab your guts or I'm
Speaker 2: not going to let anybody come because I'm going to
Speaker 2: defend your guns. Those are really powerful messages for people.
Speaker 2: And I just think Democrats get into a mistake, into
Speaker 2: a trap, and I'm seeing the Harris campaign do it
Speaker 2: now where the first thing they're talking about is regulation
Speaker 2: and not about gun ownership. Now, why is that important?
Speaker 2: Number One, we have way, of course, way too much
Speaker 2: gun death in this country. We have fifty thousand gun
Speaker 2: deaths a year on average, but there are four hundred
Speaker 2: and fifty million guns privately owned. There are over two
Speaker 2: hundred million gun owners, and so we're talking about fifty
Speaker 2: thousand and they're talking to two hundred million. And so
Speaker 2: in a way, by not talking about what it means
Speaker 2: to own and carry a gun, what it means to
Speaker 2: have public space, these other issues that are not linked
Speaker 2: just to preventing shootings. I just again, I want to
Speaker 2: prevent shootings, but I think we go down the wrong path.
Speaker 2: We immediately alienate people. So if I was doing the
Speaker 2: Hairs campaign, which I'm not, I would say, talk first
Speaker 2: about gun ownership, about gun carry, about public safety, about
Speaker 2: public space, about crime, and then talk about regulation. I
Speaker 2: don't think they're going to take my word for it
Speaker 2: because they're being advised.
Speaker 1: Well, I mean, give us an example of what it
Speaker 1: would look like to pivot from like because you're saying, okay,
Speaker 1: talk about these things. But I guess my question is
Speaker 1: how what is the responsible way to lean into the
Speaker 1: reality that there are millions of people in this country
Speaker 1: that own guns? So how do we acknowledge that while
Speaker 1: also acknowledging that we have a gun problem in the
Speaker 1: United States.
Speaker 2: Oh, we have like a we have a CATASTROPHICU involvement
Speaker 2: in the United States. But the the issue that a
Speaker 2: lot of gun owners know is that I'll give you
Speaker 2: an example of background checks. This is just one example
Speaker 2: that background checks are when you a point of sale interaction. Again,
Speaker 2: it's important. It's like getting a driver's license when you
Speaker 2: go to buy a gun, your name is run through
Speaker 2: a federal database, and if you ping, you shouldn't be
Speaker 2: able to buy a gun. Now that sounds great, right,
Speaker 2: we don't want bad people having guns. But the two
Speaker 2: problems with that. First of all, is that, as I said,
Speaker 2: we already have like five hundred million guns and circulation.
Speaker 2: And so even though everybody's like yelling about background checks,
Speaker 2: that's not going to matter. It's like taking plastic bags
Speaker 2: out of the ocean. It's not going to matter for
Speaker 2: a very very very long time. And so that's part
Speaker 2: of it. But the other thing is, if you have
Speaker 2: an incarceration record, for example, you ping on a background check.
Speaker 2: So who do you think ping's on a background check?
Speaker 2: People of color, communitic color, who then go to the
Speaker 2: quote unquote legal gun market and stuff like that. So
Speaker 2: the whole system is just like we act. I think
Speaker 2: too often like oh, we need these three things and
Speaker 2: red flag wells and all these things, and I think
Speaker 2: we just don't see the bigger picture. And so for me,
Speaker 2: when I write about this and talk about it, I
Speaker 2: have like a broader agenda. I talk about gun safety
Speaker 2: entrepreneurialism where we can actually take examples from high risk communities,
Speaker 2: as you and I have talked about. They're all these
Speaker 2: initiatives like jobs programs and fixing street lights and green
Speaker 2: space and all these kind of things that I think
Speaker 2: can be a real national agenda for let's invest and
Speaker 2: also reward monetarily community safety. I think there's all these
Speaker 2: algorithms that we could do. We could do much more
Speaker 2: about AI technology reducing guns, which is linked to a.
Speaker 1: Corporate But again, like I see all of the solutions
Speaker 1: that you're offering, but I'm still confused about how we
Speaker 1: have the conversation with gun owners to move to a
Speaker 1: place of safe.
Speaker 2: Well, it were one hundred days or less away. So
Speaker 2: it's about rhetoric right now. And I'll just say that,
Speaker 2: when's the last time you heard a Democrat really speak
Speaker 2: convincingly about why people own guns or carry guns before
Speaker 2: talking about regulation.
Speaker 1: I've never heard it. But my point is that I
Speaker 1: think that you're making a valid point, But like, what
Speaker 1: does that sound like to say to a crowd of people.
