The Gun Debate Deadlock
The gun control debate has reached a new level of deadlock recently, and it's certainly been in the spotlight with two more major mass shootings in the last 35 days. Rather than just repeating the same mantras over and over again in a "thoughts and prayers" vs "policy and change" war of useless words, I am trying to understand the deeper thoughts behind the stances of Side A and Side B.
Side A typically stands for the status quo; they view change skeptically and think that less is more when it comes to regulations. Side B views change as necessary to create a supportive society and views staying the same as stagnancy.
I think one major factor of Side A's stance is the fear of erosion. It is the reason the feel the need to dig in their heels. Like the old saying goes, "give and inch and they take a mile;" they fear that losing one "freedom" would be a slippery slope to losing them all. I don't actually think many of Side A's constituents have a compelling argument for why a person should need the ability to shoot hundreds of rounds in a matter of minutes. I am not a hunter but I don't think that's how you do it. It's the idea that first it would be this particular rifle, then someone would kill people with a different gun and it would be the new target. And that fear is echoed in the media after each tragedy, with calls for different regulations based on the circumstances.
For Side B, they are endlessly frustrated by the fact that, given no good argument for being able to shoot hundreds of rounds, people still cannot agree that this should be banned. It is a public safety issue, is the argument, and the government's job is to protect public safety. When a weapon has no legitimate purpose outside of military activity, and is being used in hostile ways against civilians, over and over again, why would we not outlaw it? It is difficult for Side B to understand how the endless killing of innocent people is "worth it" to have access to all the guns a person would want.
For Side B, limiting access to certain types of weapons is necessary; it is common sense. For Side A, this is too easy of a solution, and won't be effective because there are still so many weapons out there.
Another factor for Side A, often heard as "bad guys would kill no matter what," is actually a deeper issue for many, which is a perceived lack of overall morality in society. Similar to the erosion fear above, Side A feels like society's high standards have eroded and anything goes nowadays. Many Side A supporters point to religion as an answer to society's problems, because they view a lack of sound morals which has led to a host of "problems," and view religion as a solution to those.
For Side B, these aren't "problems" but are simply a society allowing people to be who they want to be. This support of all people has encouraged a lot of progressive agendas surrounding anything from LGBTQ issues to women's rights. Side B would say that the lack of morality exists in not supporting the freedoms of individuals living outside of societal norms. As the right to bear arms is considered a freedom, so is the right to many other facets of our society.
Both sides think there are problems, but the ways fix it are opposite. Side B would argue for public policy, social programs and other expanded compassions for different groups of people. Side A would argue for stronger self-reliance. That personal accountability would require people to find a moral compass and act accordingly.
These differences lead directly to different opinions on mental health. No doubt people who commit mass killings are psychopaths, but from a clinical perspective, they often wouldn't be diagnosed that way. Both sides agree that mental illness is real, but Side A believes that individuals must take a more active role in finding a solution, versus sweeping programs to "coddle" generations of anxious people. Side B argues that mental health is a public health crisis, with generations of children lacking coping skills to adequately deal with adult life. Without intervention, society will find themselves in deep trouble.
I agree with both sides. I, personally, don't see a need for assault rifles, but I do think it would lead to a slippery slope of banning all sorts of weapons each time one came into the spotlight. There are so many guns already out there, I do think it's a logistical problem to enforce these laws as well. That being said, I do think taking some guns off the street would probably inevitably lessen gun violence. I support freedom for people to do what they want, which includes both allowing access to guns but also freedom in social issues as well. I think the issue of gun violence is clearly under researched and knowing more would allow for a more comprehensive solution versus a bunch of laws that don't work. I am a proponent of personal responsibility and feel this has been lost somewhat in society as a whole. What I don't believe is that mass shootings every single month in this country is something we have to just deal with and there is nothing that can be done. That is just apathy at best.
This is why there is no simple answer to the problems we have today, and unfortunately it seems like each side is more and more committed to their own views. We are not creating a climate for people to ask questions, brainstorm solutions or come together in anyway. This divisiveness is the most detrimental side effect of it all.
