I cannot believe that the NRA took the stance it has taken since Sandy Hook. It's like a gift to advocates of gun control.
One of the most common characteristics, apparently, of mass shooters, is their habit of blaming everyone else while accepting no responsibility for themselves. This, according to a leading expert on gun violence and mass shooters.
Had the NRA come out and admitted that perhaps its rigidity has, in fact, made it easy for children and other innocents to be fatal victims of gun violence, I might have thought there was hope for working with the NRA. But now, it has made it clear that "reason" is not within the NRA's own vocabulary.
Let's add to this the fact that I have taken the fight to FB where I have now heard rigid gun advocates saying there is a government conspiracy to overthrow the American civilian population, that the English people, press, and government are all liars, and that the issue is about crime, not guns (b/c being the victim of a crime without a gun is so much worse than being shot dead while being the victim of a crime committed by someone with a gun, I guess).
I am committed to researching everything I hear (and I'm good at it). I'm committed to listening to the arguments of those who oppose me and responding with reasonable, substantive arguments that are grounded in evidence. I'll continue to do this.
I have always resisted the characterization of gun lobbyists as "gun toting nuts." But the paranoia I have seen among acquaintances is beginning to make me wonder, as is their inability to be reasonable in the face of evidence with which they do not agree. When I am faced with evidence that contradicts my beliefs, my instinct is to question my beliefs--"Oh, wow, I didn't know that!" Then I take a step back and examine the evidence. Probably the most striking thing I've discovered is how quickly that evidence generally falls apart. I've found "facts" that were drawn selectively from source--where the rest of the facts contradicts what the selective evidence implies. I've found data from old sources that has clearly been addressed by other sources--and yet, that data has not been updated to address its own weaknesses.
I'm looking for someone on the other side to say, "Yes, but. . ." and then to articulate to me their assumptions. I do this all the time--I can concede a point without losing faith that my basic assumptions are still well founded.
I remember a student who used to ask me--when I told them that there was no "right" answer, "So we can just give our opinion, right?" I used to explain that even one's opinion should be grounded in evidence. It was important to me to get students to examine their own assumptions, to get past all the stuff those assumptions lead them to accept and to question the rational basis of the assumptions that they hold.
Here's what I want to know: do you really believe that the price of protecting American freedom is the current level of gun violence? Do you believe it is better that all our children and loved ones--not to mention ourselves--risk dying during a crime committed today, so that the government of this country cannot one day use our "defenselessness" against us?
If so, all I ask is that you examine those assumptions. How realistic is your assumption that an armed civilian population could overthrow a government committed against us? How realistic is your assumption that an unarmed civilian population cannot stand up against its government? Look at the world as it is today for your answers, b/c the evidence from the 18th century does you no good--the world is too different. Draw your conclusion, then explain to me how you arrived at your conclusion--and I will listen with an open mind. I am perfectly willing to be convinced that I am wrong--it's not an uncommon experience for me, after all. I'm perfectly willing to accept that I may arrive at the conclusion you have. But I need you to explain it to me in rational terms, to use evidence that is meaningful--or at the very least, to let me know where you have made a leap of faith. I can honor that, even if I do not agree with that. I can respect you for that, even if I will not defer to you because of it. I do not want to demonize my enemy because that always ends badly for everyone involved. Be my friend, and help me understand.
One of the most common characteristics, apparently, of mass shooters, is their habit of blaming everyone else while accepting no responsibility for themselves. This, according to a leading expert on gun violence and mass shooters.
Had the NRA come out and admitted that perhaps its rigidity has, in fact, made it easy for children and other innocents to be fatal victims of gun violence, I might have thought there was hope for working with the NRA. But now, it has made it clear that "reason" is not within the NRA's own vocabulary.
Let's add to this the fact that I have taken the fight to FB where I have now heard rigid gun advocates saying there is a government conspiracy to overthrow the American civilian population, that the English people, press, and government are all liars, and that the issue is about crime, not guns (b/c being the victim of a crime without a gun is so much worse than being shot dead while being the victim of a crime committed by someone with a gun, I guess).
I am committed to researching everything I hear (and I'm good at it). I'm committed to listening to the arguments of those who oppose me and responding with reasonable, substantive arguments that are grounded in evidence. I'll continue to do this.
I have always resisted the characterization of gun lobbyists as "gun toting nuts." But the paranoia I have seen among acquaintances is beginning to make me wonder, as is their inability to be reasonable in the face of evidence with which they do not agree. When I am faced with evidence that contradicts my beliefs, my instinct is to question my beliefs--"Oh, wow, I didn't know that!" Then I take a step back and examine the evidence. Probably the most striking thing I've discovered is how quickly that evidence generally falls apart. I've found "facts" that were drawn selectively from source--where the rest of the facts contradicts what the selective evidence implies. I've found data from old sources that has clearly been addressed by other sources--and yet, that data has not been updated to address its own weaknesses.
I'm looking for someone on the other side to say, "Yes, but. . ." and then to articulate to me their assumptions. I do this all the time--I can concede a point without losing faith that my basic assumptions are still well founded.
I remember a student who used to ask me--when I told them that there was no "right" answer, "So we can just give our opinion, right?" I used to explain that even one's opinion should be grounded in evidence. It was important to me to get students to examine their own assumptions, to get past all the stuff those assumptions lead them to accept and to question the rational basis of the assumptions that they hold.
Here's what I want to know: do you really believe that the price of protecting American freedom is the current level of gun violence? Do you believe it is better that all our children and loved ones--not to mention ourselves--risk dying during a crime committed today, so that the government of this country cannot one day use our "defenselessness" against us?
If so, all I ask is that you examine those assumptions. How realistic is your assumption that an armed civilian population could overthrow a government committed against us? How realistic is your assumption that an unarmed civilian population cannot stand up against its government? Look at the world as it is today for your answers, b/c the evidence from the 18th century does you no good--the world is too different. Draw your conclusion, then explain to me how you arrived at your conclusion--and I will listen with an open mind. I am perfectly willing to be convinced that I am wrong--it's not an uncommon experience for me, after all. I'm perfectly willing to accept that I may arrive at the conclusion you have. But I need you to explain it to me in rational terms, to use evidence that is meaningful--or at the very least, to let me know where you have made a leap of faith. I can honor that, even if I do not agree with that. I can respect you for that, even if I will not defer to you because of it. I do not want to demonize my enemy because that always ends badly for everyone involved. Be my friend, and help me understand.
No comments:
Post a Comment