Continuing my focus on the gun violence discussion, I submitted a story that was published in Sunday's Star Tribune.
It echoes the ideas I shared in my last update—that today's proposed gun laws wouldn't have made much of a difference in the tragedy that sparked them. Thus, the immediate focus on guns as the culprit misses the bigger picture at the root of these episodes and isn't even very helpful in our desire for a safer society. The root lies in the breakdowns within our society.
The reaction to this article was mixed, naturally, in ways you'd expect on this polarized issue.
But there was one noteworthy outlier: An email from a local leader of a gun violence prevention group. She reached out after reading my story, wanting to discuss the ideas presented as well as others we might bring up in conversation.
We met for coffee Thursday.
Given our common desires of a safer society, I shared with her to try and reduce the stereotype of groups such as hers being “gun grabbers.” She actually tried dispelling that early on, saying they believe in gun rights for hunting, self-defense, and (I assume) other recreation. I replied, though, that that’s not enough—that they should spell that out on their website—if getting gun rights folks to soften up a little is the goal. And I think it should be because some agreement is needed or we’re just at a continual stalemate. Concessions are unpopular these days with sides being so adversarial and far apart, but I also suggested for her to recognize that any additional gun control will reduce effectiveness of some extreme self-defense scenarios.
I added that I believe gun rights folks could make concessions, as well, if spoken to plainly about the trade-offs of reducing a villain's ability to fire off 100 rounds in a school. I think gun folks could live with a magazine size restriction and perhaps a cosmetic one as well, given the desire to see such “assault weapons” prohibited.
From my conversations and current understanding of the issue, these two regulations could pass. But also, as my article stated, I don't think they are going to help much—thus my criticism of the focus on guns in the first place. Pistols and self-inflicted gun shots comprise the vast majority of gun violence. And, unless activists are then going to try to take away pistols, hunting rifles, and shotguns—something gun rights folks suspect, reducing their desire to give an inch—the inevitable reality gun control activists (and all of us) will face is the ugly one before us: We live in an increasingly disordered era.
Rebuilding some order and hope is how we reduce violence (gun or otherwise), and this probably doesn’t begin to be resolved at the Capitol. It happens with each of us, in our families and communities.
She and I talked for a while, she sharing her passion to see her children grow up in a safer society and how this sparked her journey to becoming this local leader. She sounds like a great mom and seemed like a good person. I just repeat the need to look far beyond the guns to see this safer society come to light.
I hope to continue to write these stories, which are opening the door to these meaningful conversations. I don't know where it's all headed, but we're on the right track.
If you have any questions or thoughts, please share them here or email me at brandon@theperiphery.com. I'd love to hear from you.
-Brandon