Why We Can't Compromise on Gun Control - or anything else, for that matter.

Artificial flowers on an artificial tree

The candle is real

It seems that in our society today there is not much chance of compromise, mainly because there are competing philosophies that are diametrically opposed to each other. For instance, regarding gun control, if you are a person who believes in taking personal responsibility for your actions, then you believe that people kill people.The killer is the target of your anger, and the one who should be punished. You know that there will always be people who do bad things, and you want to make it harder for them to do too much damage. You believe in punishing those who do wrong, but not at the expense of law-abiding people who never have, and never would, commit a violent crime with a gun. You believe that if there are enough good people armed and ready to defend themselves, their family and/or their attackers, then the damage will be less, and the killer will more quickly be captured or killed. An example of this in Europe is the legal drinking age in Ireland, which is 18.  There are no restrictions on buying or drinking alcohol at that age, but if you get caught driving or committing any crime while intoxicated, the penalties are severe. People in America who believe similarly believe that there should be few restrictions on gun ownership, but if you commit a crime with a gun, the punishment should likewise be severe.

On the other hand, if you are a person who does not  believe in taking responsibility for your actions, then you believe that guns kill people, that people only commit these crimes because they have easy access to guns, if they couldn't get their hands on a gun then they would not be able to commit these crimes, and the only way to lessen the damage in this instance is to severely restrict who can buy or own a gun, and what kind they can own. In your ideal world, the Second Amendment is a real impediment in your desire to ban guns altogether, as is the case in many European countries, so you espouse workarounds like background checks, limiting magazine rounds, banning certain types of guns, etc.. You believe that if no one had guns, then no one could get killed by guns. The problem with this theory is that history had shown that (1),the bad guys will always be able to get guns, and (2), even if they can't get guns,  they will always find another way to carry out their crimes, as with knives or bombs, or planes or cars. Maybe we should ban planes and  cars,  too.

Then there's abortion.  If you believe that all life is precious, then you are against abortion, euthanasia, assisted suicide and capital punishment.  If you believe that only some lives are precious, then you are probably not against any of the above, or you may support abortion while being against the death penalty - choose the applicable combination.

Both of these examples boil down to an emerging war between religious and secular beliefs in this country which, up until recently, were much more in sync with each other than they are now. The code of behavior ascribed to us by our various religions is now very different to that which is granted by the secular society. I believe that this divergence is at the core of why compromise is not possible: people trying to stay true to their religious beliefs cannot in good conscience agree to actions which those religious teachings deem to be wrong, while people who have little or no particular religious beliefs believe that everyone must accept and adhere to the definitions of permissible behavior deemed by the secular government to be right.  It is at the point where Hillary Clinton herself was recently quoted as advocating that religion must be eliminated from the discussion. I don't know how or when this will be resolved, but sooner or later, those who have sought to silence the opposition will push too far, and there will be a great push-back.  Maybe that time is coming. We live in hope.