The polarized nature of gun issues recently came into focus in Longmont. The mayor's attempt to strike a balance through rival gun-safety and gun-rights proclamations only showed that common ground is hard to find. Your take?
The mayor of Longmont, in his attempt to appease both sides of the gun debate with dual public proclamations, has ended up appeasing no one. This issue of guns is ever-present in our lives and is one where it seems we make the least progress. After the shooting of six people in Bakersfield, Calif., this week, a law enforcement official called mass killings "the new normal." Sadly, it is fast becoming the old normal.
Gun rights activists are worried about the "slippery slope" where even one regulation related to guns will inevitably lead to ever more restrictions until, in relatively short order, all guns of every kind will be prohibited. They don't trust gun-control advocates and they don't believe their stated intentions.
Gun-control activists want to see an end to the level of gun deaths[1] that are unprecedented and greater by an order of magnitude than in any other developed nation. They think gun-rights activists are ignorant and easily manipulated by professional fear-mongers or, in the case of the NRA, immoral profiteers.
These beliefs keep either side from wanting to sit down with each other and figure out a way to have certain guns and, at the same time, keep people safer. If we did begin a conversation, we could perhaps then mutually agree to fund rather than ban gun violence studies in America. Few good decisions are made without adequate information.
He may have been wrong-headed as his approach and he may have been overly optimistic, but I admire Longmont Mayor
