In Our View: Stop Shooting Off Mouths

The problem with any discussion about guns and gun violence and gun control in this country is that logic typically gets drowned by a cacophony of ideological rhetoric on both sides of the issue. All too often, the din hampers society’s ability to have a rational discussion — to separate the stock from the barrel, as it were.

So allow us to focus for a moment on a proposal pushed by state Rep. Lynda Wilson, R-Vancouver, and supported by all Republican lawmakers from Clark County and many from elsewhere in the state. Wilson is urging Gov. Jay Inslee to allow members of the Washington National Guard to carry firearms at military facilities, giving them “the right to protect themselves from peril.”

This appears to be perfectly reasonable, a logical course of action after a gunman killed four U.S. Marines and a Navy sailor at a military recruiting station in Tennessee. Military personnel face a heightened risk of being targeted by terrorists, and they are trained in the use of firearms. While it should be noted that a representative from the Washington National Guard said the move is not necessary, that does not mitigate the fact that if anybody should be allowed to carry weapons in the workplace, it would be military personnel.

Yet this middle ground also highlights the absurdity of our inability to have a discussion about guns in this nation. The need for such a discussion should be obvious, as The Washington Post reports that the United States has not gone more than eight days this year without a mass shooting. That is an eye-opening statistic that should be unacceptable in a civilized society, and yet the cacophony typically overwhelms the reason that is required to address the issue.

That cacophony, unfortunately, typically is driven by partisan differences. Many conservative news outlets (yes, we’re looking at you, Fox News), have blamed the policy that limits firearms at military installations on the Clinton administration. Clinton was a Democrat, you see, and therefore he must be anti-gun in the minds of conservatives. Except that the policy was enacted under Republican George H.W. Bush, a fact that doesn’t fit the narrative of those wishing to instill fear in gun owners. Such fear-mongering was mocked recently by TV host Jon Stewart, who told President Barack Obama, “You don’t have much time to take away Americans’ guns and declare martial law. … If you’re going to do that, you better get started.” It was absurdist comedy, driving home the point that such fears are unfounded yet remain common.

It is fear, it would seem, that prevents a robust discussion. The National Rifle Association long has lobbied against research into gun violence, preferring to not allow any facts to get in the way of the talking points it uses to galvanize gun-rights supporters. In 1996, the NRA accused the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention of promoting gun control, and its supporters in Congress threatened to strip the agency’s funding. The CDC has not broached firearms research since then.

All of this is a disservice to the people of the United States. It is a disservice to those in Charleston, S.C., and Chattanooga, Tenn., and Lafayette, La., all of whom have seen their communities altered by mass shootings in the past six weeks. And it is a disservice to those who believe our nation should be able to go more than eight days without a mass shooting.

There is some middle ground to be found in the debate over gun violence. But it cannot be staked out until the cacophony gives way to more listening.