Here’s a useless but often repeated group of words: the gun debate.
The only debate has been this: How many people should one person be allowed to shoot, and how long should it take? How often should a killer have to stop the pumping of bullets into humans before he has to reload?
There is no gun debate. There is no true discussion. We can’t even see our way to having a gun conversation.
There is sorrow, devastation, fear of each other’s intentions and anger. There’s irrationality, misunderstanding, assumptions about others’ motives and goals.
There are sides. And it seems like every time we have a mass shooting — think about that sentence: every time — the divide hardens. The lives taken become footnotes to the shouting.
The futures stolen or forever altered can’t compete for weight in the discussion. The children, women and men killed are treated as a byproduct, a bizarrely unintended consequence of gun policies that favor the convenience of some over the safety of more.
We’ve abandoned the expectation that these murders will stop. Our fight isn’t over how to end the violence, it’s about the degree that will be allowed. It’s about the convenience of killers.
Finding common ground feels impossible. We don’t understand each other.
So let’s start here: Millions of Americans don’t think the Second Amendment was intended to make mass murder easier.
That’s not what we’re saying, gun-rights advocates respond. The problem is the shooter, not the gun. We shouldn’t have to change what weapons and ammunition we can purchase because of a few bad people, the argument goes.
But you can’t separate the shooter from the weapon. The Second Amendment is being interpreted and defended today as an unequivocal right to easily and anonymously buy the weapons necessary to fire bullets into as many people as possible. Not paper targets at the shooting range. Humans.
It should not be so damn easy to kill people, simply pulling the trigger and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again and again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again — before you have to reload.
But the fact remains that anyone can legally purchase a weapon designed to shoot as many bullets as possible, as quickly as possible. A background check applies if you’re buying from a licensed dealer, but not if you by it from anyone else.
You can legally buy a gun, and you’ll even pass the federal background check, if you’re on the no-fly terror watch list. You can’t get on a plane, but you can buy as many guns and as much ammo as you want. It makes no sense.
There are people on all sides of the gun question — it’s not a two-sided either/or discussion, although that’s how it’s often interpreted.
And false equivalency is at work, too. Those of us who think every firearm purchase should require a background check, and that there should be limits on certain high-capacity weapons — particularly rifles and some accessories — are not saying repeal the Second Amendment and take everyone’s guns away.
But that’s what some people hear. It ends discussions before they can begin.
There are Americans who think the answer to gun violence is more guns. There are Americans for whom that idea makes absolutely no sense. There are Americans, and I’m among them, who think the response after a(nother) mass shooting should be about protecting people, not protecting unfettered access to lethal weapons.
But it’s also understandable that some people who own guns are offended and get defensive, interpreting the concern about guns in our society and culture as accusations of their own culpability and doubts about their personal intentions. The majority of gun owners are responsible people who, it should go without saying, aren’t going to murder anyone.
Those of us who want improvements to gun laws need to acknowledge that we are asking for people, some of whom feel they’re being blamed for others’ violence, to change their ways and beliefs. We are asking for a change in mindset, a shift from seeing a particular kind of weapon as a tool for self-protection or recreation to acknowledging that its capabilities play a major role in mass murder.
We’ve been through mass shootings — public massacres, private murders — so many times without seeing any change that it feels routine.
But there is a sliver of hope: after a Democratic filibuster this week, the Republican-majority Senate says votes on some gun-related legislation will be held soon. It’s not much, but it’s something.
So here is my plea: Don’t give up. Don’t let this be our normal.