Speaker 1: Kamala comes out, she's in Milwaukee, and she's like, Hey, Milwaukee,
Speaker 1: we're going to be talking about this, this, this and
Speaker 1: this and this, and I want to talk to you
Speaker 1: first about guns. Okay, what is it that she should
Speaker 1: be saying.
Speaker 2: Well, I just did. I just had an incredible, insane
Speaker 2: Paul yesterday. We actually had a three hour fanel on
Speaker 2: exactly that topic. And so first I think she should
Speaker 2: come out and acknowledge and say, let me speak to
Speaker 2: gun owners and then speak really empathically about what guns
Speaker 2: mean and what it means to own and carry a
Speaker 2: gun and why that's on one hand understandable and on
Speaker 2: other hand civically disastrous. But I would start with like
Speaker 2: talking about why people feel like they need guns. That
Speaker 2: would just be my way. I mean, I mean, I
Speaker 2: don't know if you have enough time if you're a
Speaker 2: political candidate, but I would just talk about why people
Speaker 2: feel like they need guns and about the bigger gun markets.
Speaker 2: The thing is, I just think you need to lead
Speaker 2: with like, here's the bigger issue, here's the bigger problem,
Speaker 2: and speak to the politics of gun ownership. Because places
Speaker 2: like Wisconsin, as you're saying, have open carry, for example,
Speaker 2: they have permitless carry, so there are a lot of
Speaker 2: people carrying guns. And so the minute you just start
Speaker 2: speaking with here's the regulations we need for common sense
Speaker 2: or something like that the minute you jump in with
Speaker 2: regulations first, I just feel like anybody who might be
Speaker 2: crossing over to your side, and I just say, I've
Speaker 2: interviewed like over a thousand gun hunters, and I can
Speaker 2: tell you it's like it's like they're automatic news on
Speaker 2: the other side, and for a lot of people, it's
Speaker 2: an autobat no. So I would start with like, let
Speaker 2: me try to understand the issue and let's come up
Speaker 2: with some new solutions something like that. That just feels
Speaker 2: like she rebooting this debate. That feels stuck and intransigent.
Speaker 2: I guess my fear is again, as I said, if
Speaker 2: you're just saying we need common sense gun andform and
Speaker 2: we need to regulate, and we need assault weapons ban,
Speaker 2: which again they're already thirty million whatever AR fifteen is
Speaker 2: floating around, it just becomes people who are already convinced
Speaker 2: are going to be convinced, and people who are not
Speaker 2: convinced are not going to hear like they're spoken to.
Speaker 2: And the reason I'm saying this specifically is because of
Speaker 2: states like Pennsylvania, for example, real swing states, Wisconsin, things
Speaker 2: like that, where there are a lot of gun owners
Speaker 2: who are in the quote unquote undecided voter category. So
Speaker 2: I don't know. I just I feel like we've tried
Speaker 2: the way of like bashing people over the head with
Speaker 2: gun regulation in the past, and I'm just urging a
Speaker 2: new tone.
Speaker 1: Does that make sense, I'm going to say yes and no.
Speaker 1: So yes, it makes sense to try and find a
Speaker 1: different posture that will open up more people to to
Speaker 1: listen and hear right as opposed to guns bad, you know,
Speaker 1: takeaway guns like whatever. The narrowing has been of that
Speaker 1: conversation for the last thirty plus years. On the other hand,
Speaker 1: I'm not so sure that just a change in tone
Speaker 1: is going to soften gun owners who have been so
Speaker 1: hardened to the place of this is mine, this is mine,
Speaker 1: and I don't care about the safety of my neighbor
Speaker 1: because I've always said, why can't we come from a
Speaker 1: place of community care as opposed to just individual rights?
Speaker 2: Right? But look at the assumption you just made about
Speaker 2: why people own guns, right, that they're protecting their property,
Speaker 2: And I just say, I just think that that is
Speaker 2: true for some gun owners. It's not true for other
Speaker 2: gun owners. Some people, I mean, people own guns for
Speaker 2: a lot of different reasons, and so I just think
Speaker 2: that too often. Again, for me, the rhetoric of common
Speaker 2: sense gun reform, it just creates either you have common
Speaker 2: sense because you support public health, or you're an idiot.
