Devin L. Hughes, CFA, is the Founder of GVPedia, Inc. and a noted authority on the gun violence issue. His new book, The Myths we Carry: An Advocate’s Guide to the Gun Debate, is a tight, evidence-based look at gun violence in the U.S. and the disingenuous tactics used by the gun lobby to protect its profits. Colorado Ceasefire checked in with him briefly about his work and how gun violence prevention advocates can most effectively discuss gun policy with friends and neighbors, wherever they fall on the political spectrum.
You call your new book, The Myths We Carry: An Advocate’s Guide to the Gun Debate, a ‘pocket-sized reference’ to truths that often get lost or even intentionally misstated in the Gun Policy debate. Why is it so difficult for people to get real, verifiable information about gun violence?
Over the past five decades, the gun lobby has deployed a ‘Firehose of Falsehood’ campaign that seeks to suppress accurate information, while touting disinformation. Without a coordinated response, disinformation is a lot easier to produce and promulgate, thereby overwhelming accurate research. Also, due to the gun lobby’s efforts, there is a lot less funding for research and data collection on gun violence, making the truth more challenging to ascertain.
Despite this strategy, there is still sufficient research that clearly demonstrates firearm ownership carries far more risk than benefits, more guns in public lead to more death, and that stronger gun laws save lives. The central issue then is bridging the gap between the academic research and the public debate and providing a clear and forceful response to disinformation. Pushing out facts is necessary but insufficient; inoculating the public against common myths is also essential.
Your background is in the areas of finance and risk management. How does that inform your approach to the gun debate?
My background lends itself to a statistical approach and pattern recognition. There are also a lot of myths and bad actors in the financial world, which informs my focus on countering disinformation surrounding gun violence. Ideas matter both in finance and gun violence prevention, and a lot of lives can be ruined and lost if bad ideas prevail.
You’ve often called the Gun Lobby strategy for fighting regulation a ‘Firehose of Falsehood.’ What is it about the gun debate, in particular, that you think lends itself to this kind of strategy?
A Firehose of Falsehood strategy is particularly potent in relatively low-information environments clouded by partisanship and/or competing truth claims. A Firehose of Falsehood doesn’t need all of its claims to be believed in order to prevail. If it can create doubt or apathy, it can freeze forward progress and create the vision that the topic is politically hopeless or not worth bothering with. The goal isn’t necessarily to convince people of falsehoods, but that the entire concept of truth is irrelevant. Disaffected people dejectedly complaining that ‘facts don’t matter’ is a major sign of an entrenched and effective Firehose of Falsehood campaign.
Other politically fraught topics have seen their own Firehose of Falsehood campaigns deployed, such as the anti-vax movement and climate change denialism. The difference between those topics and gun violence is that the gun lobby scored early political wins to suppress accurate research and entrench itself as a dominant lobby, while there has been more substantial institutional pushback against the anti-vax and climate denialist movements with a recognition that the Firehose of Falsehood needed to be countered directly.
Even here, though, in recent years there has been a resurgence in the anti-vax and climate denial movements, demonstrating that the fight against disinformation is perpetual, and that without sustained effort there is no guarantee that truth will triumph over falsehoods.
Given that the GVP community will never have the level of resources available to the gun industry, what are the most effective ways available to us to counter their efforts to shape public opinion?
Education and conversation. No matter how powerful the gun lobby is, we will always have the opportunity to learn about the facts and data, and then have conversations with others to explore those facts and dispel myths. Although a majority of Americans currently believe that a gun will make them safer, even larger majorities back stronger gun laws and oppose gun lobby-sponsored laws such as Permitless Carry. Most Americans do not hold gun ownership as an integral part of their identity, meaning productive conversation and persuasion is still very much possible.
People gravitate to guns because they want to feel safe. If we can strip the mythos of safety from guns, while providing alternatives that actually do provide safety, we can make substantial strides forward. A majority of Americans citing self-defense as a primary reason for firearm ownership is a modern phenomenon, coming after decades of marketing by the gun lobby. If people have been persuaded to embrace this belief, there is no reason that people can’t be persuaded in the other direction.
How do you fight the perception that any research funded or created by a group with a GVP agenda or interest is by definition tainted and untrustworthy? How do you see your work or your methods changing at a time when the whole idea of objective truth seems to be under attack?
When encountering this line of pushback, I find it helpful to ask the person if they are open to changing their minds, what they would consider to be sufficient evidence, and whether they hold their own beliefs to that same standard. If someone is unwilling to change their mind, won’t accept any reasonable evidence, or holds your evidence to an infinitely higher standard than their own, there is no room for conversation. There is no point in trying to persuade someone who is unpersuadable. Fortunately, that is a small minority of the population (though often the loudest voices online or demanding performative debates). Most people, when approached in a respectful manner, are open to changing their minds, or at the very least reconsidering things.
Persuasion also isn’t a “one and done” conversation, it requires commitment and ensuring the other person feels heard when expressing their current beliefs. Asking people why they believe something, or to explain how that belief works in practice, is also a great way to make inroads and understand what myths might be the most entrenched.
For such conversations to work, however, it requires an understanding of the facts and common myths, and that is where my book The Myths We Carry is most helpful. It is a resource you can carry with you into conversations and provide a quick reference of the most common myths and where they come from.
Devin L Hughes, CFA is the founder and President of GVPedia, Inc. He is also the founder of Hughes Capital Management, a registered investment advisor. He has taught Advanced Topics in Investments at the University of Oklahoma, where he graduated Summa Cum Laude with dual majors in Finance and Risk Management. He attended OU as a National Merit Scholar. He has been published in The Hill, Huffington Post, Los Angeles Times, Politico, Slate, ThinkProgress, Vice, Vox, and The Washington Post. He is the 2008 Oklahoma State Chess Champion.
- Ceasefire Interview: Devin Hughes, author of ‘The Myths We Carry: An Advocate’s Guide to the Gun Debate’
- Trump Sues Again, This Time Over High-Capacity Mags
- Jeffco Sheriff Releases Evergreen Shooting Records
- ATF Reinstates ‘Gun Show Loophole,’ Rolls Back Other Rules
- Denver Gun Homicides ‘Flat,’ Johnston Says, and More Needs to be Done