Inclusion Answers Complexity
Come Together Right Now
The grief is relentless. The holiday season and our sense of ourselves have been upended by the slayings at Sandy Hook. The response must not be a pendulum swing. It must be the end of the cycle.
Increasing and unthinkable mass murders, along with some 30,000 additional gun deaths in the U.S. annually, have perhaps finally awakened the nation. Yet the usual finger pointing comes right along with the shock and horror. Gun control advocates, unsurprisingly, want weapons bans and better background checks. Gun owners, riffing on an old tune, note that spoons are not blamed for obesity so why should guns be blamed for what people do with them? Thus far, folks in these camps have also blamed video games, unarmed teachers, media coverage, godless schools and a culture that glorifies violence.
Other factors, too, rise to the surface. Along with stigma and shame, those with mental illness and their families face a mental health and social service system decimated by cuts and inattention over decades. More broadly, what is the predominant demographic of the mass shooters? Are we failing an entire segment of society that has fallen off the radar?
The solution lies not in polarization of the public square. Nor does it lie in blame of one thing or another. The problem is complex. There is a constellation of contributing factors, each interacting with others. True and lasting solutions will be found when we have an inclusive conversation, informed by both diverse opinions and data. True solutions will reconcile apparent differences and forge them into shared resolve.
Research links guns with deaths. According to the Harvard Injury Control Research Center, more guns simply mean more murders – across homes, cities, states, regions and nations. Economist Richard Florida’s research busts some myths and shows that firearm deaths are not associated with mental illness, drugs or immigrant status. It also confirms that gun deaths are substantially lower in states with stricter gun control laws.
The Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Amendment II was strengthened by landmark Supreme Court decisions in 2008 and 2010. Gun ownership is deeply embedded in U.S. history and culture. Over 280 million guns are owned, legally and illegally, by individuals in the United States. More than 4 million new guns enter the market annually.
It is not possible to reconcile these two sides unless we include both, and then go beyond them. One side isn’t enough to fix this problem. Too broad bans could be unenforceable or could engender negative reaction instead of buy-in. And the status quo is killing people.
Clearly, raising the bar for getting a gun and lowering the bar for getting mental health treatment must be part of the plan, but these actions alone cannot be the entire plan. The NRA’s combined assets total almost $392 million while the Brady Center’s total less than $6 million, and 9 out of 10 movie marquees on any given day glorify weapons, so we must mitigate the effects of money and media. Legal gun ownership may mean food, sport, history or freedom to some, so we must account for cultural differences and create a shared vision for a shared society.
As images of children’s funerals now merge with symbols of the season, might we consider entwining our fingers rather than pointing them? By coming together in a spirit of respect and regard, we may begin to address root causes of our fractured society and purposefully shape a new ethic for a new era.
Jody Alyn is president of Jody Alyn Consulting and a former psychotherapist. She works with organizations that want to bridge gaps, solve complex problems effectively and improve results. Citations for this article may be furnished on request. Contact
9 Responses to “Inclusion Answers Complexity”
Leave a Reply
Hi Jody,
Did you hear yesterday’s Fresh Air interview?
http://www.npr.org/2012/12/20/167694808/assault-style-weapons-in-the-civilian-market
Excellent article, Jody! I do have one comment: You have omitted the phrase in the Second Amendment regarding its stated purpose (this is, to my knowledge, the only provision in the Constitution, other than the Preamble, which states why it was enacted): to maintain “a well regulated militia.” Court decisions previously defined the militia as today being the National Guard. In other words, it wasn’t intended to guarantee private gun ownership. Unfortunately, a majority of the U.S. Supreme Court has recently stood the plain meaning of the Amendment on its head and held that the right does include private gun ownership, for purposes of self defense. In any event, one does not need an assault rifle with a large capacity magazine to defend oneself. Thanks for writing this article!
Thanks for your detail on the Second Amendment, Tom. Good clarification. I appreciate your taking time to write.
Jody, thank you for addressing this societal issue so directly and professionally.
Today the NRA announced its “solution” to the mass killings in schools by posting armed guards at all schools. They obviously haven’t heard of root cause analysis which would address the issue before perpetrators would load their arsenal in a vehicle and drive to a school or movie theater where people congregate in groups. Perhaps VP Biden and his task force will launch a probe to identify threat indicators to focus on root causes?
Great,educational piece, Una. We all have to know more about gun terms, technology and history if wise decisions are to come of this.
It’s hard to bring different sides together if either side is ignorant of key facts in a debate. Columbine, for example, had an armed guard on duty as well as an armed police officer at campus when the shooters began firing. Thanks for your comment, Ray.
We were all shocked and saddened by the tragic deaths at Sandy Hook Elementary School last week. Your essay puts forward the principles necessary for us to work together to knit meaningful solutions to a problem of great complexity and importance. I am so with you in spirit…
…and then I hear the spokesmen for the NRA spouting such profound ignorance and so many willful distortions that I cannot help but despair. It reminds me of our attempts to work with Focus on the Family decades ago to develop a comprehensive and inclusive sex education curriculum for the public schools. They insisted on compromise after compromise based on their commitments without regard to any actual evidence. However, at the end of the conversations, they denounced the program which they had filled with soggy compromises as being too extreme.
Watching Bob Schieffer’s frustration grow as he debated a slick, but absolutely obtuse, representative of the NRA was a reminder of the kind of mentality that makes inclusion difficult. Clever linguistic manipulations such as inserting the word “long” before guns before discussing the epidemic of shooting deaths in America is one example. However, when rhetorical maneuver proved insufficient, the NRA spokesman simply lied by asserting that the homicide rate in Great Britain is actually much higher than in the US. The reality is that the homicide rate in the US was 4.8/100,000 in the US in 2010 and about 1.5/100,000 in the UK.
Dave: Thanks for your thoughtful comment. I understand your frustration, yet personal and public histories have taught us a few things.
Inclusion does not mean anything goes. It means anyone with a perspective to contribute is welcome at the table AND there are table manners to which we all agree: truthfulness, respect for differences and a shared vision, to start.
That said, table hosts must have certain skills. They must know who is at the table, what support those participants must have to contribute and how to give that support effectively. They must also know how to identify those who have come to crash the party. When violations occur, they have to be able to politely say, “game over” for those folks, correct misinformation and escort crashers to the door. I did not see Bob Schieffer, but you and I both know this can be done and done well. It’s generally not done well in mainstream media. It’s not easy. It’s both art and science.
Inclusion is the only viable approach to effectively address complex, divisive issues – without blow-back and for the good of all. There are both prominent and everyday gun owners, advocates and enthusiasts who are speaking out publicly right now in support of change. What if they, and others along the spectrum who do not share that enthusiasm for weapons, could be effectively mobilized to work together on standards, policy and legislation, responsible gun ownership, gun safety training, weapons regulation, technological fixes, mental health standards, public health risks and the disproportionate impact of money in decisions that impact the well-being of U.S. citizens?
Keep the faith. And keep passing it on. Your work has long inspired me. Thank you again for writing.