Last week's mass shooting stirred up talk about gun control, school security, mental health, and our supposed culture of violence.
Here are my thoughtson how to craft effective policy responses. Maybe some nonprofits can take up the challenge and turn my line of thinking into a new lobbying effort or public education campaign.
I like to write about tools nonprofits and activists can use to generate better ideas. Two of those tools come into play here. Firstly, new ideas often come from simply asking questions. Secondly, promising ideas tend to get knocked down by "common sense" objections that reflect personal biases more than fact or logic.
Sometimes asking why things happen, then asking why again and again can lead us down a trial to a good idea. Here is a crude presentation of how asking why can lead to new ideas:
Why do mass shootings happen?
Because crazy people have access to guns.
Why do crazy people have access to guns?
Because gun laws are not strict enough
Why are gun laws not strict enough?
Because people don't demand that gun laws be made tougher
Why aren't people demanding tougher gun laws?
Maybe people simply don't understand the likely costs and benefits.
Maybe education about the likely costs and benefits of new gun laws would help. You still need to make some emotional connection because simple facts tend to be ignored or integrated into whatever worldview the person has: "Yeah, gun control might stop some people, but the others won't face armed citizens who can stop the violence."
And, of course, as always, you have to find out what people know and think before you start a public education or lobbying effort. Why waste time "selling" an idea most people accept now?
The real challenge then is to connect with people emotionally and present an accurate account of the costs and benefits of tougher gun laws. Appeal to peoples' values and show how stricter gun laws support those values. This is where persuasive writing, and speaking. become crucial.
Do a PMI:
Maybe handguns need to be banned, or not. Either way, why not consider the implications of banning handgun ownership. Edward De Bono created a tool called PMI, for Plus-Minus-Interesting, for just such a purpose!
So, let's consider in turn the pluses, minuses, and interesting points of a nationwide ban on handgun ownership. Here is my list:
Plus - suicides might decline, fewer domestic disputes might turn deadly, there would fewer accidental deaths at home. fewer handguns would be stolen and used in crimes, people would invest money in other health and safety measures. People who would buy handguns now have more disposable income for other things.
Minus - people in dangerous areas might be victimized at a higher rate; jobs would be lost as people who make handguns, holsters and pistol ammunition are not needed anymore; gun ranges and gun shops would lose lots of money. People would be angry and depressed because some "freedom" has been lost.
Interesting - people would shift spending to new interests, alarm sales might go up.
Here are my thoughtson how to craft effective policy responses. Maybe some nonprofits can take up the challenge and turn my line of thinking into a new lobbying effort or public education campaign.
I like to write about tools nonprofits and activists can use to generate better ideas. Two of those tools come into play here. Firstly, new ideas often come from simply asking questions. Secondly, promising ideas tend to get knocked down by "common sense" objections that reflect personal biases more than fact or logic.
Sometimes asking why things happen, then asking why again and again can lead us down a trial to a good idea. Here is a crude presentation of how asking why can lead to new ideas:
Why do mass shootings happen?
Because crazy people have access to guns.
Why do crazy people have access to guns?
Because gun laws are not strict enough
Why are gun laws not strict enough?
Because people don't demand that gun laws be made tougher
Why aren't people demanding tougher gun laws?
Maybe people simply don't understand the likely costs and benefits.
Maybe education about the likely costs and benefits of new gun laws would help. You still need to make some emotional connection because simple facts tend to be ignored or integrated into whatever worldview the person has: "Yeah, gun control might stop some people, but the others won't face armed citizens who can stop the violence."
And, of course, as always, you have to find out what people know and think before you start a public education or lobbying effort. Why waste time "selling" an idea most people accept now?
The real challenge then is to connect with people emotionally and present an accurate account of the costs and benefits of tougher gun laws. Appeal to peoples' values and show how stricter gun laws support those values. This is where persuasive writing, and speaking. become crucial.
Do a PMI:
Maybe handguns need to be banned, or not. Either way, why not consider the implications of banning handgun ownership. Edward De Bono created a tool called PMI, for Plus-Minus-Interesting, for just such a purpose!
So, let's consider in turn the pluses, minuses, and interesting points of a nationwide ban on handgun ownership. Here is my list:
Plus - suicides might decline, fewer domestic disputes might turn deadly, there would fewer accidental deaths at home. fewer handguns would be stolen and used in crimes, people would invest money in other health and safety measures. People who would buy handguns now have more disposable income for other things.
Minus - people in dangerous areas might be victimized at a higher rate; jobs would be lost as people who make handguns, holsters and pistol ammunition are not needed anymore; gun ranges and gun shops would lose lots of money. People would be angry and depressed because some "freedom" has been lost.
Interesting - people would shift spending to new interests, alarm sales might go up.
Comments
Post a Comment