It strikes me that both sides of the gun debate are coming from the same place. They both fear the violence and crime that is present in society, especially when it involves guns. One side believes the solution is to arm as many people as possible. Then we would have a “cold war” of Mutually Assured Destruction, i.e. everyone not using their weapon as someone else might have a weapon. If they did encounter crime, they believe they could stop it. The other side seeks to remove guns from the equation believing that fewer guns led to fewer gun fatalities. Crime is less violent when the tools of crime are less violent.
Somehow the two sides need to sit down together, and rationally discuss the situation using objective evidence. They then need to arrive at mutual agreeable solutions. Operating from a place of fear, relying on urban myths, feelings, emotions and beliefs is not solving the issue.
That there is an issue with gun violence in this country is the one thing both sides can agree on. We should not have to live our lives from a place of fear. We are smart enough to solve this problem if we peel away down to fact based data and are brave enough to use what we find.
The main point of this book is that words matter. And the words that we debate with have been chosen by the conservatives to the detriment of progressive causes.
