Caution: You’re about to enter a spin zone. Caveat: It also has a reverse cycle.
In short, commentary you’ll find here won’t resonate exclusively with one side of the political spectrum. That’s because issues as diverse and divisive as guns, capital gains, transportation, foreign wars, free speech, Islam, trade, public works, terrorism, term limits, Cuba, same-sex marriage, standardized testing, diversity, urban planning, energy, unions, drug laws, the electoral college, immigration, birth control, the environment and more don’t, or at least shouldn’t, lend themselves to a common ideology. Unless, of course, you’ve outsourced your opinion trove to MSNBC or Fox.
Having said that, can’t we bring common sense and common cause to bear when it comes to, say, mass murder? Yes, the issue is multi-layered, but whether we’re survivalists, hunters, psychologists or Quakers can’t we at least agree on this much?
*Nothing short of overhauling the human condition will flat-out prevent societal massacres. So enough of the further-polarizing, zero-sum arguments–from confiscation to everybody everywhere packing. And that, frankly, includes the recommendations of the National Rifle Association’s CEO Wayne LaPierre and state Rep. Mike Fasano, R-New Port Richey. Fasano wants a cop in every Florida elementary school. LaPierre wants one in every American school.
Nobody, of course, is against deterrence. But two points. First, recall Columbine. The Colorado high school had a police officer on site and a nearby motorcycle cop who got there almost immediately. Neither one prevented a slaughter. Second, it’s impossible to ignore implications of a false sense of security and the ominous law of unintended consequences.
*Military-style assault weapons and high-capacity magazines don’t belong anywhere outside the military. They just don’t. Moreover, if you have a really compelling need for a new Bushmaster–and came up empty over Christmas–you really shouldn’t have one.
*Enough of special interests’ selective perversion of the First and Second Amendments. First Amendment, ACLU types necessarily concede that numbingly over-the-top, violence-glamorizing movies and video games are the inevitable price for free speech. They also look askance at involuntary commitment. As a result, “homelessness” is as much a mental health as an economic crucible.
Meanwhile, Second Amendment, “Live Free or Die” types necessarily acknowledge that assault weapons come with the inherent right “to keep and bear arms.” As if the Founding Fathers were envisioning 21st-century pop-culture violence and gun-show BOGO sales.
*And since we are a society enamored of rallying around causes and themes, why not adopt the most appropriate one for the societal challenge we face in ever-ratcheting mass-violence scenarios? Why not call it out for what it is: We’re confronting a form of “terrorism.” Anyone not against combating that? Anyone in favor of emulating the well-intentioned, ironically well-armed Mrs. Nancy Lanza, who tragically morphed into a modern mass-murder hybrid: a victim-accomplice?
Why not treat sensible “gun control”–not as a political “third rail”–but as an extension of our 9/11 response? Why not analogize background checks, weapon registration and waiting periods to body scans, empty pockets and conveyer-belt shoes at the airport? They are intrusively necessary, because we’re trying to prevent the horrific.
We’re all in this together and finger-wagging demonization of “gun rights” and “gun control” adherents only further polarizes a society already reeling from dysfunctional partisanship. To be sure, we can do better.
To be sure, we have to.