Gun bias

2004-09-14 - 9:54 a.m.

I'm listening to a really disappointing interview on CBC radio about gun control. The interview is disappointing because the host is not being an effective interviewer. She seems intent on forcing her interviewee to admit that guns are bad and he's a horrible person. He's just not going to do it, and so the questions bounce back and forth and she's started sounding a little shrill and fanatical.

I'm for gun control, and I'm against guns. The world that the interviewee is portraying, one where university students and professors can carry concealed weapons to protect themselves from stalkers, disgruntled students, and criminals, is, I think, paranoid, and is definitely chilling. The idea of "good" people having guns as well as the "bad" people doesn't make me feel safer: it makes me feel doomed.

That said, I don't have much respect for the "guns are bad, mmmkay?" viewpoint. Gun proponants have some very good reasons for their views, and it's foolish to dismiss them. Even though crime isn't growing as fast as the media exploitation of it is, we live in a culture that's increasingly afraid and uncertain. The emergence of terrorism, of high school shootings, of crazed presidents who cut social programs that used to stablize culture and keep most people above the poverty line are all real problems, and I can appreciate the idea that if the government can't or won't protect you, you ought to be given the means to protect yourself.

I don't think guns will help with those problems, but I have no proof to back that up. If I'm honest, the only reason why I'm against guns is because they scare the hell out of me. They're possibly the most terrifying object I can think of. Death in hand-held form.

This fear and distrust of guns means that I have to go against my usually libertarian attitudes in cases like this. Ideally, I want guns to be registered and controled. I want some authority to have a good idea of how many weapons are in my country, and have an idea of where those weapons are. I want to know that there are official policies that prohibit bringing concealed weapons to schools, government buildings, and other public places. I don't delude myself into thinking that those policies will always be followed, but I'd rather know that the person with the gun has had the option of either following the law or not following the law before they acquired their weapon: at the very least, a registry gives us a case history of every gun owner: did they follow the rules or break them? This doesn't give us any idea of whether they're a good person or a bad person, whether they'll use their weapon (if at all) for good or ill, but it does give us an idea of how they reacted to one obstacle.

The problem with today's interview, because of the host's clear bias, is that it didn't give me anything. I want and need more information about weapons and their effects. I can't make a decision on this (or any) issue in good consience unless I know I'm basing it on more than just fear, a knee-jerk reaction. I rely on my media to ask questions that I would like answered, or to surprise me with new information that I had not considered. In analysis and interviews, I want to be challenged, just as I expect the interviewee to be. If I share my bias with the interviewer, I want him or her to help me set that bias aside, or to help me look at that bias in new ways, from different viewpoints. I want to know where my "opponent" is coming from.

Cheers,

The Magus

previous - next