It was frustrating to open the April 9 Gazette and see a column and letter regarding the “divide” in our national conversation about violence and gun control.
John Sheirer, in his guest column (“March for Our Lives reflects divided nation”), laments the “latest division” afflicting our national discourse, and a writer opines about “Must demand changes now on gun control.” While I do agree with them as to the increasingly divisive tone of this national debate, I found it strangely ironic that they both employ the very same divisive tactics and rhetoric that are bemoaned in their writings.
Sheirer opens, “The latest division pits teenagers who don’t want to get shot against conservatives who seem upset that these teenagers are speaking out against getting shot.” The major theme of the “March for Our Lives” protests was in fact promoting various levels of gun control or bans on certain firearms.
While many share this philosophy, many other Americans with differing views (whom Sheirer identifies as “conservatives”) believe in different approaches. To claim that they are “taking issue with the fact that the teens are speaking out,” or are using any less “common sense,” is simply foolish.
Presenting that as facts is not only false, but also quite obtuse and intellectually lazy. Sheirer intentionally twists the dialogue into “articulate and passionate voices” versus “right-wing attacks,” selectively cherry picking outrageous statements to prove his point.
In the interest of fairness, did he disclose the similar insults and threats hurled at millions of Americans who expressed differing opinions (such as National Rifle Association members subjected to threats of violence from celebrities on social media or being labeled “terrorists” by a sitting governor)? Does he attempt to bring Americans closer together by the identification of the common ground on which most of us stand?
Are the letter writer’s comments, likening gun ownership to drug addiction accurate or helpful? Demonizing those who own firearms, or misrepresenting the actual capabilities of certain firearms as the writer does lowers our ability to discuss the matter intelligently.
We deserve better. A more informed discussion is possible without such nonsense. Let’s talk.
Joe Swartz
Amherst