Unpacking your gun safety stance

Leverage your ups against your downs in your gun safety stance

Steph Turner, Value Relating

OVERVIEW

1. SWOT analysis
2. Prioritizing needs over politics
3. Stepping further outside polarization

Previously, I harmonized your gun safety politics. Then I harmonized diverse gun safety views to our differing priority of needs. Now we unpack your gun safety stance.

Every political argument around gun safety relies mostly on value differences. Finally, you now can unpack those subjective differences by shifting attention to their objective differences—differing priorities in your measurable and yet inflexibly experienced needs.

If you’ve been following along, you can trace each political position to its balance between affected self-needs and affected social-needs behind that issue. This empirical difference can be subjected to the tools of social science, identifying your psychosocial orientation.

To quick review, I demonstrated a correlation between

liberalism on the left with unmet social-needs relative to guarded self-needs

and

conservatism on the right with unmet self-needs relative to guarded social-needs.

Now I apply this to the competing stances over gun safety.

1. SWOT analysis for each gun safety stance

The business tool SWOT (which stands for Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats) is basically psychosocial. It looks inward (psychologically) and outward (socially) at both positives and negatives. There are other variations, but I’m keeping with SWOT since I used it professionally before.

The listing below reads the above infographic from right to left. Covering first the inward looking aspects of both. Then following with the outward looking aspects of both. Each entry below also directly addresses those who fit into that psychosocial orientation.

INWARD FACING

WIDE Strength of your guarded self-need - Your stronger political claim

From the angle of your more resolved self-need for being vulnerably different, you can assert from lived experience the resolving of a common need. Although different from others, everyone benefits from being vulnerably authentic in their personal and professional relationships with others. You have that going for you.

If you could bring that value to others who need it, you can leverage that at the bargaining table of political discourse.

WIDE Weakness of your unmet social-need - Your weaker political claim

From the angle of your less resolved social-need for identity group safety, you tend to generalize for relief. Reaction for relief easily misses resolving the underlying painful needs. You generalize how classification by government as a disadvantaged group can increase your public safety.

Yes, these laws draw necessary attention to the threats you face, by those who would target you (and others like you) because of your differentness. But wouldn’t you prefer others honored your differentness from internalized motivations, instead of out of any fear from government-imposed interpretations? Out of a newfound love than fear of authority?

DEEP Strength of your guarded social-need - Your stronger political claim

From the angle of your more resolved social-need for localized safety, you can assert from lived experience the resolving of a common need. Everyone benefits when their behavior is more prosocial and circumscribed by familiar and internalized standards for right and wrong. For you, arming all law-abiding citizens reinforces this sense of cohesion for greater local safety. What if you could provide such local safety without lethal weapons? Isn’t the goal of safety more important than its means?

If you could bring that value to others who need it, you can leverage that at the bargaining table of political discourse.

DEEP Weakness of your unmet self-need - Your weaker political claim

From the angle of your less resolved self-need for self-sufficiency, you tend to generalize for relief. Reaction for relief easily misses resolving the underlying painful needs. You insist every “law-abiding citizen” provide for their own self-defense with a lethal weapon, even as you generalize an urban black man as likely outside your definition of “law abiding citizen.”

Yes, providing for your own safety can be more efficient than relying on law enforcement. But your idea of self-preserving “safety” can be too myopic for others, threatening their safety. When “needing” to be self-sufficient, you may fail to admit where you (like anyone) must cooperate with others providing for us all.

OUTWARD FACING

WIDE Opportunity to serve their unmet self-need - Their weaker political claim

Take opportunity to affirm their less resolved self-need for self-sufficiency. Instead of reacting to their generalizations of the individual “law abiding citizen” arming themselves against individual “bad guys,” skip the questionable rhetoric to hear their underlying need.

Affirm their only known means for promptly relieving themselves from threats to their safety. Once feeling threatened and experiencing the self-sufficiency of arming themselves provides them a sense of safety, they cannot wait for a perfect solution.

