On guns: For a conversation rather than debate, start with these questions

In trying to bridge the civic divide over guns, a productive approach to conversation is to focus not on who is right, but on where people are coming from. Questions developed at a recent public forum on guns, hosted by The Monitor, can be tools for less polarized dialogue on guns.

Alfredo Sosa / Staff
A public forum on guns – hosted the Monitor, April 11, 2013 – involved a storytelling portion that led to public dialogue in which audience members like these created questions that would elicit conversations rather than debate.

The deep civic divide over guns was the focus of an April 11, 2013 storytelling and civil dialogue hosted by The Christian Science Monitor in partnership with the Public Conversations Project and The Mantle Project.

Participants created questions of curiosity that would be tools for less polarized conversations. We include some of them here and we encourage you to add your own in the comments section:

What does a gun symbolize to you? What might it symbolize to others? What comes to mind when you think of all these symbols? 

Could you imagine sitting down with someone who has a totally different perspective from yours on guns? And listening? Without interrupting?

Why do you care about the gun issue? 

With the assumption that everyone wants to reduce gun deaths, why is the debate so polarized and why can't the multiple positions start from this area of common ground for policies and actions that are workable? Do you see any common ground between those for and against guns?

There seems to be a “gun rights” culture, a “gun control” culture, and maybe a “gun safety” culture. Are these cultures reconcilable? How might we develop a culture that has the benefits of all these without the risks of any of them?

If you were to become a gun owner, what would you do to ensure the safety of others around you? How would you care for the weapon? What steps would you take?

For gun owners: What are the top two or three positive emotions or feelings that guns bring to you and/or your family? What do you use your gun for?

For those against guns: What feelings do you associate with firearms? What are the factors that should be taken into account when regulating guns?

Are there ways to address the fears of gun advocates that would preserve their essential liberty while gaining their support for measures that would protect society better?

As a gun owner or supporter of firearms, what do you think would be the type of regulation or education that would be most useful in minimizing gun violence?

Is the instinct to defend life, liberty and loved ones innate biologically, spiritually, or a social construct?

How much has the popular media – movies, video, games, news – affected your view of guns?

How do we agree to disagree on the use of guns yet focus on preventing the misuse?

What interventions/strategies have been proven to improve gun safety?

Could you appreciate a dialogue on guns that acknowledges the presence and use of guns in our world rather than fans the fire of one “side” or another?

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

QR Code to On guns: For a conversation rather than debate, start with these questions
Read this article in
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today