Speaker 1Okay, real talk. Are you getting rewarded for paying your rent or mortgage right now? I did not even know that was a thing. I've just been gritting my teeth and writing my landlord a giant check every month. And that's why I need to tell you about Built. Becoming a Built member means you earn points on every housing payment, no matter where you live, whether you rent or own. You can redeem Built points towards all sorts of great stuff. Flights, hotels, lift rides, future housing payments, and more. I might even use mine to help pay off that student loan balance I've had since the last millennium. And Built gives every member access to its neighborhood concierge in the Built app. It's connected to your home and over 50,000 merchant partners, so you can ask it to pay your rent, make a dinner reservation, book a fitness class, and so much more. You just download the Built app, link any credit or debit card to the app so purchases at your local businesses become even more rewarding, and ask the neighborhood concierge pretty much anything. And for you homeowners out there, Built works for mortgages too. Your housing payment is one of your biggest monthly expenses, so why wouldn't you want to earn points on it? Download the Built app and join the membership for where you live at joinbuilt.com slash newyorker. That's J-O-I-N-B-I-L-T dot com slash newyorker. Use our link so they know we sent you. Some pieces in your wardrobe just do more for you. The ones you reach for time and again, the ones that look and feel great to wear, the staples you can really depend on. That's exactly what Quince does so well. Quince elevates your every day with beautifully made essentials. They use premium materials and meticulous craftsmanship, the hero pieces of your wardrobe, at prices that are actually affordable. It's the quality you'd expect from a luxury brand, but without the luxury price tag. In fact, everything at Quince is priced 50 to 80 percent less than similar brands. They work directly with ethical factories and cut out the middlemen, so you're paying for quality, not brand markup. And Quince makes essentials for your home as well, with hotel quality bedding and bath, kitchen essentials, thoughtfully designed furniture, and more. Fall is far and away my favorite time of the year. I'm so excited to break out my cashmere everything, from gloves and scarves to my very coziest sweaters. Find the fall pieces you'll reach for most at Quince. Download the Quince app for app-exclusive offers, or go to quince.com. Get free shipping on your order and 365-day returns. Now available in Canada and the UK, too. And when Quince asks where you heard about them, let them know it was the political scene. It's the best way to support the show. Unless you're somehow a person who just loves paperwork, I bet you didn't start your business dreaming about payroll tax deadlines. Yet every quarter, there they are, staring you in the face. Why not let Gusto handle that? Gusto can take care of payroll tax and a ton of other fussy admin tasks, so you can get back to the business you actually love. Gusto is online payroll and benefit software built for small businesses. It's all-in-one, remote-friendly, and incredibly easy to use, so you can pay, hire, onboard, and support your team from anywhere. And for tricky personnel issues, Gusto's got direct access to certified HR, experts to help support you through any tough HR situation. It's quick and simple to switch to Gusto. Just transfer your existing data to get up and running fast. Plus, don't pay a cent until you run your first payroll. Try Gusto today at gusto.com slash newyorker and get three months free when you run your first payroll. That's three months of free payroll at gusto.com slash newyorker. One more time, gusto.com slash newyorker.
Speaker 2You're listening to The Political Scene. I'm David Remnick. Early each week, we bring you a conversation from our episode of The New Yorker Radio Hour.
Speaker 3The New Yorker Radio Hour is a co-production of WNYC and The New Yorker.
Speaker 2Welcome to The New Yorker Radio Hour. I'm David Remnick. I'm kind of shocked to say it, but Malcolm Gladwell has been a staff writer at The New Yorker for 30 years. He's been a member of the New Yorker Network for 30 years. We got here at just about the same time. And in his reporting for us and in a shelf of best-selling books, Gladwell takes ideas from the social sciences and other fields and applies them to topics that most of us had never really thought about. You could almost call Malcolm Gladwell a genre unto himself. But we don't often think of Malcolm Gladwell tackling the news, writing about what's in the headlines every day. And that's exactly what he does. He writes a book called The American Way of Killing. And Malcolm's subject is gun violence. He looks at the mass shootings, suicides, and vast numbers of deaths and injuries in this country. And I could rattle off the statistics, but by now, you know them only too well. One unbelievable data point. Firearms have been the leading cause of death among American children since 2020. We don't lead the world in gun deaths, but among the wealthy nations, we're an outlier and to a stunning degree. Malcolm Gladwell tries to understand why that is in his newest book. We spoke this week. It's good to see you again, David. It's been way too long. Your new book is about guns, gun control, or the lack of it, and so on. What are the origins of your interest? I always have suspected that some of it is the fact that you're Canadian and come from a place that doesn't have this madness.
