Gun Rights and Wrongs
I've just read a fascinating article by Adam Winkler about the history of guns in this country, called The Secret History of Guns. I don't think it takes any sides in the Bugs Bunny vs. Elmer Fudd debate that's been raging (at least within my group of friends), but it taught me a couple of things.
The first thing I've realized is that politically I belong with Bugs Bunny but I've been behaving like Elmer Fudd. When you get stuck in positions, you tend to lose sight of the interests that drive people (including your own). It's a form of fundamentalism and I'm no different than a Constitution-thumper.
It was an uncomfortable article to read because I realized that I could have ended up on either side of the debate, depending on the place and time, even with my current belief system. Since I'm emotionally drawn to the non-violent aspects of Gandhi and King, this is an odd position for me to be in.
I'm still not completely convinced of the need for guns; but I'm also uncomfortable about chainsaws and cocaine. I've come to believe that legalization, participation and education are the only way to bring about temperance and good judgement. The gun rights debate is really just a symptom of a social malaise, as it has always been. The current situation creates too many extremes and can only result in poor outcomes.
More permissive gun laws won't increase the number of idiots in the world and in the short-term it wouldn't make things worse. If you want to solve that problem you should ban child safety locks on cars so that all the stupid kids can jump out of moving cars, long before they start massacring their classmates.
In the long term, though, it might make things better, by recognizing that guns aren't the problem. As far as I can tell there are really two reasons to buy a gun - sportsmanship and self-defence.
The first is an innocent enough reason and comes with a certain level of well-understood and generally accepted risk. The second is the one that fires up passions on both sides of the argument. I don't think that attacking their emotional need is likely to improve the outlook of a person that is afraid of being attacked. Creating a caring, safe and accepting community is going to do more for that person than haranguing him from a pulpit.
The problem, of course, is that the people that are doing the haranguing feel threatened by gun owners. So all you have is a lot of anxious people preaching and shouting at each other. We've managed to turn anxiety into an argument over fundamental rights.
I think what this debate needs is more Agile Coaches.
The first thing I've realized is that politically I belong with Bugs Bunny but I've been behaving like Elmer Fudd. When you get stuck in positions, you tend to lose sight of the interests that drive people (including your own). It's a form of fundamentalism and I'm no different than a Constitution-thumper.
It was an uncomfortable article to read because I realized that I could have ended up on either side of the debate, depending on the place and time, even with my current belief system. Since I'm emotionally drawn to the non-violent aspects of Gandhi and King, this is an odd position for me to be in.
I'm still not completely convinced of the need for guns; but I'm also uncomfortable about chainsaws and cocaine. I've come to believe that legalization, participation and education are the only way to bring about temperance and good judgement. The gun rights debate is really just a symptom of a social malaise, as it has always been. The current situation creates too many extremes and can only result in poor outcomes.
More permissive gun laws won't increase the number of idiots in the world and in the short-term it wouldn't make things worse. If you want to solve that problem you should ban child safety locks on cars so that all the stupid kids can jump out of moving cars, long before they start massacring their classmates.
In the long term, though, it might make things better, by recognizing that guns aren't the problem. As far as I can tell there are really two reasons to buy a gun - sportsmanship and self-defence.
The first is an innocent enough reason and comes with a certain level of well-understood and generally accepted risk. The second is the one that fires up passions on both sides of the argument. I don't think that attacking their emotional need is likely to improve the outlook of a person that is afraid of being attacked. Creating a caring, safe and accepting community is going to do more for that person than haranguing him from a pulpit.
The problem, of course, is that the people that are doing the haranguing feel threatened by gun owners. So all you have is a lot of anxious people preaching and shouting at each other. We've managed to turn anxiety into an argument over fundamental rights.
I think what this debate needs is more Agile Coaches.
Comments