There's been a lot of hostility the last month between the pro-gun folks and the anti-gun folks.
Now, I freely admit to being one of the anti-gun people. However, I also believe that I'm being reasonable.
I'm also willing to bet that the pro-gun folks also believe they're being reasonable.
So, on the flip, I'm going to offer what I think is a good baseline to work with. The things that we CAN agree on. I mean, if we can't agree on these basic assumptions, there's no way we're going to agree on anything else.
(Suggestions on the flip.)
1. The NRA are a bunch of assholes who do not speak for the vast majority of gun owners.
I think that we can agree on this one. It's a decent, reasonable position, IMHO, and takes into account that the NRA vastly supports the Right Wing and Republicans. Considering where their money comes from and where their money goes to, we can safely state that they are a wing of the Republican Party in spirit.
As such, their arguments and positions should be considered Republican positions. I'm certain that we do want to consider Republican positions with regards to elections (Mainly how they are wrong), but let's not pretend that we will alienate Democrats by calling them what they are.
2. Guns are tools.
I'm amazed that I even need to bring this up, but there seems to be some disagreement. Guns are not instant "Turn you into a Murderer" items, any more than they are "Magic Safety Blanket that repels criminals and Tyrants" items.
Guns are tools. With a very specific and defined purpose. That purpose is to fire rounds at high velocity. Can we at least agree on that? Magazine sizes, caliber, etc are immaterial to the overall purpose of guns, and that purpose is to fire rounds.
3. There are legitimate uses for guns. There are also non-legitimate uses for guns.
Ok, this is where we might get a little bit sticky. We are not going to agree completely on what constitutes a legitimate use, and an illegitimate use. Can we at least agree that there is such a thing as an Illegitimate use of a gun? Not talking random criminals who "Will Always Break the Law". I am talking a legal, law abiding gun owner who uses a gun improperly.
I think it's not too much to ask that we acknowledge that at some point there is a line. Where we want to draw that line is totally subject to scrutiny and argument, but dammit, there has to be at least acknowledgement of a line. I am willing, despite my desire for almost NO guns, to acknowledge that there are uses and points at which someone should be allowed to have a gun, and perhaps should be encouraged to have a weapon of some sort. I would draw that line closer to my goalpost of course, and I'm sure that the pro-gun side would do the same. Can we at LEAST acknowledge that there should be a line?
4. NOBODY wants more death.
Again, I'm surprised I have to mention this one, but I think it needs to be said. Nobody wants more dead people. How we get to that point can be debated, but straight up, NOBODY wants more bodies. If there was a magic solution, (And I mean REAL magic. Harry Potter Style shit) that would allow the hobbyists to keep their weapons, while ensuring that no gun is ever used to kill another human being. EVER... I'm willing to believe that we would all embrace it.
5. We need change.
This is the one that I am a little worried about. There are those who say we don't. I'm willing to agree that things need to change. Perhaps some of the things I care about will need to change in order to stop the violence. But I'm willing to look at it, and find a real solution.
I want to work with the other side. I want to find a solution that lets the legitimate uses for guns continue while getting rid of the vast majority of abuses that exist.
But if we can't even agree on these points. I don't have much hope.