Speaker 4I think the longer I stay in America, the more baffled I am in some ways by it. I mean, a lot of this book is concerned with the question that the conversation about guns in this country is dishonest. And I use that word, I picked that word with great deliberation. What do you mean? What I mean is that it's not that it's wrong. It's that people aren't arguing about the things they should be arguing about. But I'll give you one that I spend a lot of time on in the book. And that is, this country is obsessed with homicide rates. And I have all chapter pointing out that that's the wrong thing to be obsessed with. It didn't tell you anything. Why? Because a homicide is a function of two things. It's how lethal your wounds were, and also how quickly you got to the hospital. If you were to shoot me here in the heart, I'd be at that hospital three blocks away in five minutes. I'm going to make it. If you do the exact same thing to me in the Hudson Valley where I live, I'm dead, right? The level of violence is the same. I'm going the same in those first two instances. But in one case, I'm a homicide. And in one case, I'm not. And that has to do with my access to health care and a skilled doctor and such. And one of the things that has happened in America in the last 40 years is the level and quality of medical attention that's being given to gunshot victims has gotten so much better that we have become blind to the real world. And I think that's one of the things
Speaker 2that's happened in the last 40 years. comma, shall not be infringed. Period. Period. Why is it written like that? What was its original meaning? And why are we so fatalistically attached to it?
Speaker 4Yeah. That sentence is written in a time closer to Shakespeare's time than our own. We don't write sentences like that anymore.
Speaker 2At what point historically does the intent change?
Speaker 4The key guy here is this guy named Carl Bogus.
Speaker 2He's a gladwellian name, if I've ever heard one. Carl Bogus? A real person?
Speaker 4If my name was Carl Bogus, I would be so happy. The brilliantly named Carl Bogus. And he does what apparently no one has ever before him, no serious historian had ever done. When the Constitution is drafted, it has to be ratified by the states. And the key state is Virginia, right? Virginia is one of the largest states in the Union. All guys are from Virginia. Virginia needs to sign on. They had someone the entire debate they have in Richmond about whether they're going to ratify the Constitution. And what do you discover when you read these debates? That they are obsessed with the Second Amendment, and they're obsessed with that militia clause. Why? Because militias are the means by which they keep their slaves in check. Most of these people live in communities where the slaves outnumber white people 10 to 1. In some cases, 20 to 1. You can't police this. So they have, from time to time, there are these slave uprisings. And they're terrifying to the planters. So they institute this system of militias, which go around the South and patrol the South. And everyone volunteers for the militia. So the Constitution comes along, and these northern states are threatening to take away, to nationalize the militia. And they're like, no, this is terrifying. How are we going to stay safe otherwise? So they're desperate for the Second Amendment to reflect the fact that they continue to have a right to have armed militias to keep their slaves in check.
Speaker 2That's what it is. It's not a kind of uniquely American culture that has to do with the frontier and the wilderness. No, no.
Speaker 4And it's not the Revolutionary War. The militias fought so badly in the Revolutionary War that Washington all but gave up on them. The idea that this is sort of an integral part of America's fight for freedom is nonsense.
Speaker 2So let's talk a little bit about the scale here. I think many Americans would agree we have a mass shooting problem, although we between 1966 and 2023, there have been 184 mass shootings. this country, 184 total of 1,342 deaths. But you point out in that same period, the number of gun related deaths in general is 2 million. That's with all the improved medical care that you've talked about. What's driving the number?
Speaker 4I have a whole chapter in the book about the difference between instrumental and expressive violence, which is an incredibly important distinction. There are two categories in which a homicide falls. One is instrumental violence. That is to say, I shoot you and kill you in the cause of some other goal. You're wearing a Rolex. I want your Rolex. You struggle. Okay, I shoot you. I take your Rolex, right? I'm robbing a bank. I'm defending my turf in the drug trade against some rival gang. That's instrumental violence. Expressive violence, on the other hand, is the violence that comes out of raw emotion. It comes out of a. Of a sense of injury, of personal antagonism. Or mental illness. Mental illness, or. It's not planned in the same way. It's impulsive. And if I thought twice about it, I wouldn't do it, right? And where the. Or had the capacity to think twice. And where the injury of the other is the point. The assumption always is, when we discuss gun violence, that much of it is instrumental. Almost none of it's instrumental. I mean, I put it in a book that, like, if you watch Law & Order, it's all instrumental murders. I was murdering someone because I want their apartment. I want their whatever. No, that never, ever happens. No one gets murdered over an apartment. Violence, overwhelmingly, going back hundreds of years, thousands of years, people murder each other for expressive reasons. We get into an argument, and I pull a knife and stab you. That's the story of murder in the medieval, you know, or hit you over the head with a something or other. In America, it so happens that the availability of guns has meant that arguments are more likely to be lethal. And we have a whole series of conditions that in which arguments are allowed to flourish and persist.
