New hope for finding common ground on gun issues
Something remarkable happened recently in Silicon Valley. No, not the next big thing in technology. But perhaps the next big thing in civic engagement. Hundreds of residents from across the spectrum of viewpoints dedicated their Saturday to productive dialogue around firearms issues in our communities.
The vision for the Community Summit on Firearms and Safety began with the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors shortly after the news of the horrific massacre at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High Schoolin Parkland, Fla. Supervisor Dave Cortese took on the task of hosting a summit designed to demonstrate how we can share diverse opinions and avoid the all-too-common shouting matches we have experienced at town hall meetings.
The American Leadership Forum, along with consultants
Greg Ranstrom and Lawrence Ellis, stepped in to train 80 facilitators to conduct table-top exercises and discussions. Organizers set goals to increase a shared understanding of firearms and safety, create space for residents to talk and listen, and identify opportunities for action.
We who attended represented a wide variety of viewpoints and experiences with firearms, including National Rifle Association members, public health workers, educators, Second Amendment Rights advocates, students, clergy, parents and community leaders. They were conservative and liberal, diverse in ethnicity, age and income.
At dozens of tables spread throughout a large banquet hall, conversations began slowly, but soon the sound of voices filled the space. It was apparent that some discussions were difficult and uncomfortable, but participants were respecting the process and listening to others’ viewpoints.
Wrote one participant in a post-summit survey, “I felt a great divide of thought, maybe distrust of opinion, but in the end, we were beginning to find common ground.”
Wrote another, “Few minds were changed, but awareness of various issues certainly increased, and the complexities of these issues became very clear.”
Not all agreed. A participant detected bias in the “goal to identify opportunities for future action,” and wrote, “To me that signified more attempts at restrictions to the Second Amendment.”
But 98 percent of the participants declared that the work of the summit — direct, face-toface civil dialogue — should continue. That doesn’t seem to happen often in today’s polarized society.
Several positive suggestions came forward without significant opposition:
One conservative member of the group called for a 24/7 anonymous firearms surrender program with full amnesty, pointing out that local law enforcement chiefs like our county sheriff can do that without the financial investment of “gun buy-backs.”
Most participants felt the need to further explore, and perhaps expand, the linkage between background checks and behavioral health issues.
It was also abundantly clear that all participants, regardless of political position, agreed on a few other things: The use of firearms must at all times be safe, children must be safe in their schools, and nobody wants to promote the infliction of harm on self or others, whether it be criminal activity such as domestic violence, or the use of firearms in suicide. And the excessive use of force by those authorized to carry guns to enforce the law should never be tolerated.
We believe we have created a process for civic engagement that would break down barriers that cause polarization, which could be used by other communities across the nation, and which we could use on other polarizing issues, such as housing and homelessness. County officials have already been contacted by the Houston community about replicating this process in their city in the aftermath of the recent mass shooting at Santa Fe High School.
And that is at the heart of why we refer to this Silicon Valley summit as “something remarkable.”