Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

We go round and round and get nowhere!

Posted by on Dec. 29, 2012 at 2:44 PM
• 23 Replies

A friend of mine writes this blog.  I know some of you will skip over it because it is a blog but he has some good points and ideas for discussion.

http://blog.joehuffman.org/2012/12/29/the-necessity-of-an-accurate-problem-statement/

Posted on December 29, 2012 by

Many times I have heard, "Both sides can't be right." While there are certainly times when this is true there are also lots of times when it is not true but it appears to be true on the surface.

My classic example is the Civil War. If it were true the war was entirely about slavery and those fighting for the south were fighting to preserve slavery then sure, only one side can be right. But if those fighting for the south were fighting to preserve states rights while those in the north were fighting to end slavery then both sides could be right. They are "talking" past one another, but they could both be right.

A similar thing happens in some gun control debates.

One side (exaggerated to make the point) can claim, "Innocent children should not be shot! Ban all guns!" The other side can claim, "Banning guns will not make the children safer! Let good guys carry guns in schools to protect them."

Although the proposed solutions are at complete odds with no possible compromise between the them both sides are fighting for what are almost for certain equally valid truths. Innocent children should not be shot and banning guns will not make children safer.

While I cannot claim any extraordinary expertise in this endeavor it is going to be far more productive to identify the things you do agree with one another on before engaging in a battle over the things you disagree on. Compromise may be impossible, but there might be solutions that are agreeable to both/all sides if you can realize you have a common goal. For example a orthogonal solution may work without stomping on either side.

What's an orthogonal solution? In the case of the school shootings a solution to "ban guns" versus "good guys with guns" an orthogonal solution would be to "ban schools". For example if children were to be taught online supervised by their parents or in much small groups there wouldn't be such large groups of tempting, nearly helpless, targets.

There may be many solutions to a problem but without a clear problem statement and agreement that common ground does exist people are likely to get stuck pushing their solution rather than solving the problem.

Problem statements drive the solution. Incorrect and unarticulated problem statements limit the range of solutions.

In the case of school shootings examine the following problem statements, somewhat exaggerated to make the point:

• There are too many guns brought to schools.
• Good guys are prohibited from protecting themselves and our children at schools.
• An unacceptably high number of children at schools are being injured and killed by people with guns and other weapons.

Depending on the choice of problem statement the range of solutions are completely different. And there may be other problem statements beyond what I have enumerated above. Defining the problem correctly is frequently more difficult than finding solutions.

I know it's tough but finding common ground and accurately defining the problem not only leads to a broader range of solutions but it also gets people working to solve the problem rather than fighting each other. Work on problem statements rather than fighting with others. We are better than this.

This entry was posted in Gun Rights, Politics, We Are Better Than This by Joe. Bookmark the permalink

We all go round and round stating our stats and opinions.  But he is right.  We do not really listen because we know the other side it wrong.  But is it possible to compromise?  Is it possible to find common groound with either side having to give something up?

Thoughts?

by on Dec. 29, 2012 at 2:44 PM
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Replies (1-10):
by on Dec. 29, 2012 at 2:45 PM
1 mom liked this

I think that perspective and points of view do count for something. I have often had 'ah ha' moments AFTER having a conversation where I needed to be right in my opinions.

by on Dec. 29, 2012 at 2:49 PM
3 moms liked this

I think it is possible, but I do not think it is popular.

by Platinum Member on Dec. 29, 2012 at 3:26 PM

BUMP!

by Ruby Member on Dec. 29, 2012 at 3:29 PM
1 mom liked this
Very interesting, thanks for posting.
Posted on CafeMom Mobile
by Ruby Member on Dec. 29, 2012 at 3:37 PM
I also found this interesting. Unfortunately a large percentage of people on both sides are not willing to compromise.
Posted on the NEW CafeMom Mobile
by Platinum Member on Dec. 29, 2012 at 3:44 PM

Quoting Peanutx3:

I also found this interesting. Unfortunately a large percentage of people on both sides are not willing to compromise.

I admit that i am very set in my opinion when it comes to gun rights.  Anything suggested that takes those rights away or infringes on them is not okay with me.  I feel the same way about any right being infringed upon though.

