This perception of mass shootings suggests why opponents of increased restric-tions on gun ownership may have different feelings. These opponents no doubt feelsad for the victims of shootings. But they seem less likely to fear shooters. Or if theydo fear the idea of shooters, it is only because they fear facing shooters unarmed.

Two strategies stand out here. The first is the mention of “free people” and “freeenterprise,” meant to imply Ryan’s (virtuous) commitment to preserving freedomthrough economics. Ryan was by this time well known for his interest in tax policy,and one effect of his words here is to frame taxation as more than an issue of mereeconomics. Tax reform, he suggests, is the basis for freedom. (This is what implic-itly connects the love of freedom by Ryan’s mentor Kemp to Kemp’s enthusiasticlabor in support of tax reform in the 1980s.) Ryan is thus able to communicationthe proposition, “I am the kind of person who will ensure your freedom,” withoutever explicitly saying so. In fact, the more subtle communication of the claim ismore effective than its explicit statement would be.

To your brother-in-law, this is an uncontroversial claim. An attempt to prove theclaim would strike him as odd. He already agrees with your claim, and he is awareof any evidence you could offer to support the claim. If you offered the evidenceanyway, telling him what he already knows, it would possibly annoy him. Or itmight insult him, since telling him something he should already know (given hisline of work) would suggest you think you know his industry better than he does.At best, then, you would seem a bit clumsy, at worst, condescending. It would bealtogether better to stop with the claim.