Katie Gibson, a 16 year old from Woodcreek High School in Placer County, categorized herself as a liberal and is arguing her side of the case on gun control. Though most liberals support gay rights, Black Lives Matter, strong gun-control laws, she took the, currently, uncommon position that guns aren’t terrible. Being on the shooting team made her believe that the NRA shouldn’t stop their financial support since the NRA creates (indirectly) many opportunities to make friends and enjoy the sport. Others believe that the NRA shouldn’t give money to schools since it promotes gun usage, and they link that gun usage to gun violence (especially in schools). Katie, like not a lot of people, are thankful that the NRA provides safety equipment and training which actually minimize the gun problems in the world, while still making it fun. On the opposite side of Katie, many want to create stricter laws in regards to guns, such as raise the requirement age to purchase a gun and more regulation of guns in school. People like Katie would disagree with these new laws since they would decrease awareness and training. It would also make it more difficult to use the guns on shooting teams to make friends. Some people, like in the podcast about inmates that we listened in class, don’t want to give the murders second chances. This is similar to what is happening in the gun control situation. People are taking sides based off of just a few issues/shootings that they heard, and won’t listen to what they other side has to say. They don’t try to even understand what the others have to say and create a compromise. This makes it a very controversial subject and causes many heated debates.
How can this dissent type of cause awareness by the other side of the argument in order to reach an agreement? Why, in general, do people not listen to the other aspect/version of the case, hence causing terrible situations?