But it is definitely food for thought.

by Silver Member on Dec. 29, 2012 at 4:04 PM

I will not compromise anything as far as my constitutionally recognized rights. I see no point to arguing the facts against someone's feelings. I will not walk into a police station and be fingerprinted, data base indexed, and treated with LESS rights than a criminal so that frightened people can hide like idiots behind an inanimate object, change my life entirely, and the problem will still exist. That problem is a lack of mental health care, and parents who suck at being parents (too busy, too tired, too lazy, etc.) or those who recognize a problem and can't get help for their children.

I will not help any government initiate tyranny because some people are either too stupid to understand what they are asking for (or actually stupid enough to want it). I will not help them make it impossible to retain the rest of the rights in the constitution because they were 'afraid' of guns, too lazy to fight for mental health care, or too wrapped up in their own little world to even notice.

I will not fight against someone's feelings with facts (starting with gun control doesn't work). People that ignore the facts and still insist that 'it's for the kids' and 'we have to do something' and just choose something that doesn't work are part of the problem (and likely had parents who always told them they were just as great as the kid next door who actually was good at something). Just existing, just yelling out something, just blindly saying 'ok' and hoping even when it's been proven that what you are giving approval to is useless is NOT something I will pat anyone on the head and say it's ok about. Not happening.

The problem isn't guns. The problem is criminals who have guns. Banning guns has NEVER kept criminals from getting one, even in countries where no one is allowed to have guns.

The solution would be a lot more difficult than just gun control, a lot more expensive, and not 'instant'. So people opt for gun control and shrug it off.

I won't do that. Gun control isn't about saving children, it's about control. Anyone foolish enough to believe that it's only about controlling gun owners (it's about taking away the possibility of defending ourselves against the government taking away all the rest of our rights) needs either a reality check, or some of that mental health care that's already in short supply.

Obama already HAS all the authority to go into any home and take whatever he wants (or send people in to do so). He can take guns. He can take food. He can take resources. He signed that power over to himself and congress ok'd it. He no longer needs an emergency to do so, he can do it if he feels like it. It's called soft martial law. This bill that Feinstein is submitting, if approved, is only to make it easier ... because right now the government doesn't have a clue who has what guns, how many, or where they all are. But, they want them. My response to that ~ to Feinstein, to Obama, and to any other elected servant with a God complex is simple ... people in hell want ice water.

Every mass shooting but one took place in a 'gun free zone'. Think about that instead of wringing your hands and wailing 'it's for the children'. A gun free zone is nothing more than a shooting gallery, and you, your children, your spouse, etc. are the targets. That is the cold, hard, fact that all that hand wringing and wailing makes people miss. It's the one fact that people who just don't like guns will ignore to the point of idiocy. Expand that out to the American citizens, and it's the one hard fact that all of the control freaks want to make disappear. If the control freak citizens only had the right to yap about it, I wouldn't care. But, they have the right to vote as well ~ and that makes them a problem even bigger than tyrants elected into our government.

OP, your friend makes a very valid point ~ but he missed the memo about large groups of stupid people and how much damage they can do, and will do, if those who aren't stupid don't keep on refusing to compromise.

Our founding fathers didn't 'give' us rights in the constitution. They 'recognized' the rights that every human being should have. A bunch of farmers took on the largest, best armed, and well trained military/nation and beat them because they were not willing to compromise with tyranny. Not all of the colonists. Only 9%. The rest either did nothing, or fought with Britain.

9%.

Those of you who understand, value, and want to keep not only your second amendment rights, but who understand that if that one is erased, the rest will swiftly follow it number far more than 9%.

Our government understands that those people are not armed with pitchforks, and don't need to melt down little toys to make more musket balls. Our government fears that.

I won't compromise. I will NOT give up one more inch of the essential freedoms that I have, and I certainly won't give them up for a lie promoted by tyrants or hand wringing citizens.

by Platinum Member on Dec. 29, 2012 at 4:13 PM

I will not compromise anything as far as my constitutionally recognized rights. I see no point to arguing the facts against someone's feelings. I will not walk into a police station and be fingerprinted, data base indexed, and treated with LESS rights than a criminal so that frightened people can hide like idiots behind an inanimate object, change my life entirely, and the problem will still exist. That problem is a lack of mental health care, and parents who suck at being parents (too busy, too tired, too lazy, etc.) or those who recognize a problem and can't get help for their children.