You still hold them accountable, to keep generalized forms of relief as provisional. You tactfully support them to replace any provisional relief when the means to fully resolve their safety needs become available.

Relief too often works against resolving the needs prompting the pain. Easy solutions, like arming yourself but opposing the arming of those you perceive as criminal, can undercut what you apparently seek. You’re more likely to be shot by someone you never would suspect any criminality.

Politics often fail from its generalizing for relief, by failing to address the specific needs causing that pain. Resolving a need removes its pain, mere relief does not. Resolving each other’s need for safety improves everyone’s capacity to function together. Mere relief risks normalizing dysfunction. Affirming their needs first will preserve this path toward their meaningful resolution.

WIDE Threat from pushback for their guarded social-need - Their stronger political claim

Admit the deep-oriented side has an advantage in their localized safety approach. Yes, the individualistic side of self-arming with few if any disqualifiers has its faults, but the social side of looking out for each other’s safety at the most local level resolves more needs than relying on impersonal law enforcement who cannot know your particular needs.

They’re not about to give up what works so well. See if their vehement resistance to “gun control” points to this determination to safeguard their community-centered sense of safety. Turning to more legal reactions to gun violence, including mass shootings, runs against their demonstrated safety in ways that create for a you a strategic threat.

Turn this “threat” into opportunity by offering to learn from the deep-oriented how their more resolved need for localized safety can serve your cause for greater accountability toward gun safety. And serve, perhaps, as a model for community policing in urban neighborhoods to replace current but less effective patrols.

DEEP Opportunity to serve their unmet social-need - Their weaker political claim

Take opportunity to affirm their less resolved social-need for identity group safety. Instead of reacting to their generalized reaction of gun control, skip the questionable rhetoric to hear their underlying need.

Affirm their only known means for prompt relief as understandable. Stay sensitive the trauma they feel with each mass shooting, knowing they could be the next target of a xenophobic shooter. Their evoked trauma cannot wait for a perfect solution.

You still hold them accountable to keep any imposing relief as provisional. You tactfully support them to replace short-term relief with long-term resolutions. You empathize with that they see in improving background checks, inviting them to see how their legal answers negatively impacts your needs. Together, you support resolving the underlying need for safety to remove the cause of pain now dividing you.

Politics often fail from its generalizing for relief, by failing to address the specific needs causing that pain. Resolving a need removes its pain, mere relief does not. Resolving each other’s need for gun safety improves everyone’s capacity to function together. Mere relief risks normalizing dysfunction. Affirming their needs first will preserve this path toward their meaningful resolution.

DEEP Threat from pushback for their guarded self-need - Their stronger political claim

Admit the wide-oriented side holds an advantage with guarding the vulnerably different from threats of gun violence. They generally experience individual levels of trauma that render most of your arguments moot. Can you even relate to their level of painful vulnerably to threats of gun violence, or to any other kind of violence they face?

Yes, a rush to find safety in legislation constraining your 2nd Amendment rights unnerves you. Instead of reacting to their legislated means for greater gun safety, take a closer look at their innate vulnerability for being different—and how this drives their position away from individual gun rights. Pushing against their need to guard their vulnerable difference creates for you a strategic threat.

Turn this “threat” into opportunity by offering to learn from the wide-oriented. See how their vulnerability from being traditionally different can serve your need for greater gun safety for all.

2. Prioritizing needs over politics

Now we use more constructive language like “I-messages” and the “When you do this, I feel that” formula. Now we offer viable alternatives to the destructive language habits commonly used by dysfunctional couples. Communication that is dysfunction for couples can be just as dysfunctional at the national level.

Instead of “when you,” I employ “the more you” to include the relative degree of one’s impactful action. Using “more” also allows for a measurable correlation between one’s actions and another’s need—what I call relational knowing.

Have you ever heard the phrase “an ‘I’ for an ‘I’ and a ‘you’ for a ‘you’”? By expressing your need with “I” you convey ownership. The receiver isn’t blamed, and can more easily own their contributing role by replying with an “I” of their own.

