Why America is changing on guns - #1

There are two articles of interest about the more enduring movement in response to the recent mass shooting at the high school in Parkland, Florida.    We've now gone well past the usual time when apathy sets in, as nothing is done to change things.   

The first article, by Michael Hobbes of HuffPost, focuses on how change in the private business sector has been part of this.   He approaches it from a business analysis perspective.

"Walmart, Dick's Sporting Goods, and Kroger announced they would no longer sell firearms to kids under 21.   REI [sports retailer] cut one of its suppliers for failing to produce a 'clear plan of action' on guns.   BlackRock, the world's largest asset manager, said it was considering 'gun-free investment funds.'   Delta ended its discount program for NRA members.  Others, from car rental companies to oil companies, severed connections from them too.

"Takes on corporate Americas's newfound social conscience have ranged [widely] from optimistic . . . to galactic. . . .  But they're all missing the point. . . .  the reality is that this latest wave of progress on gun control says less about these companies' feelings about AR-15s and more about what public pressure can -- and cannot -- achieve.

"Companies are taking a stand because they think it's good business."

The author goes on to explain that those who have responded will not lose much from lost gun sales, because gun sales are a small part, or none at all, of their overall inventory -- unlike the relatively small gun shop or firearms dealer.

Contrast this with protests that demand that companies make fundamental changes in aspects of their business-- like asking Walmart to stop selling clothes made in third-world sweatshops.   Back to Hobbes:

"The progress of the past few weeks doesn't mean these companies have become enlightened -- it means they sense a shift in consumers and are rushing to 
capitalize on it.  Three-quarters of Americans say they want stricter gun laws (that's a 7% increase in the past few weeks). . . .

"The second thing to know about the post-Parkland corporate calculation is that boycotts aren't about sales -- they're about generating media coverage [and fear of damage to their reputation, which impacts the ability to recruit talented workers, which was such a factor in the North Carolina and Indiana trans bathroom controversies and what led Georgia's governor to veto a similar bill.]

"It's a useful way to think about consumer pressure:   Not as pointless or perfect,  visionary or futile, but simply as a form of regulation.   Government . . . regulation -- is binding, but it's also painfully slow . . . and susceptible to capture by lobbyists and the weaknesses of our electoral system.

"Private regulation -- boycotts, shareholder advocacy, shouting on Twitter -- is more responsive, but it's inconsistent, unpredictable and only works when it fits a  narrative that resonates with the media and the public.

"In other words, the past few weeks show that what's moving left isn't the corporations.   It's the country."

*      *     *

It turns out that reporting both articles will result in an overly long post, so I'll save the other one for tomorrow.

It's about the remarkable young people from Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, FL,  their unusually mature and articulate activism, and their remarkable government teacher who is responsible for their good education on the subject of government and politics -- how they all work.

The school may have been ill-prepared to stop an active shooter -- but at least some student leaders were extremely well-prepared to take up the fight to get something done about gun laws -- including a planned March  for Gun Safety in Washington and around the country, on March 24

Ralph