This is a post from Dear Hub... The opinion expressed here is purely hs own.
I have been increasingly disturbed by the violence in this country. The senselessness started on on April 16, 2007 when the VIrginia Tech Massacre took place. My father-in-law was teaching a class on campus that day. I wept as I walked by the memorial at my first return trip to Blacksburg. I mourned for Virginia Tech and the family's for many years. In recent years, there seems to be a all too frequent tragedy related to gun violence. I own a shotgun, but I don't carry it for protection. I like to shoot skeet... or at least I did until back surgery.
There appears to be 2 mantras from two polar opposites. The mantras are boiled down into either "Pro-gun and arm everyone" or "Anti-gun and disarm everyone." I am completely confused by these solutions... Hang with me for a minute while I summarize each side.
In the "Pro-gun" side: Intuitively it makes sense to me... An armed population should deter violence.
In the "Anti-gun" side: Intuitively, it makes sense to me... Fewer guns means less opportunity for them to fall into the worng hands.
But wait... you agreed with both sides... Yes, I did, but here is my confusion: How can two groups of people arrive at completely different conclusions to the same problem?
The only answer to my confusion is that the problem is poorly defined. You see, when people say "Gun violence", most people focus on the method ("Gun") and not on the root cause of the "Violence"... If we take "Gun" out of the problem statement, here is the question: "How do we stop violence?"
I think the solution starts with "Love thy neighbor", "Tolerance", addressing addictions(alcohol, drug) and mental illness. We must teach people to address conflict proactively and constructively.
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad