Both scholars agreed that the actual impact of any realistically achievable gun control policy would not have the sweeping effect on reducing gun violence that most would be hoping for. However, while Tushnet saw this as one reason to not waste effort on the issue, Cornell maintained that reframing expectations about the impact of gun control policy could be part of developing a credible, progressive argument in favor of regulations.
“Credible”? Notice it not a “rational” or “persuasive” or “convincing” argument. It’s a “credible” argument. In other words it doesn’t matter if an improvement in crime rates can be measured. It’s a good thing merely because regulation is what “progressives” do and they should feel good about doing it. “Progressives” regulate–it’s in their nature. This is what I do–it’s my nature and my arguments can be “forceful”. Perhaps Mr. Cornell should further “reframe his expectations”.