Monday, August 6, 2012

What are we afraid of?

As yet another story of gun violence plays out in the news the questions, as if on cue fall out of talking heads and roll down the streets.  "Why?" and "How?" are two of the most asked questions and two of the hardest to answer.  In a tweet last week I suggested that the "bigger the questions, the less useful the answers that the questioning and the questing were perhaps more important."  It's an incomplete theory at best, but perhaps as suggested, pursuing the questions may be useful. I will expand this idea in another essay, but for now I'll just suggest that pushing questions further and following all the divergent paths of thought may reveal more than just answering one initial question. And so I will try to push this idea a little further.  In the two recent headline stories of mass killings the "how?" question has some information that can be easily applied.  People obtained guns and ammunition, often these weapons were designed or modified to shoot many rounds quickly, and they used the guns to kill people.  The statistical part is often pretty well documented, but a question like "how?" can be pushed much further. How does one person kill so many other people?  How does their mind work to accomplish this?  At this point, "How? may well blend into "Why?" It's my observation that at this point the questions tend to end, at least in the public discussion and I think it's a missed opportunity.  Why not push the questions further?
I have head several pundits and politicians  in this past week saying "Now is not the time for a discussion on gun control"  They sight people's emotions, those of the victims and families first saying the experience is too fresh and painful.  Another common refrain is that people need to "cool down" first.  I would admit that in some instances hasty decisions can cause regret, although when you see a truck that has veered into your lane of traffic heading straight towards you the hasty decision to swerve to miss it is usually not regretted in fact people usually congratulate you on your swift response.  My own opinion on guns has been well documented and it's not really the point here, I'm really more interested in the discussion.
One question that comes to mind is "If not now, when?"  There are plenty of examples in history of tragedies that caused swift action in debates, hearings, discussions and sometimes laws.  I wonder if in April 1912 there was a chorus of people saying "Now is not the time to discuss better safety standards for ocean liners such as having enough lifeboats for everyone" Perhaps we could think of this question; If we were to rush to judgement, make hasty decisions on controlling assault weapons or magazines that allow the gun to fire a hundred rounds quickly, if we were to "go overboard" in trying to protect the public, what would be the ramifications?  What would be the downside to making rash decisions around safety?  Would we end up being "too safe?"

No comments:

Post a Comment