One thing is almost certain: Between the time this post was published on this website and the time you read it, someone in the United States died as a result of gun violence. And based on how 2023 has played out so far, there is a very high probability that there has been a mass shooting in which four or more people have been killed or wounded.
Several times in recent decades Connecticut has been a leader in passing legislation written to reduce gun deaths. This in a state with a strong connection to the firearms industry and gun manufacturing. Compromise is possible, especially when people in positions of leadership willingly accept the reality that something needs to be done to address an issue - any issue.
Compromise is the way forward and Connecticut has proved it over and over again.
In Washington, D.C. and in some states, political leaders have allowed their own rhetoric to back them into corners from which they cannot retreat. There is no other explanation for the ongoing wave of mass shootings followed by calls for mental health reform or the arming of teachers. We note that following the recent shooting at a mall in Allen, Texas there was no call for the arming of retail employees. This rift in pro-gun rhetoric exposes the flawed logic.
Following the most recent shootings a new talking point has emerged from gun control advocates: “Politicians are more concerned about protecting guns than protecting people.”
From what we know about how politicians make decisions this feels like a disconnect. Polls show most voters - even gun owners - favor new laws written with the intent to curtail mass shootings, but this seems to be the one instance in which politicians in some jurisdictions are refusing to follow the will of the public.
Backed into a rhetorical corner in an attempt to appease conservative primary voters, some leaders simply are choosing to not lead, even when those they are pandering to would benefit from compromise.
Bottom line: Compromise is the goal in the debate over public issues. That’s the way our system was designed to work. In this case it would save lives.