I know very little about guns. However, I understand that something is wrong in America when there is gun violence — particularly in schools — that far exceeds that of many other countries. A study by the Academy for Critical Incident Analysis detailed in the Washington Post addressed this discrepancy. It examined school violence in 36 countries and concluded that approximately half of all occurrences with at least two victims happened in the United States from 2000 to 2010, and the vast majority of these incidents involved guns. Those 36 countries totaled to 3.8 billion residents in 2010, while the U.S. population accounts for less than one-tenth of this number at that time. America clearly has a unique problem. 

Yet legislative solutions — at least at the federal level — are extremely difficult to implement. Many gun control advocates blame the influence of the National Rifle Association for legislative inaction. They are probably correct. After all, according to a March 2 NPR poll, 94 percent of Americans support universal background checks, representing an unusual consensus in a divided America. In addition, 72 percent support banning assault-style weapons, according to the same poll. If the federal government represented the will of the people, this issue would have been addressed already.

Nevertheless, debates on cable news present a more divisive picture. In a March 1 CNN debate, gun owners engaged in a contentious argument about the necessity of owning an AR-15. This disagreement may foster the illusion that Americans actually do not agree broadly on certain gun control measures. The bitter political climate may amplify this perception. Therefore, it is crucial for Americans to reject this notion. Gun control advocates can help make this happen.

I do notice that many gun control advocates argue from a purely philosophical angle and fail to consider the practical implications of their words. They may argue that no civilian should have access to the weapons used in mass shootings, implying semi-automatic and automatic rifles. However, the guns used in these atrocities extend beyond those weapons; Dylann Roof used a pistol when he killed nine churchgoers in Charleston, South Carolina in 2015, and Seung-Hui Cho used two when he killed 32 students and faculty at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University in 2007. When conservatives hear a sentiment like this— even when they agree with modest gun control measures — they may interpret it as a liberal plea to remove most guns, stifling what could be a productive debate. 

To counter this concern, gun control advocates must clarify their positions and be more forthcoming about which guns they seek to regulate, as well as how and why they wish to do so. In a polarized environment, one side may only assume that the other advocates the most extreme position based on such ambiguity and general hostility toward the other. The mere mention of the words “gun control” can evoke fear and anger among many gun enthusiasts. Therefore, clarity is important to effectively advance the debate on gun control.

Advocates must seriously educate themselves about guns. They must understand the difference between semi-automatic and automatic weapons, the significance of bump stocks, high-capacity magazines, and the various other components of weapons. Discussions about morals and ethics are not enough to have a productive conversation about guns.

Another unfortunate consequence of a highly polarized political environment is that each side often assumes the worst of the other. Gun control advocates may feel tempted to assert that those on the opposing side are heartless if they do not support, say, a ban on AR-15s. This mindset is extremely misguided. Surely, many AR-15 owners grieve after tragedies and are frustrated by the rifle’s ubiquity. They just do not believe banning the weapon would solve the problem. Both sides should debate the solution rather than point fingers. After all, it is far more difficult to convince someone of your position if you assume the worst of them. 

The issue of gun violence may not be solved in the near future. The stranglehold of the NRA may prove too strong to break without serious campaign finance reform. However, positive political shifts can certainly be accelerated by productive national conversations. The importance of each side discovering common ground cannot be understated, especially in a political climate characterized by bitterness, divisiveness and vindictiveness. A bipartisan coalition that demands mandatory background checks for all firearm purchases would be the first step to diminishing the NRA’s massive influence over politicians who prohibit these laws. After all, history has the shown that the foundations of influential institutions weaken once the general public scrutinizes them. Therefore, activists must not take for granted the importance of constructive dialogue between both sides and should resist alienating one another.