The recent shooting of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords should cause us to examine the nature of disagreement between political groups — an underlying topic to the congresswoman’s shooting. At the same time, we should also reconsider our gun control policies.

Many have noted the connections between Gifford’s shooting and the idea that, as a country, we are unable to disagree without it devolving into name-calling and insults. Gifford’s shooting, as has been revealed, was not connected to this discourse.

However, the state of our disagreement is troubling enough to examine. We can look at how we disagree among ourselves. We can also see the problems politicians have disagreeing with each other.

One of the most notable examples was Sarah Palin’s bull’s-eye map. She targeted Giffords’ congressional district, along with others, as districts incompatible with her views. Her map, though, is not to blame for the shooting. It is, instead, a symptom of unacceptable political disagreement. Palin took it upon herself to show who should not be in office, despite that the constituents in the districts elected their representatives. Her solution is not to come to an agreement over issues, or even to respectfully disagree, but to remove people she does not favor.

Worse, though, is the false labeling that each side gives to the other side. The Tea Party and some conservative talk show hosts keep claiming that President Barack Obama is a socialist. These comments are made to stir up emotions. It is evident that those making the claim do not actually know the definition of socialism. If they did, they would realize their inaccuracy.

We have reached a point in political rhetoric where there have been suggestions to use the Second Amendment to overthrow the government. This is where gun rights come into play. The gun used to nearly kill Giffords was an assault rifle. In the views of some, taking away assault rifles would be the beginning of the government’s infringements on their rights. Some go so far as believing in an unfounded conspiracy that the government is after them. Supporting the argument is the colonial legacy of the United States. Guns are what allowed us to defend ourselves from the British and allowed us to separate from their rule.

The suggestions of using guns to solve our governmental problems show these individuals’ immaturity and insensibility. Instead of acting like adults who have the ability to compromise, these individuals act like kids. They are unable to accept defeat or compromise.

Libertarian talk show host Jay Severin did not suggest violence but political objection to the Obama presidency. With 29 days left until the 2008 election, he wrote, ‘An attack campaign against Obama is worthy of the timeless principals of all American patriots. Obama is King George and we are the minutemen, and women.’ Instead of accepting the results of the election and dealing with reality, he chose to advocate for resistance before the administration even began.

Tragedies, such as Giffords’ shooting, should not happen because guns like the one used should not be allowed. A gun that can shoot around 30 shots in 15 seconds has no purpose other than to kill people. Hunters should be able to kill an animal without an assault rifle.

Those who founded the United States had no conception of weapons like this. Nor can we say we have a correct interpretation of the Second Amendment. Its meaning remains debatable, even though some may think to be certain of its interpretation. Simply allowing anyone, even perfectly healthy people, to own a gun is irresponsible and poses a risk to the safety of the public.

This event, though, will not cause significant change in both gun laws and hateful political speech. Congresswoman Carolyn McCarthy is trying to reinstate a ban on clips exceeding 10 bullets, which expired in 2004. Her efforts will be wasted because pro-gun rights individuals will not change their views. They will stick by their tired, flawed arguments. They will continue to claim ‘guns don’t kill people, people kill people.’ When, in fact, we wouldn’t be able to buy guns without the outdated, vague constitutional amendment allowing it.

Coming to a collective agreement is required in a democracy. Self-interest must be ignored in some instances for the benefit of the state as a whole. Perhaps, though, we have lost this vision and prefer disrespectful disagreement.

Harmen Rockler is a sophomore in the College of Arts and Sciences. His column appears online every Monday, and he can be reached at horockle@syr.edu.

Published on January 23, 2011 at 12:00 pm