A Reasonable Dialogue

Trying to talk in a reasonable manner about gun legislation in Wyoming is like throwing rocks at a hornets’ nest from three feet and expecting the emerging residents to be thankful for the opportunity to meet you. So . . . let there be some common ground before the discussion starts.

The 300 million or so firearms in the U.S. (100 million or so handguns) are not inherently evil, but they are dangerous if handled carelessly, improperly or criminally. Even the most ardent pro-gun advocates are appalled by the statistics of firearm deaths in the country. The removal of all firearms from society would have an effect on the numbers, but not the occurrence of firearm fatalities anymore than seatbealts and airbags have ended highway deaths. Criminals, the mentally impaired and a whole host of others with poor or no judgement will continue to have guns, and will continue to make use of them wisely or not.

Pro-gun advocates have really two core beliefs which make difficult any discussion about firearms. First, the overwhelming distrust of government which eliminates any governmental attempt to limit the carnage from firearm consequences. Second, private property and its protection is the basis of our capitalistic economy, and any slight deviation from that precept will have enormous disastrous consequences for all areas of our national health.

For those pro-legislative limitation advocates, the image of 22 young children and their teachers dead in a classroom is motivation to believe that any solution is better than no solution. They believe that the presence of firearms in any confrontational situation increases the risk to the parties many times over what it may be without their presence, and instant regret can not call back a bullet.

Both sides of the issue have many good and proper arguments to defend their viewpoint and attack their opponents, but character on either side is not one. Proponents of both views are male/female, rich/poor, white/black/brown/polka dot, Republican/Democrat and rural/urban. The consequences of an us vs. them mentality, and a refusal to even listen to options and alternatives to the present results will continue to see the massive loss of life of so many innocent people.

So . . . is it not time for concerned citizens of both viewpoints to sit down at a table over a cup of coffee and discover that the red-neck pro-gun citizen and the whiny “get the guns” advocate have many of the same concerns — a workable program combining education and legislation, availability, manufacturers liability, vendors responsibility, and, yes, personal responsibility in the purchase, securing and use of firearms in this country. Advancing technology within the arms industry have made more opportunities to work together for a less costly outcome to this issue. Let us begin.