Conversations about gun legislation can be murky territory. 

Few topics can polarize a room more quickly…and I believe one of the reasons is the confusing line between “What” conversations and “Who” conversations.

When we start to understand the difference between those two angles and take someone else’s angle into consideration, we’re far more likely to learn something new and see meaningful change. 

Here’s what got me thinking about it several years ago:

The language you use forms the narrative you’ll choose.

Let’s step back from talking about guns for a moment, though, and get on an airplane.

I watched that satirical College Shorts video for the first time right before boarding a flight. I’m on and off of airplanes constantly for work – well, not much at all these days of course. I’ve gone virtual. But pre-COVID…I racked up the AirMiles.

On this day, I was flying out to a workshop, and I was seated beside someone who was terrified of airplanes. The anxiety was radiating off of her. So I asked if there was anything I could do to comfort her.

She asked to hold my hand and I struck up a conversation with her. I realized in pretty short order that I didn’t know how to comfort her because I didn’t know if she feared the “who” of flying or the “what”. 

As soon as she started talking about the various sounds she was hearing while we got ready for departure and then taxied down the runway, I realized we were in the realm of “what”. So I met her there.

I opened my window so she could see the wing of another airplane and explained the physics of airflow. I talked about the various noises, the ka-chunk of the cargo holds closing,  the clunk of the landing gear nesting back into place after take-off, the whining sound of the engines forcing the plane up to cruising altitude before easing off.

Knowing the “what” gave her the confidence to release her death-grip on my hand…and I found myself wading into the “who” of air travel.

She was worried about drunk pilots and terrorists. I was able to pivot my perspective along with her. I told her about the TSA, pilot restrictions, screenings for the crew, and passengers. She was far more likely to catch a cold or listen to someone’s snoring on the flight than have an impaired pilot at the helm or a fellow passenger with malinentions. 

I didn’t mention she was more likely to fall victim to a gun-related fate or perish in a car crash. This wasn’t the time or place for that statistic.

I told her how much I loved flying because I got to see so much humanity in little vignettes: people helping each other jam belongings into overhead bins, children playing peekaboo between the seats, sitting with someone new, and hearing their stories.

By focussing on the positive aspects of the “who” she was able to enjoy the experience for its potential, rather than for its impending doom.

Tackling the “what” and the “who” of gun legislation, and other sticky topics.

As a society, creating rules around the choices we make – whether it’s reproductive rights, gender identity, bearing arms, driving cars – can all be framed using just one angle, or both. 

I would contend that it’s vital to consider both.

We see this most starkly with gun legislation. 

We can become bogged down in the “what” – what kind of gun is safe to possess? What kind of gun was used in an elementary school shooting? Would the shooting have been less deadly if the weapon wasn’t a semi-automatic? What constitutes a personal arsenal? 

These questions are bandied about and debate ensues. But progress is rarely made.

Dialogue that centers around the “what” can obscure the “who”. Who were the victims? How many schoolchildren were killed, how many teachers, how many law enforcement agents who were tasked with protecting the victims? Was the shooter mentally ill, a convicted criminal? Were the victims innocent bystanders or equally culpable parties in the crime? 

The “who” can be eclipsed, the argument dehumanized, sanitized. 

But solely focussing on the “who” doesn’t advance meaningful dialogue, either. Because in everyday life, the “what” is important to some.

I was raised in Texas where people “poached” game for trophies and for subsistence. While I’m not a fan of trophy hunting, it was part of my upbringing and a living contradiction in my thoughts about gun legislation.

When does another living creature shift from a pest to a bragging right to food on the table? Why do we feel enfranchised to raise some in captivity for our consumption and invade wild spaces to snatch the game from its natural habitat?

Is a deer or a cow a “what” or a “who”? Ask a vegan and they’ll have a pretty black and white answer for you, no matter how they feel about guns.

To have constructive conversation, meet people where they’re at…listen, and learn.

We can’t hide from difficult topics, whether it’s gun legislation or other issues that touch on emotions, the Constitution, or religious and societal norms.

To have meaningful, productive conversations we have to be clear on our own “What” and “Who”…and more importantly, be able to see our counterpart’s “What” and “Who”.

Ask yourself, “What is their ‘What’ and who is their ‘Who’…?” and then speak in a language that will resonate with them. 

If you’re a leader or hope to be, now is a great time to rethink your methods and reimagine your strategies…while we’re all in a pandemic-imposed “time out”. If you’d like to learn more about ways to have conversations that lead to change – in your community or your business – get in touch. I can help you get started.