Compromise in the gun debate
First, we need to recognize that guns are present in more than 40% of all homes in this country — like it or not. Any credible discussion of this issue must acknowledge that reality.
Second, gun owners and non-gun owners alike are in universal agreement in this country that violent, predatory criminals should not possess, have access to nor easily obtain firearms.
Third, we all wish that mentally troubled individuals would not own, possess or acquire guns.
Both sides of the debate need to acknowledge they actually agree on several key issues. I am a gun owner, and I do not intend to surrender my rights because of the acts of criminals, mental midgets or a sentimental wish of how things might be somewhere else (The Times muses about Canada’s low homicide rate). I am hungry for action that moves our common agenda forward.
Also there’s this from the opener:
The “crazy” thing about the gun debate in America is how misguided and off-base both sides of the issue are. An example from one side is The Times’ Dec. 1 editorial on the Washington state police officer shootings, “Crazy about guns”; from the other side, we have almost any fundraising appeal over the last year from the National Rifle Assn.
That’s also a problem with the debate. Comparing an editorial to a fundraising appeal sent to members. You see, the anti-gun side is parroted as gospel by the press. The pro-gun side rarely has the opportunity to do that. So, we communicate on our own. Our side isn’t often presented so how can folks even know what compromise solutions exist?