When it comes to guns, what can we all agree on?
You may think this a fool’s question, especially if you’ve spent any time with the media (print, broadcast, social, or otherwise) in the past 48 hours. We have relived, yet again, a pattern that is not only tragic but disheartening. A horrific shooting takes place. Law enforcement tries to parse out exactly what happened. In the meantime, partisans on both ends of the gun debate begin to broadcast—loudly, in take-no-prisoners language—their well-worn arguments.
Many of us stay off Facebook for a few days.
Back in 2012, after the movie theater shooting in Aurora, Colorado, we ran a little experiment about the gun issue in this space as well as on Facebook. I asked people to respond to some honest, open questions in order to explore and express their own beliefs about guns. (If you weren’t part of the original conversation, take a look at the questions and see how you’d answer them.)
The stories we shared and heard were remarkable. One person wrote about the relatives she has lost to gun violence. Another spoke in almost spiritual terms about the joy of hunting.
Oddly, we came close to agreement on a couple of things. Background checks were good. Waiting periods were good. Best of all, we left the clichés behind and actually started to talk with one another.
Today, in the wake of what happened in San Bernardino, I want to try another little experiment. Let’s see if we can lay out a few things on which we all agree. It’s not as foolish as it looks; it just means we have to go back to basics. Waaaay back. Can we, for instance, agree to the following:
- These shootings are horrible. Obvious? Of course. But stay with it awhile. Allow yourself to feel that sense of horror and sadness that comes with each news flash. Then, when you’ve done that, know this: the person on the other side of the gun debate feels it too.
- We should keep weapons away from people who plan to use them in mass shootings. This makes yesterday’s Senate votes nearly incomprehensible. Whatever the reason for those votes, however, is this statement as self-evident as I think it is?
- It can be difficult—sometimes impossible—to tell a future mass shooter from anyone else. Taken together, these folks do what they do from a dizzying array of motives. Workplace dissatisfaction. Mental illness. A deep sense of exclusion from society’s benefits. Terrorism. No one-size-fits-all solution will fit all.
- It takes time to figure out what happened. How often, after a tragedy like the shooting in San Bernardino, do we hear a police chief answer questions with “that is still under investigation� It can take days, even weeks, to nail down the whats and whys. That makes jumping to conclusions—and, more important, acting on those conclusions—perilous.
What do you think? Can we agree on all these?
If we can, several good things can happen. Our common reactions to the horror can foster empathy: they remind us that our adversaries are, first and foremost, human. Common ground inspires hope that maybe we can work together to find more common ground—or at least places where we can compromise. If people in power take these steps, they might just find enough space to collaborate on solutions and take action.
And action to prevent another shooting is what we so desperately need. I’m betting we can all agree on that.
My comments come as one who has been a gun owner for 35 years. I believe that we need a federally mandated system to license gun owners that is handled by the individual states. There is too much inconsistency between the states. It is too easy in some parts of this country to purchase a gun. That being said, it is impossible to prevent these incidents from occurring. We will never be able to prevent the “wrong” people from accessing guns. If we make it easy they will obtain them legally, if we make it difficult they will obtain them illegally. Even if we became a gun free society those that wish to do harm will obtain the weapons necessary to achieve their goals. How do we regulate when the secrets of a persons intentions cannot be known until it is too late.
Bob, this is part of the conclusion that I’m starting to come to as well: maybe the best we can do is reduce the number of mass shootings. And now I’m wondering to what extent we can even do that. The more I hear on this issue, the more I think that addressing it effectively would involve rethinking our society on a massive and very deep level–for instance, confronting our American propensity to violence, the way our rugged individualism has eroded the very community that might deter some people from taking such desperate action, etc. In other words, truly drastic reductions in these incidents may require reshaping our society, and I don’t know that any society can do that. Certainly not in a year, or ten years.
Agree to your points John – and also Bob’s. Licensing – as in medical qualification, training and certification. Required renewals at regular intervals. Insurance required. Stiff penalties for license violations. Basically, driver’s licensing is a model. Also required though – implementation cannot flirt with the idea that there is no right to own a gun, talking about “it was just supposed to be about militias”, etc. Any incipient movement incorporating that thinking or trying to frame it that way will be DOA. Will make the initiators feel good about themselves but accomplish nothing. We’ve been down that path. I also am thinking this is going to take a Nixon goes to China pivot by a major GOP figure with solid 2nd Amendment cred to “betray” the base and LEAD on this issue. They will not like it so this will require an act of political courage, aka statesmanship. We barely remember what that looks like in our politics but I sincerely hope we as a society can find our way back to that.
Great thought, Ron, on the Nixon-to-China need. As for licensing, one question is nagging at me: who would serve as licensing authority? If the federal government, wouldn’t that directly violate the intent of the Second Amendment? Would it make a difference if the licensing authority were state or local government? I know nothing about the specific arguments and conditions that led to the Second Amendment, so perhaps the answer lies there.
(On a side note, this whole dialogue business can bring you to funny places. I have less than zero interest in owning a gun and always drifted toward the gun-control side of the debate. Now here I am defending the Second Amendment. Cracks me right up.)
Ha! I’m the opposite – never had the slightest interest in owning a gun, and in fact have never even fired one. But I have leaned to understanding that people who strongly feel they have the right fear a slippery-slope when it comes to gun control, and not without justification. When real strong gun control advocates are honest, they admit that is EXACTLY what they want to do…ultimate goal is confiscation and elimination of guns. There are “gun-nets” who will brook no reasonable boundaries/regulations, but I think with sincere confidence-building efforts, a consensus for something like what we are talking about could emerge. As far as federal v state/local licensing – similar regime to automotive licensing, I think. And there are ways…which should be used judiciously but this would qualify…that the federal government can strongly influence local implementations (block grants, Interstate Commerce Clause, etc.).