[Sigaba]

I think that the response to calls for more gun control should:

1. reflect an understanding that some Americans will continue to seek single solutions (gun control) for complex problems (violence in America),
2. accept the fact that those who are disposed to wanting single solutions are not going to be swayed by carefully complied evidence and articulate counterpoints,
3. accept that it is an issue that reflects longer ongoing clashes among competing versions of the way things should be in America.

I think that the response to calls for more gun control should not:

1. Engage in the broader debate outlined in C. MOO, this debate will remain a feature of American civilization for the foreseeable future. The current political environment needs significant rehabilitation before this debate can generate more solutions than chaos.
2. Center around historical analogies that paint gun control advocates as members of controversial groups.
3. Turn the conversation into a contest of identity politics.
4. Use lines of argument that focus on single points of failure. Pointing out intellectual inconsistencies in a line of argument is one thing, using that inconsistency to label people as hypocrites or degenerates risks alienating both opponents and allies in this debate.

By avoiding the above listed approaches, opponents of gun control can:

1. avoid making a highly controversial discussion toxic,
2. not otherwise alienate those who are on the fence and/or more amenable to reasoned discourse,
3. avoid painting the opposition into a corner.

These three points reflect my own view that the blue print for political discourse in America remains Federalist no. 10. As important as any single issue may be, as much as that issue may epitomize a broader debate, I think Americans should be mindful of the consequences when the tone of debate over an issue makes compromising on other issues impossible.

Moreover, I believe that supporters of gun control want the debate to fall into the pattern outlined in points 1 through 4. They are seeking:

• to paint themselves as the "rational" party in the conversation,
• to appeal to the "reason" of Americans who are making up their own minds, and
• to demonize as "unreasonable" and "irrational" those who oppose gun control.

Specifically, I would prefer a response that does the following:

• Largely bypasses the unsustainable argument that more gun control will, on its own, end violence in America. While I understand that many find the argument itself intellectually offensive and emotionally repulsive, I believe that there's much to be gained by being very selective in responding to such "logic." People are going to believe what they want to believe. The best that can be done is to provide them with accurate information and to foster a dynamic in which some will use that information when they form their POVs.
• Broadens the public perception of the "average" American gun owner. At present, proponents of gun control are casting the debate against the polarized backdrop of American politics. I think if more Americans understood the diversity of gun ownership, they'd be more willing to challenge the demonizing images they're being offered.
• Flatly refuses to engage in what is essentially a piecemeal debate over the Bill of Rights. To me, as great a threat to our rights as citizens that gun control poses, the a la carte approach to the BoR that many Americans take is even more perilous.
• Recasts the debate into a conversation of the underlying issues that might be addressed through changes unrelated to gun control. For example:
  • Address the immediate surroundings of those who work with children through periodic background checks. These checks will include an assessment of their mental health and that of their immediate family members as well.
  • Have a national conversation about mental health that seeks a balance among individual rights, confidentiality, and public safety. Empower Americans to recognize identifiable warning signs in their own behavior and, potentially, others.
  • Take Hollywood at its word.
    • If entertainers/producers/studios want to reduce violence in America, challenge them to address the content of their work.
    • Shows/movies can have story lines and plot points in which characters realistically portray responsible gun ownership.
    • Networks and celebrities can make non-partisan PSAs.

Personally, I strongly oppose the notion of arming teachers. If adults are going to have guns on a school campus, I would prefer that they do so as administrators/staff members who are tasked with security, as volunteers, or as off-duty LEOs, and are not teachers nor coaches, nor parents/relatives of those they are protecting.

My concerns are three-fold. First, I believe that the knowledge that teachers have guns will fundamentally alter the learning environment, especially where very young students are concerned. Second, I think that it would only be a matter of time before we see accusations of an armed teacher doing/saying something that is inappropriate. MOO, the allegation itself is more likely to open a Pandora's Box all its own that will outweigh the deterrent value of the possibility that a teacher is armed. Third, I believe that gun ownership is a private matter. It is no one's business what firearms a gun owner legally possesses. I do not see how parents who do not want teachers to be armed will not call for full public disclosure of who is carrying a weapon on campus and who isn't. And, from there, we will see the growing acceptance of a practice that is, IMO, unacceptable.