How do we start a conversation without defensiveness in a genuine search for answers that can benefit us all?
Thoughts of the day....
Side A typically stands for the status quo; they view change skeptically and think that less is more when it comes to regulations. Side B views change as necessary to create a supportive society and views staying the same as stagnancy.
I think one major factor of Side A's stance is the fear of erosion. It is the reason the feel the need to dig in their heels. Like the old saying goes, "give and inch and they take a mile;" they fear that losing one "freedom" would be a slippery slope to losing them all. I don't actually think many of Side A's constituents have a compelling argument for why a person should need the ability to shoot hundreds of rounds in a matter of minutes. I am not a hunter but I don't think that's how you do it. It's the idea that first it would be this particular rifle, then someone would kill people with a different gun and it would be the new target. And that fear is echoed in the media after each tragedy, with calls for different regulations based on the circumstances.
For Side B, they are endlessly frustrated by the fact that, given no good argument for being able to shoot hundreds of rounds, people still cannot agree that this should be banned. It is a public safety issue, is the argument, and the government's job is to protect public safety. When a weapon has no legitimate purpose outside of military activity, and is being used in hostile ways against civilians, over and over again, why would we not outlaw it? It is difficult for Side B to understand how the endless killing of innocent people is "worth it" to have access to all the guns a person would want.
For Side B, limiting access to certain types of weapons is necessary; it is common sense. For Side A, this is too easy of a solution, and won't be effective because there are still so many weapons out there.
Another factor for Side A, often heard as "bad guys would kill no matter what," is actually a deeper issue for many, which is a perceived lack of overall morality in society. Similar to the erosion fear above, Side A feels like society's high standards have eroded and anything goes nowadays. Many Side A supporters point to religion as an answer to society's problems, because they view a lack of sound morals which has led to a host of "problems," and view religion as a solution to those.
For Side B, these aren't "problems" but are simply a society allowing people to be who they want to be. This support of all people has encouraged a lot of progressive agendas surrounding anything from LGBTQ issues to women's rights. Side B would say that the lack of morality exists in not supporting the freedoms of individuals living outside of societal norms. As the right to bear arms is considered a freedom, so is the right to many other facets of our society.
Both sides think there are problems, but the ways fix it are opposite. Side B would argue for public policy, social programs and other expanded compassions for different groups of people. Side A would argue for stronger self-reliance. That personal accountability would require people to find a moral compass and act accordingly.
These differences lead directly to different opinions on mental health. No doubt people who commit mass killings are psychopaths, but from a clinical perspective, they often wouldn't be diagnosed that way. Both sides agree that mental illness is real, but Side A believes that individuals must take a more active role in finding a solution, versus sweeping programs to "coddle" generations of anxious people. Side B argues that mental health is a public health crisis, with generations of children lacking coping skills to adequately deal with adult life. Without intervention, society will find themselves in deep trouble.
I agree with both sides. I, personally, don't see a need for assault rifles, but I do think it would lead to a slippery slope of banning all sorts of weapons each time one came into the spotlight. There are so many guns already out there, I do think it's a logistical problem to enforce these laws as well. That being said, I do think taking some guns off the street would probably inevitably lessen gun violence. I support freedom for people to do what they want, which includes both allowing access to guns but also freedom in social issues as well. I think the issue of gun violence is clearly under researched and knowing more would allow for a more comprehensive solution versus a bunch of laws that don't work. I am a proponent of personal responsibility and feel this has been lost somewhat in society as a whole. What I don't believe is that mass shootings every single month in this country is something we have to just deal with and there is nothing that can be done. That is just apathy at best.
This is why there is no simple answer to the problems we have today, and unfortunately it seems like each side is more and more committed to their own views. We are not creating a climate for people to ask questions, brainstorm solutions or come together in anyway. This divisiveness is the most detrimental side effect of it all.
How do we start a conversation without defensiveness in a genuine search for answers that can benefit us all?
Thoughts of the day....
Comments
Post a Comment