Analysis: VP Debate Discussed Guns, Skipped Some of the Biggest Stories [Member Exclusive]

The Vice Presidential candidates spent a very good chunk of Tuesday’s debate speaking about gun coverage however little time on the most important gun tales of the race.

Ohio Senator JD Vance (R.) and Minnesota Governor Tim Walz (D.) had a prolonged alternate about firearms. It was civil. It was even substantive.

Nevertheless, neither introduced up a number of the most controversial tales of the race. Kamala Harris’s historical past of supporting gun confiscation efforts, together with her newly-resurfaced backing of a 2005 San Francisco pistol possession ban, was absent from the dialogue. So was Donald Trump’s standing as a felon who’s presently prohibited from proudly owning any weapons in any respect.

Why the 2 males on the backside of the ticket averted these subjects is a bit perplexing. They had been considerably restricted by what they had been requested, however both candidate had the chance to carry up no matter they favored. In spite of everything, the 2 questions they had been requested centered on whether or not dad and mom of college shooters must be prosecuted and Walz’s flip-flop on banning “assault weapons,” which each candidates moved past to broader subjects fairly rapidly.

What they did cowl was additionally much less impactful than it could have appeared at first look. Outdoors of settlement that every aspect needs to unravel faculty shootings and a comparatively uncontroversial place that folks of shooters must be charged on a case-by-case foundation, the 2 sides principally hit the notes you’d anticipate from them.

Vance argued that, whereas he doesn’t like the thought, the very best plan for stopping faculty shootings is bigger faculty safety.

“The concept we will magically wave a wand and take weapons out of the arms of dangerous guys simply doesn’t match with current expertise,” Vance mentioned. “So, we’ve gotta make our colleges safer. I believe we’ve gotta have some commonsense, bipartisan options for a way to do this.”

Walz responded that different nations don’t have the identical issues with faculty shootings, and gun restrictions are the explanation why.

“I ask all of you on the market, would you like your colleges hardened to appear like a fort?” Walz mentioned. “Is that what we now have to do after we know there’s nations all over the world that their youngsters aren’t practising these sorts of drills, they’re being children.”

Vance responded that we now have totally different issues than locations like Finland.

“We, sadly, have a psychological well being disaster on this nation that I actually do suppose we have to get to the basis causes of as a result of I don’t suppose it’s the entire purpose why we now have such a foul gun violence downside,” Vance mentioned, “however I do suppose it’s a giant piece of it.”

Walz fired again that, no, it’s the weapons.

“I believe what we find yourself doing is we begin in search of a scapegoat,”  Typically it simply is the weapons. It’s simply the weapons, and there are issues that you are able to do about it.”

Then Vance pointed to intercity violence as one other important distinction between the US and different nations. Walz pointed to rural gun suicides as a good larger downside.

In different phrases, this was a back-and-forth that would’ve been had between any generic Republican and Democrat at just about any time previously decade or extra.

There have been just a few prospers to this marketing campaign particularly. Walz made certain to plug the actual fact he and Harris personal weapons. Vance highlighted unlawful cross-border gun-running.

Vance got here off as extra polished, too. Walz, at one level, implied Harris was additionally a hunter. He additionally mentioned he had change into associates with faculty shooters when he apparently meant faculty capturing survivors.

The controversy was a for much longer and extra substantive dialog about gun coverage than we’ve seen at some other level of the race, together with the Republican main race. But it surely was nonetheless principally a cordial alternate of well-established positions on points that haven’t outlined the 2024 gun debate.