The Gun Issue: Try Using Logic, the Way an Analyst Would

In my job, the one that pays my rent, alimony and allows me to eat out or race triathlons, I am a technology research analyst. That basically means that I hear about cool ideas, products and services from providers located across the globe, and I assess them based both upon a set of parameters and how I believe they’ll be accepted by potential customers. I listen to providers, customers, other analysts and my own gut, and I reach conclusions after studying and/or thinking a lot about all of them.

Call me foolish, but I often attempt to use my job skills (which, truthfully, are heavily influenced by time hewn principles, thoughts and methods I’ve “perfected” throughout my career and life) to discuss and suggest solutions for the “gun issue” our country is and has been experiencing. I call it a “gun issue” because to call it a “gun control” problem would be leaning too far one way, and to call it a “gun addiction” problem would lean too far in the other. Indeed, there are those that say the only issue is that we don’t have enough guns. But this is exactly the problem: despite numbers that both sides can use to defend their views, we’re all working with opinions, and we all know the old saw about opinions. And unfortunately, my attempts to argue positions are based on my opinions and very little concrete, bipartisan evidence.

While analysts like myself certainly create and can defend opinions, we are far more believable – and sometimes more actionable – when we can provide data to back up those opinions. The most believable data comes from primary research that asks specific questions about the product or service in question. This is exactly what we are missing in the debate on gun issues, and our government, regardless to which side one leans, is doing a miserable job of creating the right information from which to make informed decisions.

This week, the Senate defeated a variety of measures intended to reduce risk or danger associated with firearms or their acquisition – at least one side would say that. Naturally, the other side suggests that guns aren’t the problem and that such propositions would violate the 2^nd Amendment, leaving people defenseless in the wake of criminals or a potentially tyrannical government that might invade our houses. Whether one thinks one side or the other is correct is at this point beside the point. The main problem is that we haven’t the data to make the informed, intelligent decisions such laws should be based upon.

The Senate overall errs in not focusing on or agreeing to attainable goals. Filibusters and sit ins make good video clips, but instead, let’s study the problem, let’s collect data, let’s explore in depth all the ways that guns are involved in deaths and see if there is proof that guns actually DO help “bad” owners – criminal, unstable, terroristic, or otherwise – to kill more people than they’d otherwise be able to with knives, hands, explosives or anything else. Let’s understand if certain types of guns are at issue so that we can focus intelligently there – taking away every gun is a ridiculous (and unconstitutional) proposal, but there is also no law that says everyone has to be able to have access to every gun that can be manufactured. The Senate should propose a method, a timeline, a set of research and a set of ensuing actions once that research is complete. This isn’t hard – the government spends untold amounts of money today on research through a variety of organizations, and I suspect many would step up pro bono at this point to take on this bit of research.

Unfortunately, we live in an entirely polarized society that not only is unwilling to compromise one iota on practically any principle, it is also largely attuned to sound bites that reflect prevailing opinions, not scientific data. Our government both reflects and is responsible for much of this. I suggest that our government do the job any good analyst would do: gather data, study it, and render objective conclusions that would be actionable – and also presentable and understandable to the public. While I suspect our Senators and Congressmen likely won’t agree even on how to proceed here, we’re not getting any further along by their arguing over opinions.