Guns

When Republicans really want to screw up something the Democrats are doing, or really want to "put the screws" to Democrats, one issue is easiest: guns. Guns are the issue that leave Democrats bumfuzzled. And, in my opinion, the Democrats are largely to blame. Rather than fight the issue on its merits (i.e.-pointing out that more guns make us less safe, as seen in the recent death of boxer Vernon Forrest, and you don't need an assault rifle to kill a deer), Democrats cower in the corner and offer little rational resistance. Or even worse, some Democrats put on the act of having hunted their entire lives, as if voters are that stupid and simple to vote for someone merely because they think he or she can blow up a varmit.

I'm not a big fan of guns. I know, shocking. Why? Guns scare the shit out of me. I'm not comfortable handling them (even though I've handled quite a few) and I'm not comfortable with the violence I (often mistakenly) associate with them. Guns make me uncomfortable, so I'd prefer not to be around them. Which brings me to this: I'm happy that Senator John Thune's gun amendment proposal failed in the Senate.

Sen. Thune recently sponsored a bill proposing to make it legal for gun owners to carry a concealed weapon across state lines, provided the gun owner followed state laws concerning weapons. Debate in the Senate over the bill turned into a circus, with both sides using crazed logic and horror scenarios to scare the hell out of everybody. The Senate vote was in favor, 58 to 39, but not enough for a 60 vote majority. I'm thankful. I'm also thankful for this recent piece by Gail Collins in the New York Times, which argues against Thune's amendment and takes a couple shots at Thune, and South Dakota in general (unfairly).

In the piece, Collins writes about our collective failure to talk about guns in a sensible manner. She takes both sides to task for treating those on the other end of the argument as completely wrong. And she's right, because guns are not a black and white issue. There is a lot of gray area, and we should be able to rationally talk about guns in a manner of civility that leads to more personal safety and responsibility for gun owners and advocates.

As Garret Keizer writes in "Loaded," his fantastic essay about guns, "In both cases the debate is frequently conducted by pretending that the opponent's concerns hardly deserve mention and by an inevitable transference of opprobrium from the adversary's position to his or her cultural 'type.'" When talking about guns, we (myself included) make broad generalizations about those who disagree with us, treating gun advocates as stupid hicks or thinking those in support of gun control yearn to go door-to-door to confiscate all guns. Neither of these are true.

Here's what I propose: learn more about what you don't know and try to understand the logic in your opponent's argument. For me, I should get out of my comfort zone a little and maybe go hunting, or at least shooting. Then, if I didn't like it, I wouldn't do it anymore. But maybe, just maybe, I'd enjoy being outdoors in a safe environment where guns where treated with respect and handled responsibly. I might even become a gun owner. But I should at least make an attempt, as opposed to smirking and making a smart ass comment every time someone mentioned guns. Who knows, it might even lead to a rational discussion. We're overdue for one of those.