Agreement, as well as progress, starts with objectives. We will never agree on alternatives if we can’t agree on objectives. In other words, we will never agree on a route if we can’t agree on a destination! Thus, objectives are what we should be debating, not alternatives.

Case in point: Gun control.

The gun control debate is impossible largely because everyone is arguing about alternatives before agreeing on objectives. Here are just some of those alternatives: 

• Require background checks – or not
• Close gun show loopholes – or not
• Raise the minimum age to purchase guns – or not
• Outlaw assault rifles – or not
• Outlaw bump stocks – or not
• Prohibit mentally ill people from buying guns – or not
• Prohibit domestic abusers from buying guns – or not
• Prohibit anyone from buying guns – or not

And then there are additional alternatives that don’t control guns, but are supposed to solve the same problem – still alternatives mind you:

• Improve mental health care – or not
• Arm teachers – or not
• Encourage more people to carry guns – or not
• Put metal detectors in schools – or not
• Boycott companies that support the NRA – or not
• Insist that politicians refuse money from the NRA – or not
• Make gun manufacturers responsible for damages caused by their products just like other manufacturers – or not
• Remove the prohibitions that prevent the Center for Disease Control from studying violence – or not
• Pay cash to buy back for guns – or not

I’m sure you’ve heard all of these arguments. But how often have you heard people debating the objectives?

To make matters worse, we have some serious trust issues. Since we haven’t reached any kind of agreement on objectives, people are suspicious and quick to make assumptions about the objectives of others. Some people clearly believe that any efforts to curb gun violence are first steps toward repealing the second amendment and confiscating all guns from everyone. To avoid that slippery slope, they lean back as hard as they can, fight every conceivable change, and vehemently deny any statistics that implicate guns as a cause of death.

Speaking of statistics, the gun control advocates, meanwhile, latch on to any statistic that supports their cause whether it comes from a reputable source or not.

So we can’t agree on facts, we don’t trust each other, and we don’t seem capable of dropping the vitriol long enough to debate the objectives. The argument is all emotion and fear. It is also totally unproductive. Think we can ever agree on objectives?

Think we could possibly agree on the following?

1. People throughout the country should be able to live without fear of being shot.
2. People shouldn’t have to own guns and be prepared to use guns to feel safe.
3. People should be able to own guns for hunting and sport.
4. Gun ownership should be subject to regulations that will help us keep guns out of the hands of people likely to hurt others or themselves.
5. Gun ownership comes with responsibility and should be subject to regulations that ensure gun owners know how to store and use their guns safely.
6. There is no reason for the general public to have guns designed for the military to fight wars.
7. The 2nd Amendment, which was written in a world of simple, slow, short distance, inaccurate guns, needs to be interpreted with that in mind.
8. Something needs to change because too many innocent people are dying from gun violence and too many people are living in fear.

Do you agree with these eight principles? Can we discuss these without getting into alternatives and tangents like those mentioned above?

This is the level the discussion needs to take before we can hope to agree on any concrete changes. Don’t tell me what these can’t include. Don’t tell me they can’t be done. Tell me with which you agree.

Discussing objectives requires honesty and trust. People afraid you intend to confiscate their guns won’t admit to agreeing with any of these statements.

It can be extremely difficult to lift the conversation to higher principles and objectives once fear, emotion, and distrust reign. This applies to national issues such as gun control, as well as issues internal to your company. Don’t waste your time, energy, and goodwill arguing about alternatives before you’ve agreed on objectives.

Have a complex or sensitive issue or decision that could use clarity? Need help separating emotional alternatives from objectives and principles? Give me a call at 603-784-5727.