RSS Feeds
Opinion: Why can't we talk about guns?
In the wake of the Newtown, Connecticut shooting, Main Line Media asked, using its Twitter and
Facebook accounts, “Newtown Ct school shooting revives gun control debate.”
We also asked, “Is it time to talk about gun control in the U.S.?”
What I heard back wasn’t very surprising.
“What a terrible headline. How about focusing on the tragedy & saving your politics for another day.”
Others were angry that we even brought up the subject of gun control on the day of the shooting. Again, on the day of a shooting, one person commented that it was wrong to talk about how we could find ways to stop these shootings from occurring.
“Not today,” one reader tweeted.
“I don't think we should even be discussing it at this time,” another said.
My general response, “Why not?”
“Today is about the children,” that reader responded.
“Agreed.” I said, “Let's talk about how better gun control could protect our children.”
I’m no expert on gun control. I don’t think guns need to be wiped from the face of the earth but I also don’t think we should sit on our hands, as one reader suggested during the Twitter conversation.
Don’t we talk about nuclear disarmament when news breaks about Iran developing the potential to build a nuclear weapon? In 2007, when the I-35 W. Mississippi River bridge collapsed during rush hour, didn’t we talk about bridge regulation reform?
Why are guns any different? Let’s have a discussion. If you’re worried about a world without guns, tell me why. If you think there is a middle ground, tell me where it is. Should certain guns be available with a license? Which shouldn’t?
To be clear, I am not for or against guns, but I am 100 percent behind having a discussion so that we can figure out how to put an end to these shootings. Post a comment and let’s begin to figure it out.
Facebook accounts, “Newtown Ct school shooting revives gun control debate.”
We also asked, “Is it time to talk about gun control in the U.S.?”
What I heard back wasn’t very surprising.
“What a terrible headline. How about focusing on the tragedy & saving your politics for another day.”
Others were angry that we even brought up the subject of gun control on the day of the shooting. Again, on the day of a shooting, one person commented that it was wrong to talk about how we could find ways to stop these shootings from occurring.
“Not today,” one reader tweeted.
“I don't think we should even be discussing it at this time,” another said.
My general response, “Why not?”
“Today is about the children,” that reader responded.
“Agreed.” I said, “Let's talk about how better gun control could protect our children.”
I’m no expert on gun control. I don’t think guns need to be wiped from the face of the earth but I also don’t think we should sit on our hands, as one reader suggested during the Twitter conversation.
Don’t we talk about nuclear disarmament when news breaks about Iran developing the potential to build a nuclear weapon? In 2007, when the I-35 W. Mississippi River bridge collapsed during rush hour, didn’t we talk about bridge regulation reform?
Why are guns any different? Let’s have a discussion. If you’re worried about a world without guns, tell me why. If you think there is a middle ground, tell me where it is. Should certain guns be available with a license? Which shouldn’t?
To be clear, I am not for or against guns, but I am 100 percent behind having a discussion so that we can figure out how to put an end to these shootings. Post a comment and let’s begin to figure it out.
posted by Andy Stettler at
12:50 PM
2 Comments:
Something needs to change. The status quo right now is unacceptable.
Andy I think the reason is twofold. First is the honest desire to not react in way that is guttural and lack forward thinking. The second is that people don't like to speak about uncomfortable or confrontational issues, if they believe there is no impasse.
We do not talk of gun control or gun laws because it is not “nice” and leads to people becoming angry. We live in a country where you can express yourself freely (within reason) and when guns are discussed, opposing views are seen as a personal attack. Now I do not own a gun. I may never own a gun, but I do not believe it is my right to tell others they may not. I do believe it is my right though that we can restrict those who can get a gun legally and hand out consequences for those who choose to operate outside these laws. As we evolve, the way to kill has evolved, but anger has not. It is still there always below the surface, primal, and always brewing.
If you talk about gun control that gets spun every which way, but as a basic conversation. You want to take our guns away or you want to leave us defenseless. You hate freedom. You are unpatriotic or you are blind to the threats out there.
If you talk of 2nd amendment rights, you are a wacko gun freak. You want to own a gun capable of killing everything in your way. You fear the unknown and put us all in danger.
There are so many parts to this:
Economic, costs of more police, prisons, how to deal with it. Is it death if you fit parameters and then we can’t put people to death?
Society, you all carry guns and everyone will act correctly or if everyone carries guns it lead to more violence.
Political, if I support the wrong one, I am out of work next election.
Cultural, we are either a country of gun toting cowboys or pacifists who are an easy mark. Not just a mix of people who have different views.
Right now, this is a hot issue, but if people took action with expiration dates to force reexamination, could we implement small changes? Could we find a middle ground where maybe you don’t carry 50 rounds in a magazine and you need to be educated properly on how to store and care for fire arms?
In 50 years, do we want to look back on this as a time when we stood up? Tried middle ground and were made better by it or as a missed opportunity? Seems we have been asking that question a lot recently and it seems we need leaders to stand up and lead the way!
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home