Speaker 2How did this issue get so politically polarized? Supporting gun control was more bipartisan in this country in the long ago late 60s. There was real support for it. And it seems people reflexively support the gun policy now of their side, Republican, Democrat, left, right. Why did that happen?
Speaker 4I have real issues. With some of the strategic choices made by the gun control community. I have a chapter talking about assault rifle bans, which I think are just a stupid waste of time.
Speaker 2I mean, when we got rid of AR-15s, it's like temporarily.
Speaker 4And the only reason people are in favor of those bans is they never read the fine print of the bans, which don't ban anything. It's an absurd piece.
Speaker 2It's an absurd sideshow. Before you piss people off accidentally, make sure you're pissing them off on purpose. Yeah, exactly. So explain what you mean.
Speaker 4Assault rifle bans don't ban assault rifles.
Speaker 2Well, we had, we're an AR-15s ban for.
Speaker 4What you have in an assault rifle is a category of relatively light weapon, and it's easily accessorized. When we ban assault rifles, what we do is we ban a series of cosmetic add-ons that we don't like. Such as? There's a certain kind of handle that people in Congress are upset about. Or there's like a, there's a little thing that would hold a hand grenade. You can't have that. No, not to mention, of course, you can't get hand grenades in. I mean, it's just all the stuff that makes it look dangerous and military. We say you can't have that. You can have the assault rifle, but you can't have any of the gizmos that make it look scary. That's what an assault rifle ban is. It's a complete waste of time. And by the way, in mass shootings, assault rifles are often used in mass shootings, but the most lethal weapon in mass shootings is a handgun. Really? Yeah, absolutely. We have very, very good data on this. So like, even if you were concerned about mass shootings. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Mass shootings, which I think are another kind of side road we get derailed on, it doesn't make any sense. It's like, the problem is guns. If I wanted to murder you, David, I wouldn't have, I couldn't bring an assault rifle into this office building. They would see it. It's large. I would bring a handgun and conceal it on my person. Mm-hmm. And I would pull it out right now and shoot you. In this instance, a handgun is infinitely more lethal than an assault rifle, right, by virtue of its portability. Why are we having this kind of notion that just because a weapon is large and scary-looking, it is more dangerous to us than one that's small and concealable?
Speaker 2It's crazy. I'm speaking with Malcolm Gladwell, and his newest book is The American Way of Killing. We'll continue our conversation in just a moment. This is the New Yorker Radio Hour.
Speaker 5You can scale across your workflows. Learn more at dnb.com slash trust your AI.
Speaker 6How do you know that Claude won't become manipulative?
Speaker 3This is a constant worry. And you can actually catch the model thinking, I think X is actually true, but I'm going to tell the user why.
Speaker 6I'm Walter Isaacson. On my new podcast, The Builders, I'm going inside the minds of the people shaping our future. Listen to The Builders starting October 20th. On the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.
Speaker 7We're taking you all over the news cycle, going straight inside the priorities, pressures, and power plays driving today's biggest decisions. Uncanny Valley tackles the questions keeping you up at night and helps make sense of the future taking shape right now. Listen to new episodes every Thursday, wherever you get your podcasts. I'm David Remnick, and
Speaker 2I've been speaking with Malcolm Gladwell, one of the best-selling nonfiction writers of our time. In his new book, Gladwell looks at the problem of gun violence. It's called The American Way of Killing. Here you are, you're sitting with a New York, Upper West Side, every tiresome cliche. And I'm sitting across the table. I'm David Remnick, and I've been speaking with Malcolm Gladwell. And I'm David Remnick, and I've been speaking with Malcolm Gladwell.
