Could Kamala Harris Lose the Election Because of the Gun Topic ?

I have generally had good experiences working with journalists interested in guns in America. Certainly most work within the dominant narrative of gun-pathology, but I usually feel I have added nuance or broader understanding to their work.

A recent very bad experience with a media outlet has changed my approach to dealing with journalists. I realize how many ideas I’ve produced over the years that have simply gone to waste. So from now on, whenever possible, I will two-way record any interviews I give and post transcripts or, if I give written responses, post those responses.

Below is the written response I provided to a French journalist reporting on swing states in the U.S. presidential election. She had a number of questions about gun culture and gun laws in Arizona, which I deferred to a colleague at Arizona State University, but also asked a more general question about guns in this year’s election. Her question and my brief response follow.

QUESTION: Could Kamala Harris lose the election because of the gun topic? I know she said she has one gun at home and is not against it. Is it a necessary electioneering strategy in the US?

The United States is quite polarized politically right now, and guns are definitely one of the major wedge issues exacerbating that divide. But the gun issue does not stand alone. Guns are a wedge issue because they represent larger value systems that align with our red (Republican) and blue (Democrat) divide. For example, guns represent individual freedom for many owners versus those who favor a robust state that actively intervenes in society to reduce gun violence.

(As an aside, I reject this false dichotomy between gun rights and reducing gun-related negative outcomes, but that is perhaps a story for another day. The reality is that these simplistic either/or oppositions are part and parcel of our polarized political culture right now.)

Against this backdrop, Kamala Harris saying she owns a gun and would shoot someone who broke into her house may seem hard to understand because it sounds more like Donald Trump’s talking points. I would make two points here.

First, many Americans across the political spectrum, from diverse geographies, and of all genders, sexualities, colors, and creeds own firearms for self-defense. And newer gun owners – notably since 2020 – look especially different from traditional gun owners in these respects. So, demographically we should not be surprised that a politically liberal, bi-racial woman from California owns a handgun for self-defense any more than we should be surprised that a liberal, Asian American sociology professor from the San Francisco Bay Area owns firearms for self-defense. That is, someone like me. (This is a bit orthogonal to what you’re doing, but if you’re interested you can read more in this essay I wrote back in 2021 reflecting on 2020.)

That said, a second point is in order here. There is a fundamental difference between Kamala Harris as a defensive gun owner and me and the millions of other non-traditional gun owners out there. She is running for President of the United States. What she says about being a defensive gun owner is much more politically loaded than what I might say. So, Harris’s statement to Oprah Winfrey should not be taken to mean that Harris is embracing gun rights in the way that conservatives and libertarians do. To the contrary, she is most likely using this as a strategy to deflect criticism from her political opponents that she is “anti-gun” because she favors a ban on AR-15-style semi-automatic rifles and other gun regulations designed to reduce negative outcomes with firearms.

I don’t doubt that Kamala Harris might shoot someone breaking into her house. But saying it in a very public setting while running for office is more a political strategy than a statement of fact.

Those for whom gun rights are a leading priority in their voting decisions cannot pull the level for the Harris-Walz ticket. And those for whom gun violence prevention is a leading priority must pull the level for Harris-Walz. This is the polarized reality at this moment. However, most voters have a variety of concerns they are trying to address when voting; gun rights or gun violence are just one of many. In my view, the election is likely to be decided by a relatively small number of suburban white women in a handful of swing states. I don’t think the gun issue will be decisive for them.

–David Yamane is a sociology professor at Wake Forest University and author of Gun Curious: A Liberal Professor’s Surprising Journey Inside America’s Gun Culture (Exposit, 2024).