We were all saddened beyond words at the latest school shooting. I think President Obama put it best with his words, "Our hearts are broken..."
This morning, the news feed on my Facebook page was full of arguments about guns - gun control versus gun rights. Both sides had a lot to say, and to me, none of it was new.
When something like a school shooting occurs, we often hear two things happen. Gun control advocates increase their advocacy for more restrictions on handguns, and gun rights advocates increase their calls for more freedom to carry weapons. I've seen both arguments and some of them have been pretty strident. And to a degree, they are both correct.
In our recent politics, it seems that when the stakes go up, rather than people uniting around a common need, all that happens is that the intensity of the debate goes up. Both sides "have the answer" and with the increasing urgency, that "answer" gets more urgent as well. I've seen this with global warming, the fiscal cliff, the wars of the last 10 years, and now with weapons in school settings.
What's at the root of the needs of each side. Isn't there a better way to look at issues than as "us vs them"? And at least in part, might this adversarial "us vs them" viewpoint actually be a big contributor of this epidemic of violence in the first place?
I recall seeing Steven Covey speak many years ago at a workshop on the Seven Habits of Highly Successful People. One thing he advocated was to "Think Win-Win" - not compromise, but Win-Win. The best solution to differing opinions is to listen first, then work out what both sides need.
Another of Covey's points was "Seek first to understand, then to be understood." And perhaps this gets to the core of the question. Can we stop shouting at each other and actually hear what the other side really wants/needs? Can we work out a solution that meets the needs of both? Is it more important to be right for those within the country who agree with you, or to solve the problem in a way that benefits all?
Both sides have legitimate arguments. When we get these high-emotional-stakes debates, I often wonder if a Buddhist-style "middle path" might be more of an option. Isn't there a solution that benefits everyone, from gun owners to safety in the schools? What is it that each side really wants? What do gun owners need in order for constitutional rights to be protected? What do we need to keep school shooting disasters from happening again - for more protection from home invasions, for hunter safety, etc
In the end, I believe a solution is possible that accomplishes both - keeps constitutional rights intact and provides more protection - and intervention if needed, to those who might end up being in harms way. I hope we can find that solution soon.