I will not help any government initiate tyranny because some people are either too stupid to understand what they are asking for (or actually stupid enough to want it). I will not help them make it impossible to retain the rest of the rights in the constitution because they were 'afraid' of guns, too lazy to fight for mental health care, or too wrapped up in their own little world to even notice.

I will not fight against someone's feelings with facts (starting with gun control doesn't work). People that ignore the facts and still insist that 'it's for the kids' and 'we have to do something' and just choose something that doesn't work are part of the problem (and likely had parents who always told them they were just as great as the kid next door who actually was good at something). Just existing, just yelling out something, just blindly saying 'ok' and hoping even when it's been proven that what you are giving approval to is useless is NOT something I will pat anyone on the head and say it's ok about. Not happening.

The problem isn't guns. The problem is criminals who have guns. Banning guns has NEVER kept criminals from getting one, even in countries where no one is allowed to have guns.

The solution would be a lot more difficult than just gun control, a lot more expensive, and not 'instant'. So people opt for gun control and shrug it off.

I won't do that. Gun control isn't about saving children, it's about control. Anyone foolish enough to believe that it's only about controlling gun owners (it's about taking away the possibility of defending ourselves against the government taking away all the rest of our rights) needs either a reality check, or some of that mental health care that's already in short supply.

Obama already HAS all the authority to go into any home and take whatever he wants (or send people in to do so). He can take guns. He can take food. He can take resources. He signed that power over to himself and congress ok'd it. He no longer needs an emergency to do so, he can do it if he feels like it. It's called soft martial law. This bill that Feinstein is submitting, if approved, is only to make it easier ... because right now the government doesn't have a clue who has what guns, how many, or where they all are. But, they want them. My response to that ~ to Feinstein, to Obama, and to any other elected servant with a God complex is simple ... people in hell want ice water.

Every mass shooting but one took place in a 'gun free zone'. Think about that instead of wringing your hands and wailing 'it's for the children'. A gun free zone is nothing more than a shooting gallery, and you, your children, your spouse, etc. are the targets. That is the cold, hard, fact that all that hand wringing and wailing makes people miss. It's the one fact that people who just don't like guns will ignore to the point of idiocy. Expand that out to the American citizens, and it's the one hard fact that all of the control freaks want to make disappear. If the control freak citizens only had the right to yap about it, I wouldn't care. But, they have the right to vote as well ~ and that makes them a problem even bigger than tyrants elected into our government.

OP, your friend makes a very valid point ~ but he missed the memo about large groups of stupid people and how much damage they can do, and will do, if those who aren't stupid don't keep on refusing to compromise.

Our founding fathers didn't 'give' us rights in the constitution. They 'recognized' the rights that every human being should have. A bunch of farmers took on the largest, best armed, and well trained military/nation and beat them because they were not willing to compromise with tyranny. Not all of the colonists. Only 9%. The rest either did nothing, or fought with Britain.

9%.

Those of you who understand, value, and want to keep not only your second amendment rights, but who understand that if that one is erased, the rest will swiftly follow it number far more than 9%.

Our government understands that those people are not armed with pitchforks, and don't need to melt down little toys to make more musket balls. Our government fears that.

I won't compromise. I will NOT give up one more inch of the essential freedoms that I have, and I certainly won't give them up for a lie promoted by tyrants or hand wringing citizens.

My friend, the author of this blog, is one of the biggest gun rights fighter I know.  You should check out the rest of his blog.

by Silver Member on Dec. 29, 2012 at 4:50 PM

Quoting Godgaveme4:

I will not compromise anything as far as my constitutionally recognized rights. I see no point to arguing the facts against someone's feelings. I will not walk into a police station and be fingerprinted, data base indexed, and treated with LESS rights than a criminal so that frightened people can hide like idiots behind an inanimate object, change my life entirely, and the problem will still exist. That problem is a lack of mental health care, and parents who suck at being parents (too busy, too tired, too lazy, etc.) or those who recognize a problem and can't get help for their children.

I will not help any government initiate tyranny because some people are either too stupid to understand what they are asking for (or actually stupid enough to want it). I will not help them make it impossible to retain the rest of the rights in the constitution because they were 'afraid' of guns, too lazy to fight for mental health care, or too wrapped up in their own little world to even notice.