But expressing your need with “you” risks evoking the other’s defensive “you” thrown back in blame. Popular political discourse reeks more of “you-messages” when we need more “I-messages” from our political leadership.

For now, the message focuses on the “outward facing” of embracing the presenting opportunity while acknowledging the apparent threat. It follows a simple formula: the more you affirm my need, the easier to serve yours; but the more you demand, the less I can give. When effectively conveyed, both sides’ psychosocial wellbeing improves.

To the left-leaning politicos presenting a wide-oriented outlook:

The more you affirm our need for safety from xenophobic gun violence, the easier to respect your need to arm yourselves. But the more you insist we stay vulnerable without gun control, the less I can serve your need for locally controlled safety.

To the right-leaning politicos presenting a deep-oriented outlook:

The more you affirm my need to self-sufficiently arm myself, the easier to respect your need for gun control protections. But the more you insist we defer our safety to authorities, the less I can roll with your invasive background checks.

While this is the gist of the messaging, actual messages will be tailored to respond more specifically to the original tweet.

ENGAGING POLITICOS

RAISING THE BAR

The issue of gun safety is less about gun control or gun rights, or any other argued position, and more about responsibly respecting and addressing the affected needs on all sides. Anyone still prioritizing an “argued position” over their inflexibly experienced needs is complicit with the problem of dysfunctionally divisive politics.

There, I said it. The gentle use of engaging language serves the deeper purpose of raising the bar. The higher I raise the bar for political discourse—to prioritize specific needs over generalized partisanship reactions—the closer I am to assessing the legitimacy of our political influencers and leaders.

Harmony politics gets us back to the original purpose of politics—to serve needs. Whenever politics turns away from helping us resolve needs, it becomes complicit with dysfunction. Politicos, I dare say, who use politics in ways that turn us away from resolving needs are not legitimate leaders.

There, I said it. Needs come first. Resolved needs last. Politics serve as a stepping stone, or becomes a stumbling block. Harmony politics provides some stepping stones. If you know of any better way to overcome political polarization, please comment below. Thank you.

3. Stepping further outside polarization

This article on gun safety serves as the third in the third series of issue-oriented articles. Follow each issue here. Links for articles yet to be published will understandably not work yet.

1 Harmonize your immigration politics. Harmonize diverse immigration views. Unpacking your immigration stance

2 Harmonize your climate change politics. Harmonize diverse climate change views. Unpacking your climate change stance

3 Harmonize your gun safety politics. Harmonize diverse gun safety views. Unpacking your gun safety stance

4 Harmonize your abortion politics. Harmonize diverse abortion views. Unpacking your abortion stance

5 Harmonize your healthcare politics. Harmonize diverse healthcare views. Unpacking your healthcare stance

6 Harmonize your criminal justice politics. Harmonize diverse criminal justice views. Unpacking your criminal justice stance

7 Harmonize your economy politics. Harmonize diverse economy views. Unpacking your economy stance

8 Harmonize your racial politics. Harmonize diverse racial views. Unpacking your racism stance

HARMONY POLITICS AND YOU

Consider how Harmony Politics could serve your needs. I consult with political leaders and influencers to link them with the vulnerable needs of their audience. Contact me to explore how I can fit this pioneering approach to your particular need to stand out more.

I cover much of this material in more detail in my eCourse Defusing Polarization: Understanding Divisive Politics. Check out the free units to see if it serves your needs. Share the link with others you know in need of this fresh understanding of politics.

Together, let’s revolutionize politics with love. If we don’t, who will?

SHARE THE WEALTH

If you find this article valuable, please click "like" and share freely. Follow here on LinkedIn to keep up with these daily encouragements to turn divisive politics into opportunities to love one another across the political divide. Spread that love, and let some of this love return back to you.

Don't forget to comment below. Thank you for helping turn politics as usual into greater respect for your specific needs, and theirs.