Speaker 2: And so I just think that it creates this easy
Speaker 2: divide between people on our side and people on their side,
Speaker 2: which is in part, you know, we're in a zero
Speaker 2: s on political system. That's probably how it works. But
Speaker 2: it's also that it's just an automatic no for gun owners,
Speaker 2: many gun owners who might come to your side. And
Speaker 2: so I just think, like I was in Minneapolis Saint
Speaker 2: Paul yesterday, and they're doing incredible things, right. They're taking
Speaker 2: this problem of rampant gun crime in many parts of
Speaker 2: the city, and they're doing all of these programs, all
Speaker 2: of these investments, they're investing in all these civic things,
Speaker 2: they're building, all these programs. It's actually created new avenues
Speaker 2: of civic life because they realize that like owning a
Speaker 2: gun is also a form of self protection and the
Speaker 2: police aren't going to come around, and all these kind
Speaker 2: of things, like people own guns, and also like white
Speaker 2: people own guns, so why shouldn't we own guns? Gun
Speaker 2: ownership is really complicated, and I wish we had no
Speaker 2: guns as you know, but I also know that we're
Speaker 2: in a world right now where I guess my sense
Speaker 2: just from my data is that Democrats are not voting
Speaker 2: on guns as a wedge issue so much, but gun owners,
Speaker 2: if they feel like they're being regulated, that is a
Speaker 2: big motivation for them not to vote for Democrats. And
Speaker 2: I'm just arguing that we rupture that now. I agree
Speaker 2: that we have like less than one hundred days, so
Speaker 2: I do think that a change in tone is maybe superficial,
Speaker 2: but it's also an opportunity right now because we have
Speaker 2: like a surprise candidate to reboot this debate, and I
Speaker 2: don't in a way that I don't think would lose
Speaker 2: her any support, and especially because it's just the automatic
Speaker 2: trap we fall into is like there's a shooting, the
Speaker 2: Trump shooting. One side says we need regulations. The other side,
Speaker 2: the Trump side, says, this is why people need to
Speaker 2: be armed, because this unexpected situation could come and we
Speaker 2: lose that calculus. And so I'm just trying to say,
Speaker 2: let's strategize rupturing that calculus. I realize I'm not convincing
Speaker 2: you right now, but maybe one of our viewers.
Speaker 1: Is like, I'm not going to be convinced because I've
Speaker 1: seen all the poll numbers most gun what is it saying,
Speaker 1: most gun owners, you know, believe in background checks, most
Speaker 1: gun owners believe in X, Y and z, most gun
Speaker 1: owners are legal gun owners, and so on and so forth,
Speaker 1: and Okay, so if those numbers bow true, then you,
Speaker 1: as a gun owner, know exactly how dangerous it is
Speaker 1: the hobby that you have, and you know exactly how
Speaker 1: dangerous it has become over the last thirty and forty
Speaker 1: years since Columbine, Right, and how many shootings there have been,
Speaker 1: and how many mass shootings there have been, And so
Speaker 1: I don't know if again saying, hey, gun owner, I
Speaker 1: understand that there are a myriad of reasons why people
Speaker 1: own guns. Some is for protection, other is is for
Speaker 1: you know, safety, other is is for sport blah blah
Speaker 1: blah blah blah. But the reality is, we have more
Speaker 1: guns in this country than we do people and people
Speaker 1: as a community. We should be safe to go into
Speaker 1: houses of worship, to go into our schools, to go
Speaker 1: to the movie theater, to go to the mall, to
Speaker 1: go to a concert without thinking that this may be
Speaker 1: our last moments on earth because of somebody with a gun.
Speaker 1: But what do we also know all of those people
Speaker 1: who have been found to have been shooters all got
Speaker 1: their guns legally. So like again, I am at a
Speaker 1: crossroads as everyone is, where I don't understand, like I
Speaker 1: don't if a classroom full of dead children doesn't change
Speaker 1: your mind, I don't know if a fucking tone change does. Right,
Speaker 1: like me saying hey, I was a girl scout and
Speaker 1: I got a gun badge, Like, I just don't see
Speaker 1: you know how that works.
Speaker 2: Did you just say fucking tone change?
Speaker 1: Yeah? I did.
Speaker 2: Yeah. No, I'm not suggesting just a fucking tone change.
Speaker 2: I'm actually suggesting that our goal be rupturing the debate.
