Ever since the tragic shooting spree at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut last month, the gun control debate has run rampant in this country. Even in the world of Facebook, I can't tell you how many such debates have transpired just among my "friends" over the past few weeks.
While I am a gun control advocate, I try as hard as I can to listen to the NRA-esque crowd. Just today, I read through many comments from die-hard guns rights activists, just so I could try to understand their perspective better.
After reading those comments, and upon looking back at similar comments I've seen in those before-mentioned Facebook debates, I've started to notice what appears to be a trend, and may be a big reason why many gun control proponents and opponents have a hard time understanding one another and coming to a decent compromise.
In the comments I read earlier, I can't tell you how many times I read these far-right gun rights activists refer to gun control advocates as "the antis." I read that term over and over again - "the antis." This was quite reminiscent of what I've read in several debates I've either observed or taken part in since the Sandy Hook shootings.
It seems that in their mind (NRA-types), if a person is pro-gun control, he or she is anti-gun/gun rights. It's all or nothing. A person is either pro-gun through and through, or they're not. There's no middle ground. This, of course, is an irrational way of thinking, as it's a classic case of the informal fallacy known as the false dilemma, where a person gives two possible options when there are actually more options from which to choose. Just because a person may be in favor of some gun control legislation, doesn't mean he or she is anti-gun.
If a person is a responsible, mentally-stable, law-abiding citizen, I highly doubt even the most die-hard gun control advocates would have much problem with him/her purchasing a firearm, outside of the possibility of said firearm being an assault rifle. However, as showcased in a recent Pew poll, a majority of people in this country favor certain gun control measures - background checks for one. Because I believe in mandatory background checks, does that then make me anti-gun/gun rights? If so, why? I don't consider myself to be anti-car/driver, but feel a person should be required to pass a visual, written, and driver's test before being able to legally purchase/receive a license. Because I believe this, does that make me anti-car or anti-driver?
I would love for the country to have a civilized debate about this, as well as Congress, so we can reach some kind of middle agreement on the matter - where, we might consider and pass some stricter gun laws, yet not so many that responsible, mentally-stable, law-abiding citizens' rights are diminished at all. However, I'm finding this to be extremely difficult, because while a minority of these NRA-types seem willing to step forward and meet gun control advocates halfway, at least in regard to some measures, a majority are not. It's very difficult to converse and compromise with a person who, before the discussion has even started, has decided he/she won't compromise.
While I respect President Obama's opinion that the gun control advocate crowd needs to listen to the NRA crowd more carefully, and come to a more respectful understanding of those whom use their firearms for hunting purposes, I believe the NRA crowd needs to listen a bit more to the gun control side as well, and realize we're not anti-gun. We're not anti-gun rights. We simply want to lessen the risk and chance of an individual being a victim to gun violence and are willing to look at almost any possible measure which could decrease that chance. What are those possible measures? That's what should be discussed, but in attendance there will need to be people on both sides of the aisle with open ears.
While I am a gun control advocate, I try as hard as I can to listen to the NRA-esque crowd. Just today, I read through many comments from die-hard guns rights activists, just so I could try to understand their perspective better.
After reading those comments, and upon looking back at similar comments I've seen in those before-mentioned Facebook debates, I've started to notice what appears to be a trend, and may be a big reason why many gun control proponents and opponents have a hard time understanding one another and coming to a decent compromise.
In the comments I read earlier, I can't tell you how many times I read these far-right gun rights activists refer to gun control advocates as "the antis." I read that term over and over again - "the antis." This was quite reminiscent of what I've read in several debates I've either observed or taken part in since the Sandy Hook shootings.
It seems that in their mind (NRA-types), if a person is pro-gun control, he or she is anti-gun/gun rights. It's all or nothing. A person is either pro-gun through and through, or they're not. There's no middle ground. This, of course, is an irrational way of thinking, as it's a classic case of the informal fallacy known as the false dilemma, where a person gives two possible options when there are actually more options from which to choose. Just because a person may be in favor of some gun control legislation, doesn't mean he or she is anti-gun.
If a person is a responsible, mentally-stable, law-abiding citizen, I highly doubt even the most die-hard gun control advocates would have much problem with him/her purchasing a firearm, outside of the possibility of said firearm being an assault rifle. However, as showcased in a recent Pew poll, a majority of people in this country favor certain gun control measures - background checks for one. Because I believe in mandatory background checks, does that then make me anti-gun/gun rights? If so, why? I don't consider myself to be anti-car/driver, but feel a person should be required to pass a visual, written, and driver's test before being able to legally purchase/receive a license. Because I believe this, does that make me anti-car or anti-driver?
I would love for the country to have a civilized debate about this, as well as Congress, so we can reach some kind of middle agreement on the matter - where, we might consider and pass some stricter gun laws, yet not so many that responsible, mentally-stable, law-abiding citizens' rights are diminished at all. However, I'm finding this to be extremely difficult, because while a minority of these NRA-types seem willing to step forward and meet gun control advocates halfway, at least in regard to some measures, a majority are not. It's very difficult to converse and compromise with a person who, before the discussion has even started, has decided he/she won't compromise.
While I respect President Obama's opinion that the gun control advocate crowd needs to listen to the NRA crowd more carefully, and come to a more respectful understanding of those whom use their firearms for hunting purposes, I believe the NRA crowd needs to listen a bit more to the gun control side as well, and realize we're not anti-gun. We're not anti-gun rights. We simply want to lessen the risk and chance of an individual being a victim to gun violence and are willing to look at almost any possible measure which could decrease that chance. What are those possible measures? That's what should be discussed, but in attendance there will need to be people on both sides of the aisle with open ears.
Comments
Post a Comment