At the heart of the debate over ban of assault weapons

I have a specific gift that has helped me become successful in my career as a mediator. That gift is to see through all of the nonsense in an argument, and break it down to the atomic level. I believe that my ability to see through the noise is extraordinarily helpful in the mediation process, but I also know — from a psychological standpoint — that it’s often helpful in the course of dispute resolution to allow the parties to vent the noise and associated feelings in order to arrive more naturally at the crux of the issue.

A very easy example of stripping away the noise and getting to the specific heart of the issue is as follows: “The right” and “the left” (words which I think should not be used as nouns) have opposing views on abortion, but those views boil down to one very basic disagreement: Whether a fertilized egg is immediately a human life. If it is, abortion is murder. If it’s not, a woman should be able to choose to end her pregnancy via termination. (Many, if not most, on the side that believes abortion is murder claim a religious conviction to that.)

This relates to the current debate over the constitutionality of the demanded assault weapons ban, insofar as some believers of abortion as murder then conflate that argument with the assault weapon ban argument via the logical fallacy of “whataboutism.” It sounds like this: “Really? We should ban semi-automatic assault rifles? What about all the babies who are murdered via abortion every day! Why don’t you march for them?” The issues, although wholly unrelated, will never be resolved until each is worked out on its own merits.

It is obvious to me that individuals in our country who are vehemently opposed to a ban on these weapons of war are members of a loosely connected subculture of people who have been trained and encouraged to be angry. These people are convinced that they are quickly becoming culturally and ethnically disenfranchised from mainstream society. They are being told that their political and social power is being usurped by “interlopers.” They are angry that, in their perception, they’re being forgotten via the increased acceptance of minorities, ethnic and otherwise.

That anger and perception of loss of power is being created, perverted, exploited and capitalized — for profit — by infotainment hosts such as Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, Rush Limbaugh and Alex Jones, along with individuals in the highest ranks of power in this country. The result of this systematic brainwashing is the willful refusal to believe the obvious — that no one is trying to disarm them of their protected weapons. This, of course, drives gun sales, and the NRA and its gun manufacturer clients laugh their way to the bank. Let me be perfectly clear: The National Rifle Association and others have a vested financial interest in keeping Americans paranoid of the bogeyman. This sells guns, which is what the NRA is paid to facilitate. This is not about the Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America. This is about selling guns for profit.

This subculture of people is being told that there are “liberals” with an “agenda,” the bottom line of which is to do no less than destroy America. This opens the door for entities like the NRA to position themselves as protectors of “American traditions” such as gun ownership, and to exploit these sad and angry people financially and emotionally when they’re at their most sad and vulnerable.

Delray Beach resident Jeffrey A. Kasky, Esq., is a Florida lawyer, an FDLE-certified police officer, a Florida Supreme Court Certified Mediator, the father of two Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School students (including, Cameron Kasky, founder and leader of the student-led March for Our Lives movement), autism advocate, and gun owner.