Piers Morgan at CES 2011. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)[/caption]
Due to their importance, I’m dedicating this second blog post to Sandy Hook related issues, with the hopes that readers act locally. After this, I’ll re-focus on technology.
Most nights this week I’ve been glued to my TV watching Piers Morgan on CNN. Tonight he said he was surprised people don’t publicly debate gun issues. He has expressed some passionate views on the gun control issue, and has gotten some passionate replies from the gun rights side of the issue. I believe that both sides are well-intentioned. In my opinion, this has been a classic example of two parties with conflicting views talking past each other, intensified by emotions that are understandable given recent events. The key to understanding both sides comes from analyzing their arguments. This blog post is meant to help readers consider the differences between Means and Motivation, and how the focus on Prevention is crowding out a seriously needed discussion of Protection. Essentially, I think both sides are right about what they disagree on, and both sides are wrong about what they agree on.
If an argument goes on for weeks, months and years, like the gun control argument, it is probably an unwinnable argument. In my opinion, both sides have been talking past each other on CNN’s Piers Morgan show exactly because they are engaging in an unwinnable argument. Let me explain what I mean when I say both sides are right about what they disagree upon, and both sides are wrong about what they appear to agree on.
Piers Morgan argues about Means. His argument is that having 300 Million firearms in circulation in the US has led to all of these killings. Piers argues that without all of these guns and rifles, we would have far fewer killings because madmen would not have the means. He is right.
The pro-gun side argues about Motivation. Their argument is that an individual who commits such heinous acts is one of countless mentally unstable people watching violent movies, playing violent video games, and if the maniacs who are capable of these atrocities were identified, treated, and/or nullified ahead of time, we would eliminate the motivation and have far fewer killings. So, the last thing they want is to not be able to protect them selves when faced with such a madman. They are also right.
So, night after night, I watch both sides continue to argue past each other that two different things are the most important, Means vs. Motivation. And, they are both right about what they disagree on. The marriage of both Means and Motivation is what results in these tragedies; both elements are involved. However, I fear they are probably wrong about the underlying premise that they agree on, and that is that following either of their recommended courses of action will ‘PREVENT’ another tragedy.