Estimated reading time: 10 minutes

Malcolm Gladwell just delivered the rare gun interview that refuses to stay inside one political lane.

During a September 18 appearance on The New Yorker Radio Hour, Gladwell discussed guns, policing and the Second Amendment with host David Remnick.

The conversation previews Gladwell’s new book, The American Way of Killing: The Invention of an Epidemic.

Some of his conclusions will sound surprisingly familiar to gun owners. Others will start an argument before the paragraph ends.

Gladwell criticizes assault-weapons bans, rejects “defund the police” and praises targeted anti-violence programs that do not rely on confiscating guns.

Then he argues that slavery played a central role in the creation of the Second Amendment.

There is something here to irritate almost everyone.

America Is Measuring the Wrong Thing

Gladwell begins by calling America’s gun debate “dishonest.” His first complaint involves the nation’s focus on homicide totals.

Whether a shooting becomes a homicide depends partly on the wound. It also depends on trauma care, response time and the victim’s distance from a capable hospital.

In other words, two identical shootings can produce different statistical outcomes.

Gladwell argues that improved emergency medicine has hidden the true level of American violence. More shooting victims survive today, but the underlying violence remains.

He claims America might record roughly 75,000 homicides annually if victims still received 1960-era medical care.

His preferred measurement is simpler: How often are people shooting one another? That number, he argues, would better capture the scale of the problem.

His Second Amendment Argument Will Draw Fire

Gladwell’s most controversial claim concerns the Second Amendment’s origins.

He argues that its militia language cannot be separated from slavery. He credits legal scholar Carl Bogus (his las name says it all), who studied Virginia’s ratification debates.

Under this theory, Southern slaveholders feared federal control over state militias. Those militias helped suppress uprisings and maintain the slave system.

Gladwell therefore dismisses the idea that the amendment primarily grew from frontier life or the Revolutionary War.

That interpretation will face immediate resistance from much of the 2A community.

Bogus’ slavery thesis is influential, but it is not undisputed history. Other scholars argue that militias served much broader purposes. Those included national defense, resistance to tyranny and protection against standing armies.

The Supreme Court has also recognized that the Second Amendment protects an individual right. That right does not depend on active militia service.

Gladwell may be offering one historical interpretation. He is certainly not describing a settled national consensus.

Assault-Weapons Bans Are a ‘Waste of Time’

Gladwell becomes much more agreeable to gun owners when the conversation turns to AR-15 bans.

He calls assault-weapons bans a “stupid waste of time.”

His argument focuses on how lawmakers define the targeted firearms. Many bans regulate grips, stocks, barrel attachments and other external features.

Remove the prohibited features, and a functionally similar semiautomatic rifle may remain legal.

That is not a new criticism within the firearms community. Gun owners have made the same argument for decades.

The 1994 federal ban did not eliminate every AR-15. It restricted certain named models and combinations of features. Existing firearms were also grandfathered.

Gladwell further argues that lawmakers fixate on rifles because they look threatening. Meanwhile, handguns appear in far more shootings and are easier to conceal.

That does not make Gladwell a gun-rights convert.

He still believes America has too many firearms. He simply views the political obsession with AR-style rifles as a distracting sideshow.

Many gun owners will agree with his criticism of the policy while rejecting his broader conclusion.

Forget ‘Defund.’ Gladwell Wants to ‘Refund’ Police

Gladwell’s sharpest break with progressive politics comes when Remnick mentions “defund the police.”

Gladwell says the slogan nearly makes him “blow a gasket.”

His argument is that America does not have too many police officers. It has too few officers and too many people in prison.

Gladwell contrasts Los Angeles with Berlin. He says Los Angeles has roughly 8,500 officers, while similarly sized Berlin has approximately 18,000.

European governments spend more of their public-safety budgets on policing, he argues. America spends more on lengthy incarceration after crimes occur.

Gladwell believes understaffed departments become more aggressive because officers are overwhelmed and outnumbered.

More officers could improve response times. They could also spend more time learning neighborhoods, building relationships and defusing disputes.

His proposed slogan is simple: “Refund the police.”

Stopping Retaliation Instead of Arguing About Guns

Gladwell points to Baltimore as an example of a different strategy.

The city identifies the small group of people most likely to shoot someone or become a shooting victim. Police, pastors and community leaders then intervene after violent incidents.

They speak with friends and relatives before retaliation begins. They may relocate endangered families, arrange counseling or connect someone with other assistance.

The immediate goal is not confiscating every gun. It is stopping the next shooting.

Gladwell argues that officials cannot wait decades for sweeping national gun legislation while people continue dying.

He also cites violence-prevention expert David Kennedy, who argues that many young people carry guns because they are scared.

That observation presents another interesting conflict for the 2A audience.

Gun owners may agree that people arm themselves when police cannot protect them. Gladwell sees stronger policing as the way to reduce that fear.

2A advocates will answer that government protection can never replace an individual right to self-defense.

An Interview With No Comfortable Political Home

Gladwell does not deliver a standard gun-control pitch.

https://gunsamerica.com/listings/search

He attacks AR bans. He mocks the fantasy of quickly removing America’s existing guns. He argues for more police and targeted intervention.

Those positions may earn him some unexpected agreement from the right.

Then he describes the Second Amendment through slavery and says fewer guns would still be desirable.

That will lose much of the same audience.

Perhaps that tension makes the interview worth watching. Gladwell is not offering a platform designed to satisfy either side. He is breaking the gun debate into pieces and asking whether America has been arguing about the wrong things.

The 2A community will undoubtedly challenge several of his conclusions. It may also find itself agreeing with more of them than expected.

If you have a chance, watch it and let me know what you think.

*** Buy and Sell on GunsAmerica! ***