My opinion on government gun policy is starting to shift. That shift fills me with dreadâ€”and the reason, I think, may say a lot about why dialogue is such a hard sell.
Letâ€™s start with my own biases. Temperamentally, I am as close to pacifist as you can get without actually being pacifist. Guns hold no appeal for me whatever (beyond the curiosity I have about pretty much everything). I grew up on Bambi. For most of my life, then, my thoughts on gun control were pretty much a default on the pro side.
But recent events have nudged me into more reflection. My experiments with gun dialogue (last month and in 2012) put me in contact with gun owners and their stories about why they value their guns, the enjoyment of pursuits associated with guns, the security they feel in owning a gun and knowing how to use it. Moreover, after pondering the Second Amendment, I can see how the standard gun ownerâ€™s interpretation may have some merit.
Bottom line: I can still support commonsense measures like background checks and waiting periods. But now, whenever cries to reduce gun ownership permeate the public square, I canâ€™t quite join inâ€”as much as my Bambi instinct still wants me to.
But this post is not about guns. Itâ€™s about why the shift scares me.
There are several reasons, but one towers above them all: some of the most important people in my social networkâ€”dear friends, immediate relatives, colleagues who might influence the course of my careerâ€”are vociferously anti-gun. I can think of a family member whose wisdom and love I would not do withoutâ€¦a colleague whose family has suffered several murders due to gun violenceâ€¦a Catholic writer who shares many of my sensibilities but whose wrath grows with each mass shooting.
Will they abandon me now that Iâ€™m expressing a different opinion, even if just slightly different?
You might argue that itâ€™s unlikely, and youâ€™d probably be right. But in our current culture, friends and colleagues do part ways over disagreements like this. Consider the â€œharmoniousâ€ traditional family that fractures when a daughter comes out as gay, or good neighbors who find themselves on opposing sides when a casino comes to town. The notion that â€œif they abandon you over this, they werenâ€™t real friends (or colleagues, or loved ones) anywayâ€ is far too simplistic.
Now consider that I feel this dread strongly enough to hold my tongue around certain peopleâ€”and Iâ€™m a dialogue person. How can I expect folks who are unfamiliar with dialogue to enter in when the risk is so high: when they might lose not only their basic convictions, but even their friends? How can those of us who care deeply about dialogue demonstrate that, in fact, the reward is worth the risk?