From Professor Yamane at Light Over Heat, we get some details on an effort to bridge a divide on guns. What Happened When Guns Rights and Gun Violence Prevention Advocates Spent 80 Hours Talking to Each Other?
I believe that getting beyond the firearms ownership VERSUS public safety false dichotomy can be facilitated by having civil conversations about guns with those with whom we disagree.
I take these opportunities whenever possible, from the Vail Symposium to the California Rifle and Pistol Association and many others.
Now this is good, and I hope it works. I have my doubts, but let's have the grace to let Professor Yamane have his say.
The most ambitious of these opportunities came in the fall of 2024, when Dr. Michael Siegel from Tufts University made me an offer I couldn't refuse: to engage in an extended deliberative dialogue with a diverse group of stakeholders representing a truly broad range of perspectives on firearms in America.
The group's name is “Bridging the Divide on Firearm Policy,” but in my mind, we were actually bridging the divide between gun rights and public safety. We were engaging in simultaneous proponency by overcoming the idea that the two are somehow fundamentally incompatible, by getting beyond the notion that we can only advance one at the expense of the other.
Click thru for the details.
My doubts are mostly encapsulated in this post: Liberals Distressed That Things Are Not What They Hoped
In Yamane's post that I am responding to, he quotes Ross Douthat, a "Conservative" that writes for the NY Times, asking the following question.
How do you love your country when it’s governed by a man you hate?
No Conservative who conscious when Biden was President would ask that question.
My concern is that his conversation "across differences" to bridge the divide, is really the divide between liberals who hate guns and gun owners, and the membership of The Liberal Gun Club.
I have not read the entire paper; it is 60 pages. What I have is more reasoned than I feared. So, at this point I have concerns, and not objections.
Of course nothing will come of this in terms of laws enacted, or policies adopted. It is an interesting exercise, but it will not satisfy the people on the Left who hate all gun owners, think all gun owners are criminals at heart, and want to magically wipe firearms from existence. (The powers-that-be in Brazil are struggling with that.)
But then the Professor says that it is about the journey and not the destination. If we can start talking to one another, then maybe, someday, we will come to some agreement. I am more cynical than that.