I will not fight against someone's feelings with facts (starting with gun control doesn't work). People that ignore the facts and still insist that 'it's for the kids' and 'we have to do something' and just choose something that doesn't work are part of the problem (and likely had parents who always told them they were just as great as the kid next door who actually was good at something). Just existing, just yelling out something, just blindly saying 'ok' and hoping even when it's been proven that what you are giving approval to is useless is NOT something I will pat anyone on the head and say it's ok about. Not happening.

The problem isn't guns. The problem is criminals who have guns. Banning guns has NEVER kept criminals from getting one, even in countries where no one is allowed to have guns.

The solution would be a lot more difficult than just gun control, a lot more expensive, and not 'instant'. So people opt for gun control and shrug it off.

I won't do that. Gun control isn't about saving children, it's about control. Anyone foolish enough to believe that it's only about controlling gun owners (it's about taking away the possibility of defending ourselves against the government taking away all the rest of our rights) needs either a reality check, or some of that mental health care that's already in short supply.

Obama already HAS all the authority to go into any home and take whatever he wants (or send people in to do so). He can take guns. He can take food. He can take resources. He signed that power over to himself and congress ok'd it. He no longer needs an emergency to do so, he can do it if he feels like it. It's called soft martial law. This bill that Feinstein is submitting, if approved, is only to make it easier ... because right now the government doesn't have a clue who has what guns, how many, or where they all are. But, they want them. My response to that ~ to Feinstein, to Obama, and to any other elected servant with a God complex is simple ... people in hell want ice water.

Every mass shooting but one took place in a 'gun free zone'. Think about that instead of wringing your hands and wailing 'it's for the children'. A gun free zone is nothing more than a shooting gallery, and you, your children, your spouse, etc. are the targets. That is the cold, hard, fact that all that hand wringing and wailing makes people miss. It's the one fact that people who just don't like guns will ignore to the point of idiocy. Expand that out to the American citizens, and it's the one hard fact that all of the control freaks want to make disappear. If the control freak citizens only had the right to yap about it, I wouldn't care. But, they have the right to vote as well ~ and that makes them a problem even bigger than tyrants elected into our government.

OP, your friend makes a very valid point ~ but he missed the memo about large groups of stupid people and how much damage they can do, and will do, if those who aren't stupid don't keep on refusing to compromise.

Our founding fathers didn't 'give' us rights in the constitution. They 'recognized' the rights that every human being should have. A bunch of farmers took on the largest, best armed, and well trained military/nation and beat them because they were not willing to compromise with tyranny. Not all of the colonists. Only 9%. The rest either did nothing, or fought with Britain.

9%.

Those of you who understand, value, and want to keep not only your second amendment rights, but who understand that if that one is erased, the rest will swiftly follow it number far more than 9%.

Our government understands that those people are not armed with pitchforks, and don't need to melt down little toys to make more musket balls. Our government fears that.

I won't compromise. I will NOT give up one more inch of the essential freedoms that I have, and I certainly won't give them up for a lie promoted by tyrants or hand wringing citizens.

My friend, the author of this blog, is one of the biggest gun rights fighter I know.  You should check out the rest of his blog.

I've actually had his blog bookmarked and in my favorites for  awhile now, I just haven't had time to catch up with all of them over the past week or so. I've got a full round of YouTube vids I'm slowly catching up on as well since it's just too cold and windy to enjoy being outside all that much today.

He makes a lot of valid points, but I absolutely can't see any point in compromise at this point. The Dick Act should have put an end to this ~ but congress doesn't care. The president doesn't care. They begged for the jobs and are supposed to serve (and care) and uphold that document. I'm fed up. I didn't spend more than half my life as a military spouse and doing my part to compromise on something that should never even be on the table for negotiation or removal. I'd have no problem telling the lot of them to pucker up and pick a cheek at this point if the initial blast of outrage doesn't permeate their thick skulls. Except for Feinstein. I might catch something bad from her.

by Platinum Member on Dec. 29, 2012 at 5:47 PM

Quoting Godgaveme4:

I will not compromise anything as far as my constitutionally recognized rights. I see no point to arguing the facts against someone's feelings. I will not walk into a police station and be fingerprinted, data base indexed, and treated with LESS rights than a criminal so that frightened people can hide like idiots behind an inanimate object, change my life entirely, and the problem will still exist. That problem is a lack of mental health care, and parents who suck at being parents (too busy, too tired, too lazy, etc.) or those who recognize a problem and can't get help for their children.