Speaker 4Why are we engaged in this fantasy? fantasy that we can wave a magic wand and remove all the guns tomorrow and everything will be fine. In the meantime, people are dying. And so what they're doing is saying, I'm not waiting for this political miracle to happen. I'm going to solve the problem at its root here.
Speaker 2Why can't the political miracle happen? The statistics show, polls show, that in fact, for all the talk of guns being part of the American fabric and all the culture and all the rest among so many people, people want it. They see the effect of guns in our society. You think it's worthless at this point to approach things in a national legislative sense? Not worthless. You should simultaneously.
Speaker 4Or futile. Not futile. I wouldn't even go that far. I'm saying we should simultaneously try to do that. But if that effort takes 40 years, then it's not helping us now, is it? No, and in the meantime, tens of thousands of people are dying. It might take 40 years. If you win a wage battle, and matters related to the Constitution and those kinds of deeply rooted, we're talking about 50-year increments between defeats and victories, right? I'm fine. Go ahead, wage your 50-year battle. But I can't wait. The idea that that's what any campaign against gun violence ought to be in its entirety is nonsense.
Speaker 2There's a fascinating thing in this book. You compare the police departments of Los Angeles and Berlin. Similar-ish popularity. Similar populations. LA has 8,500 police officers, and Berlin has 18,000. What do all those extra police officers do in Berlin?
Speaker 4Well, a Berliner would reverse that question and say, how on earth do you cope in Los Angeles?
Speaker 2By the way, the debate, of course, on the left here was for quite a while that there should be fewer. Which was an idea
Speaker 4so completely at odds with any kind of empirical understanding of what's going on in Los Angeles. And I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. Use of resources makes more sense than theirs. Why would you rather the crime happen, because you didn't have enough cops to catch it, and then put the person away at great cost for 40 years, than to do the reverse? And also, there's a really brilliant paper by two socialists, by the way, at Harvard, Christopher Lewis and Adana Yusami. They wrote this really fascinating paper where they argue very persuasively that the level of police violence, of brutality by police in America, is a function of the fact that we have. too few police and not too many. Our assumption is, when we see police beating up people or whatever, the things that American police do do in greater numbers than their European counterparts, shoot people, with all those kinds of things. We're like, oh, that's because we've got too many cops. Uh-uh. The opposite. They chart the relationship between how many cops you have and how many incidents of police violence you have. And it's an inverse relationship. The countries with tons of cops have almost no examples of police brutality. The places that have almost no cops have a lot. Why? It makes perfect sense. When you are outnumbered, how do you project power? By using force. And what's called the militarization. Exactly. Militarization is a response to the fact that you are scarce in number and you need to make a splash. I mean, Foucault could have told us this, right? So the people who said to fund the police because they're too violent have it absolutely backwards. Refund the police because they're too violent. They're outnumbered. I had a great conversation with one of the people who said to and how to reform the police. Well, I think any kind of,
Speaker 2I had an incredibly fascinating conversation. I mean, in other words, if the mayor of New York were sitting across the table from you, if Azar and Mamdani were sitting across from you, and or Jessica Tisch, who's the police commissioner, what would you urge them to do?
Speaker 4New York is unusual in that it is closer to an adequate number of police officers than most American big cities. But they would still want, if you ask Jessica Tisch, to waive off. She'd still want one. She would say, could you take money away from the prisons and give them to the police? She would say that is absolutely the best trade you could do. So I talked to a guy who used to be a police chief from a big city in Colorado. And he was talking about, you know, you look at your shifts and you can see shift by shift how long it takes for your officers to respond to a shooting, say. And the sooner you get to the shooting, the better chance you have of apprehending the shooter and also of the person being shot, life of the person being shot. And he can look and just say, well, you know, at this time of night on a Tuesday, I just don't have the cops to cover it. They're coming from the other side of town. That person's going to die. We're not going to catch that. He said, really? Or I can't do the community outreach work. If I have enough cops, I can listen to the community. I can hear what their concerns are. I don't have these guys don't have to be in their squad car all day long racing from one crime scene to the next. I want my police officers to know everyone in their precincts. I want them to know that they're not going to be in the same precinct. To know all the trusted people, to have the kids so the kids can talk to them, all these things they want to do.
