opinion
On page 10 this week, one of our correspondents makes a long but eloquent plea for rationality in firearms regulation. Laws, he argues, should be based on objective examination of dangers, not on emotional hostility toward firearms.
It’s a compelling, sensible argument, but unfortunately it faces an uphill battle for acceptance.
On this and a host of other issues, today’s opinion leaders (everyone from politicians to journalists to leaders of special-interest groups) have effectively conspired to discourage rational debate or an objective approach to issues.
Read Also
Farming Smarter receives financial boost from Alberta government for potato research
Farming Smarter near Lethbridge got a boost to its research equipment, thanks to the Alberta government’s increase in funding for research associations.
It’s easier to get television exposure with catchy slogans and simplistic labels than with balanced, rational examination of issues. And it’s simpler to adopt a party line than to look at issues independently.
Examples of this exist in both conservative and liberal orientations, covering topics as diverse as abortion, tobacco use, environmental regulation, and unemployment insurance.
Those on the liberal side of the fence can fiercely defend such individual rights as wearing a turban. But some can suddenly become a lot less attached to the idea of individual rights and respecting others’ beliefs if it’s a case of the right to peacefully keep firearms at home or the right to decide if spanking is appropriate for their children.
On the conservative side of the fence, meanwhile, some can piously condemn abortion as a violation of the right to life, but then vigorously defend the death penalty.
One would expect more consistency in application of personal moral principles if people looked at each issue on their own. The problem is that they find a party, or interest group, or clique of friends, that shares their views on one key issue, and then they adopt the party line on many other issues.
Some advocates of more severe firearms restrictions, for example, are groups concerned with issues of women’s health and safety.
Given one high-profile case of a man using a firearm against women, those groups campaign for tougher, universal restrictions on firearms, a policy that would do nothing for the safety of women alone in isolated farmhouses.
Even more ironically, some of the people who would like to ban politically incorrect items like guns would also be the type to protest any strengthening of police powers to gather evidence on criminals.
Cars kill too – why not restrict automatic transmissions or high-capacity gas tanks? With this type of logic, perhaps the next attack on drunk driving will involve severe restrictions on everyone’s right to car ownership, coupled with a weakening of police powers to stop drivers for breath tests.