Speaker 2: And maybe this is not the right time to do it,
Speaker 2: but I'm just saying that, considering that a lot of
Speaker 2: the purple states, a lot of the swing states are
Speaker 2: strongly gun owning states, I think that a stance of
Speaker 2: a different kind of democratic messaging, I personally feel like
Speaker 2: and maybe there's a better way to say what I'm saying,
Speaker 2: which is, again my point is just jumping right in
Speaker 2: with regulation, You're just going to get the people who
Speaker 2: are already going to vote for you, but you're not
Speaker 2: going to get if people are voting on guns as
Speaker 2: a wedge issue, They're going to hear that and they're
Speaker 2: going to I mean, owning a gun. I have a
Speaker 2: lot about this in my book also makes you nervous
Speaker 2: that someone's going to take your gun. In fact, it's
Speaker 2: an incredibly powerful message, and the other side is messaging
Speaker 2: these guys are going to take your guns. And so
Speaker 2: I'm just trying to recap their strongest strategy here. But
Speaker 2: also I do believe kind of what I'm saying, which
Speaker 2: is that to say, hey, look, regulation is one part
Speaker 2: of this problem, but we also need to do ABC
Speaker 2: and D to rebuild civic space and trust, to make
Speaker 2: guns safety profitable and entrepreneurial, to create all these other factors.
Speaker 2: Like I just think that it's got to be couched
Speaker 2: in a message because otherwise people just hear that same
Speaker 2: message of an assault weapons ban. It sounds great, It
Speaker 2: sounds great if you don't own an assault weapon. But
Speaker 2: if you own an assault weapon, which is many millions
Speaker 2: of people in Purple States, it's not like you want
Speaker 2: the government coming taking your air fifteen. And so I'm
Speaker 2: just saying that this is, to me, is a point
Speaker 2: where we can kind of reframe the debate and sound different.
Speaker 2: I mean, Kamala Harris, the great thing about her campaign
Speaker 2: is it's unformed, right, you know, she has a chance
Speaker 2: to actually reboot these debates, and I just feel like
Speaker 2: if she comes out sounding too predictable about a lot
Speaker 2: of these issues, it's just got to be too easy
Speaker 2: to frame her. And the other issue is that, you know,
Speaker 2: I don't know if her background is right for this,
Speaker 2: but I you know, I wrote a lot, as you
Speaker 2: know about how talking about crime, like you just assumed,
Speaker 2: for example, that you conflated gun owners with mass shooters
Speaker 2: in what you just said, and it's true. I mean,
Speaker 2: I hate mass shootings. They're horrific. I mean they're really
Speaker 2: horrific and uncomfortable. We should have zero of them. But
Speaker 2: it's also important to note that like zero point two
Speaker 2: percent of guns are ever even fired against other people,
Speaker 2: Like most people carry their guns out of fear, and
Speaker 2: they don't see a mass shooting as the need for regulation.
Speaker 2: They see a need for like, oh, I want to
Speaker 2: carry a gun, and if it ever happens to me,
Speaker 2: that's my soapbox.
Speaker 1: I didn't convince you now, but it's not, you know,
Speaker 1: it's it's not for lack of trying, and it's not
Speaker 1: for lack of research.
Speaker 2: Well, let me just say, if any listeners out there
Speaker 2: are convinced by me, I will take you to dinner.
Speaker 1: So put it in the contract.
Speaker 2: Yeah, no, again, I do want to hold on to
Speaker 2: this point, which is just like I think it's important
Speaker 2: for Kamala Harris to sound like a new kind of candidate,
Speaker 2: and this is one way of many that she can
Speaker 2: do it right. Because we're seeing that more black Americans
Speaker 2: are buying guns now, more liberal Americans are buying guns now.
Speaker 2: This is a chance to like actually acknowledge a bigger
Speaker 2: story about what's happening.
Speaker 1: This is what I'll say, and well we'll leave it
Speaker 1: here today, which is that why are more people buying
Speaker 1: guns because people feel less safe because our communities have
Speaker 1: been made to feel less safe, of course, and if
Speaker 1: you focus on safety and what actually goes to build
Speaker 1: up community and connection, then guess what. People are not
Speaker 1: going to fear their neighbor and they're not going to
Speaker 1: fear public spaces.
Speaker 2: I'm putting for you just for saying that, that's perfect.
Speaker 1: So to me, it's like, let's then let's then focus
Speaker 1: on what it is that makes communities safe, which is
Speaker 1: not more cops, not more guns. But as you said before,
Speaker 1: green spaces like community centers, wonderful public education facilities, community
Speaker 1: you know, like sidewalks. All of these things like walkable
Speaker 1: areas make places safer and make people more connected. And
Speaker 1: if we did that, then we would not have the
Speaker 1: fear driving our impulse to protect ourselves with weapons of war.
Speaker 2: That was my point. You just made my point. I'm
Speaker 2: voting for you.
Speaker 1: Okay, we will leave it here today, our friend Jonathan,
Speaker 1: thank you for a rigorous debate and conversation. As always,
Speaker 1: appreciate you. That is it for me today. Dear friends
Speaker 1: on wokf as always, power to the people and to
Speaker 1: all the people. Power, get woke and stay woke as fuck.