Speaker 2You write about disruption and de-escalation. How does that work in real life? Well, I was talking
Speaker 4to Jens Ludwig when I did that New Yorker piece. I called up that guy Jens Ludwig. And he was talking about he did a lot of work with the police in Chicago. And he's like, you know, if you ride around at night with police officers, a lot of what they're doing is de-escalation. He's talked about one night he was out with a cop and he sees a very, very large guy screaming at the top of his lungs and physically assaulting a woman who's clearly his wife or girlfriend. Yeah. Cop stops, goes over there, says to the guy, go home, calm down, tells the woman, come with me. What he did, did he prevent a potential homicide? Maybe. You don't know where that argument's going to go. Right. That was his point that this is what police work is. And the soft intervention, the better off your community is going to be. A lot of times when people argue for more police, what they want is more arrests and more kind of top-down kind of aggression, because that's the most politically appealing way to make that argument.
Speaker 2But we're never going to get down to European levels or Canadian levels, no matter how good the policing gets, until there are just far fewer guns, no?
Speaker 4I went to see a guy named David King. A couple of days ago, a couple of weeks ago, who's for years been one of the most important figures in gun violence prevention in this country. He's a professor at John Jay. And one of his comments was the fundamental misunderstanding of kids is they carry guns, not because they're predatory, but because they're scared. They're scared. And by the way, correctly, right? And in a world where the police are in, to their eyes, absent and unconnected with the community, who's left to defend themselves? They are, right? One of the Baltimore meetings I was, I write about it, I have in my podcast, they're talking about, they go and see a kid who they think is at risk for retaliating. A friend of his gets murdered. And it's the latest in a whole chain of people he's lost. And he's really, really, really, really upset. And they go to him, a police officer and a pastor go and talk to him. And one of the first things they say is, you have to trust that we can take care of this ourselves. Know who the shooter is. That's the first threshold. He thinks he's on his own, right? He's got to carry a gun because he thinks they're going to come by and get him, you know, as, you know, anticipatory retaliation. Like that's the kind of dynamic there. You have to establish that the legitimate organizations are strong enough and effective enough. The kids don't have to be scared.
Speaker 2My friend, it's always great to see you. Malcolm Gladwell, thank you. Thank you, David. Malcolm Gladwell's new book is called The American Way of Killing. He's also the host of the podcast Revisionist History. And you can find many years of Gladwell's writing for The New Yorker on our website. And you can subscribe to the magazine there as well. You know how to do it. NewYorker.com. One word, NewYorker.com. I'm David Remnick. That's our program for today. Thanks for joining us. See you next time.
Speaker 5Are your AI initiatives underperforming or just under-informed? When you depend on agents to reason and act, you need trusted, business-specific context grounded in reality. The Dun & Bradstreet context layer bridges the gap between your existing stack and your AI, delivering verified data across your workflows. Business identities are resolved, relationships are clear, and continuously updated data keeps agents grounded. So your AI doesn't have to guess, it reasons, and drives decisions you can rely on. Give your AI the context it's missing. Visit dnb.com slash trust your AI. I'm Vincent Cunningham.
Speaker 3I'm Nomi Frey. I'm Alex Schwartz. And we host Critics at Large from The New Yorker.
Speaker 8Each week, we pick a starting point. The new novel you can't stop thinking about, the movie everybody's seeing this weekend, and we kind of go galaxy brand with it.
Speaker 3Right. We take the ideas at the center of these things and trace them across history, across mediums, all to get to the bottom of why we're here. why this particular text is important right now. in politics and culture and also in your everyday life. We go highbrow, we go lowbrow, we go everything in between.
Speaker 8Food culture to meme culture, Charlie XCX to Toni Morrison. K-pop to the Kennedys. From horror movies to heated rivalry.
Speaker 3From the Oscars to the Met Gala. The Golden Bachelor to Wuthering Heights, great expectations to desperate housewives.
Speaker 8That's what we're talking about over here. We're having fun. It's Critics At Large from The New Yorker.
Speaker 9Every
Speaker 8Thursday,
Speaker 9wherever you get your podcasts. From Vanity Fair, I'm Mark Aduchie, and I want to tell you about our new show, Fair Game. On every episode of Fair Game, I'll sit down with a leading character in our culture. From the worlds of Hollywood, politics, style, Silicon Valley, and beyond. Fair Game is a deep dive into some of the personalities that shape our world and the stories that you need to hear. Think everyone and everything that you'd read about in the pages of Vanity Fair. So join me, Mark Aduchie, on YouTube, VanityFair.com, and wherever. Wherever you listen to podcasts, it's all Fair Game.
PodcastTranscript AI