I will not help any government initiate tyranny because some people are either too stupid to understand what they are asking for (or actually stupid enough to want it). I will not help them make it impossible to retain the rest of the rights in the constitution because they were 'afraid' of guns, too lazy to fight for mental health care, or too wrapped up in their own little world to even notice.

I will not fight against someone's feelings with facts (starting with gun control doesn't work). People that ignore the facts and still insist that 'it's for the kids' and 'we have to do something' and just choose something that doesn't work are part of the problem (and likely had parents who always told them they were just as great as the kid next door who actually was good at something). Just existing, just yelling out something, just blindly saying 'ok' and hoping even when it's been proven that what you are giving approval to is useless is NOT something I will pat anyone on the head and say it's ok about. Not happening.

The problem isn't guns. The problem is criminals who have guns. Banning guns has NEVER kept criminals from getting one, even in countries where no one is allowed to have guns.

The solution would be a lot more difficult than just gun control, a lot more expensive, and not 'instant'. So people opt for gun control and shrug it off.

I won't do that. Gun control isn't about saving children, it's about control. Anyone foolish enough to believe that it's only about controlling gun owners (it's about taking away the possibility of defending ourselves against the government taking away all the rest of our rights) needs either a reality check, or some of that mental health care that's already in short supply.

Obama already HAS all the authority to go into any home and take whatever he wants (or send people in to do so). He can take guns. He can take food. He can take resources. He signed that power over to himself and congress ok'd it. He no longer needs an emergency to do so, he can do it if he feels like it. It's called soft martial law. This bill that Feinstein is submitting, if approved, is only to make it easier ... because right now the government doesn't have a clue who has what guns, how many, or where they all are. But, they want them. My response to that ~ to Feinstein, to Obama, and to any other elected servant with a God complex is simple ... people in hell want ice water.

Every mass shooting but one took place in a 'gun free zone'. Think about that instead of wringing your hands and wailing 'it's for the children'. A gun free zone is nothing more than a shooting gallery, and you, your children, your spouse, etc. are the targets. That is the cold, hard, fact that all that hand wringing and wailing makes people miss. It's the one fact that people who just don't like guns will ignore to the point of idiocy. Expand that out to the American citizens, and it's the one hard fact that all of the control freaks want to make disappear. If the control freak citizens only had the right to yap about it, I wouldn't care. But, they have the right to vote as well ~ and that makes them a problem even bigger than tyrants elected into our government.

OP, your friend makes a very valid point ~ but he missed the memo about large groups of stupid people and how much damage they can do, and will do, if those who aren't stupid don't keep on refusing to compromise.

Our founding fathers didn't 'give' us rights in the constitution. They 'recognized' the rights that every human being should have. A bunch of farmers took on the largest, best armed, and well trained military/nation and beat them because they were not willing to compromise with tyranny. Not all of the colonists. Only 9%. The rest either did nothing, or fought with Britain.

9%.

Those of you who understand, value, and want to keep not only your second amendment rights, but who understand that if that one is erased, the rest will swiftly follow it number far more than 9%.

Our government understands that those people are not armed with pitchforks, and don't need to melt down little toys to make more musket balls. Our government fears that.

I won't compromise. I will NOT give up one more inch of the essential freedoms that I have, and I certainly won't give them up for a lie promoted by tyrants or hand wringing citizens.

My friend, the author of this blog, is one of the biggest gun rights fighter I know.  You should check out the rest of his blog.

I've actually had his blog bookmarked and in my favorites for  awhile now, I just haven't had time to catch up with all of them over the past week or so. I've got a full round of YouTube vids I'm slowly catching up on as well since it's just too cold and windy to enjoy being outside all that much today.

He makes a lot of valid points, but I absolutely can't see any point in compromise at this point. The Dick Act should have put an end to this ~ but congress doesn't care. The president doesn't care. They begged for the jobs and are supposed to serve (and care) and uphold that document. I'm fed up. I didn't spend more than half my life as a military spouse and doing my part to compromise on something that should never even be on the table for negotiation or removal. I'd have no problem telling the lot of them to pucker up and pick a cheek at this point if the initial blast of outrage doesn't permeate their thick skulls. Except for Feinstein. I might catch something bad from her.

Well I hope you get the chance to read it.  I have posted on here about his just one question.

And i understand what you are saying.