Washington Post writer Jen Zamzow actually attempts to provide a balanced point of view, but misses two big thing (I’m using the NJ.com reprint)
Why we can’t agree on gun control. Hint: Because you don’t want to listen
In the wake of yet another mass shooting — this time claiming the lives of at least 12 people in Thousand Oaks, California – it’s painfully obvious that the United States has a problem with gun violence. In our current political environment, it’s also obvious that little can be done about it.
Sixty-one percent of Americans favor stricter gun laws, according to a recent Gallup poll, but this statistic hides a strong partisan divide: Eighty-seven percent of Democrats support tougher gun laws, while only 31 percent of Republicans do. How can we solve the gun violence problem when Republicans and Democrats can’t seem to come together on anything these days, let alone on an issue as politically divided as gun control?
If we want to overcome the political divide on guns, we first need to understand why we have it. The cause of partisan conflict is generally not a lack of evidence or an inability to understand it. In fact, for contentious issues, having a greater understanding of the information can actually increase belief polarization, leading people with opposing views to end up even further apart.
Jen dives into all sorts of things, like psychology, the way our brains are wired, party affiliation, and more. This is the same type of stuff they attempt to trot out for why we won’t Do Something about ‘climate change.’ That said, they first big thing she’s missing is that she’s approaching this from a position of “we must have gun control.” That right there will get pushback.
Anyone serious about building consensus on gun policy needs to be slower to judge and quicker to listen to those who disagree. I understand why gun-safety advocates might not want to listen to those who are skeptical of gun-safety laws. People are being killed in their places of worship and kids gunned down at school; this kind of crisis can make people feel they don’t have time for dialogue.
However, listening to those who are resistant to gun-control laws is more than just a sign of respect. Understanding what motivates people can help us come up with better solutions that are more likely to stick.
See? It’s assumed that we have to have gun control, so, the gun grabbers should listen more to find out something something garble garble.
Which is issue two. Those of us who are “resistant” have listened. We know what these “gun-safety advocates” want. The disarming of law abiding citizens. Again, California has every bit of law in place that the gun grabbers have pushed, and more, yet, there are still shootings.
The “gun-safety advocates” want more and more laws, right up to the Australian solution (banning and confiscation), yet, the existing laws aren’t being fully enforced. We saw this with the failure to implement California’s red flag law with the latest mass killer.
We know what the gun grabbers “gun-safety advocates” want: to make it harder and harder for law abiding citizens to engage in their 2nd Amendment Right, while at the same time the GSAs want to go easier and easier on criminals. I’ve listened to the GSAs: I don’t need to listen to more to know what they want.
This is from the comments at NJ.com
