To the Anti-Gun Left, A ‘Healthier Conversation’ Means Agreeing That Guns are the Problem

I was recently reminded of a story that ran in The Trace whose subtitle caught my attention. In it, Chip Brownlee interviews Dr. Tim Kummer, who was the first doctor to respond to the mass murder at Annunciation Catholic School in August.

“He wants a ban on assault-style weapons — and a way for Americans to have a healthier conversation about the gun issue.”

Now that is an eye-catching passage. I decided to read beyond the headline. Brownlee reiterates the idea in the story:

Kummer, an assistant medical director and an emergency physician at Hennepin Healthcare, has seen the damage assault weapons cause up close — and triaged a high number of victims that an assault weapon paired with powerful ammunition and a high-capacity magazine can produce. But perhaps equally as important, Kummer also wants to be able to talk about guns in a less extreme, more nuanced way.

As The Bob Ross of Guns, I can definitely get behind talking about guns in a less extreme, more nuanced way.

What is the path?

I’d like to see them put a ban on assault weapons — whether we call them assault weapons or assault rifles or weapons designed to do mass amounts of harm. Whatever the term is, legislation would contain a list of actual guns. I would like to see that legislation passed. Of course, I would like to see high-capacity magazine restrictions passed, for sure.

More importantly, I would like to see our country be able to have a healthy conversation about a topic that has become wildly political and puts the pain and suffering solely on the shoulders of children. And so while passing all of this is really, really important, I would love to live in a space where I can have a conversation with someone who has a different belief than me and come to a common understanding. It’s not that I’m questioning their morality as a human; I’m just asking them to look at it from someone else’s shoes.

I wanted to find a roadmap to better dialogue. But reading closely, I was disappointed. Does this qualify as talking about guns in a less extreme, more nuanced way?

To be sure, guns have become “wildly political.” But, as my gun studies colleague Jennifer Carlson has recently reflected, centering the AR-15 contributes to this problem rather than guiding us toward a healthier conversation.

If we don’t agree with Kummer’s proposed AR-15 and high-capacity magazine bans, are we then guilty of “put[ting] the pain and suffering solely on the shoulders of children”? Is this the “less extreme, more nuanced” part of the program?

— David Yamane in Banning Assault Weapons AND Having Healthier Conversations about Guns?