Liberty, rights and safety collided at NAU’s campus ministry building Thursday.
The topic was gun violence – but not a single voice was raised in anger.
“The national conversation has been a disaster,” said Luke Maring, a member of the Department of Philosophy who led the discussion for about 50 people. “My hope is that we can do better,”
Maring made good on his promise, insisting on respectful listening and compassion for those with differing viewpoints – hallmarks of the Hot Topic Café series sponsored by NAU’s Philosophy in the Public Interest program.
Maring said all sides of this debate have a lot in common. They all want safety, they all like liberty and they’re all willing to make sacrifices for the common good when necessary.
“I know this because no one likes waiting at stoplights, but we all do it,” Maring said. “A society simply cannot function if no one is willing to make sacrifices for the common good.”
People are also reading…
Maring sought to focus the discussion initially on unsafe use of handguns, which he said are the most common weapon in gun deaths. The discussion came three weeks after an NAU student died during a campus shooting with a handgun. And for every one time a gun is effectively used to prevent an intruder, there are at least 30 times when the gun in the house winds up killing someone in the family, Maring said.
He also pointed out that the number of acts of gun violence committed by people who have a mental health disorder is small, and usually those crimes are committed by “ordinary people like you and me,” he said.
Is it gun ownership, then, that is the problem, or how the guns are used?
“Much of the problem is access, which is way too easy,” said one audience member. “It just seems like all these things are in place for cars…but there is very little regulation with guns.”
Another said the right to own a gun without qualification should apply only if you keep it in the house.
“I think there should be some kind of regulation if you take (guns) out of the house. It’s dangerous (and) it requires skill to be used safely,” suggested Nat White. “There are a number of ways to allow the freedom to own guns, but then how you use them outside of your house I think is legitimate regulation.”
Asked another attendee: “Is it possible that we don’t have a gun problem, we have a people problem?”
On the other hand, guns carry a more lethal risk than most weapons. Maring asked whether guns should be regulated like dynamite – you are held liable for whatever your gun does.
Maring also challenged the notion that the civil rights proposed in the U.S. Constitution were absolute. The framers got it wrong -- morally wrong -- he said when they gave one group of people the right to own another. Should unfettered gun rights trump what some might see as the moral right to personal safety?
One attendee, who wished not to be named, asked the audience to raise their hands if they were gun owners. Only a few hands went up.
“I grew up in the South and guns were a part of the culture but hurting people wasn’t,” he said. “I would encourage people who don’t have experience with firearms to maybe (realize) there’s things about the gun fraternity that (you) don’t understand.”
His comment brought the meeting to a close and left people with the lingering question of how do you balance the rights of people who are responsible gun owners and those who are not.
“How do we protect those rights and those interests and at the same time have some kind of system in place that curtails violence?” Maring asked. “I think that could be a constructive conversation. It doesn’t have to be, ‘Look, I’m going to take away your guns.”
