"Guns and Ammo" readers were up in arms this week after a contributing editor, Dick Metcalf, dared to present an opinion different than those that normally grace the gun-friendly magazine's pages.
Amongst a plethora of features on guns and shooting, Metcalf attempted to open up a discussion on the validity of gun control. In the column, he defended the Illinois state law that requires gun owners to undergo a set amount of training to obtain a concealed-carry permit.
The response from readers: outrage. One angry reader posted on the magazine's Facebook page, "Guns and ammo for gun control? Unsubscribed!!!!"
Less than a week after the article's publication, the magazine's editor, Jim Bequette, resigned. Metcalf apologized, and labeled his column a "mistake" written in the hope for a "healthy exchange of ideas on gun control rights."
But why did Metcalf have to apologize? In the readers' frenzy to protect their Second Amendment rights, they violated Metcalf's First Amendment right to the freedom of expression.
Angered readers overlooked the nuances of his opinion, instead summarizing his different idea as a dangerous opposition that needed to be shut down.
The issue here extends beyond the ongoing debate on gun control, and it extends beyond the recent situation at "Guns and Ammo." This refusal to listen, to compromise and to adjust can certainly be seen in the American government in light of the recent shutdown.
Legislators could have compromised. They could have listened. But instead, they sat back and, over the course of 16 days, crossed their fingers that the opposition would change its opinion. Both sides hoped the other would cede its stance, because one side certainly would not consider altering its own.
A conviction of one's beliefs is certainly healthy, but when conviction reaches a level that impairs conversation, it is both dysfunctional and detrimental to the growth that can be spurred by the exchange of ideas. Dissenting opinions should spark discussion, not force silence and apologies.
As a liberal arts college, DePauw is rooted in such open conversation and the exchange of ideas. Certainly we all have our own beliefs and opinions, but no matter how certain we may be of our rightness, we shouldn't forego the opportunity to listen and to talk. Silence may be more comfortable, but, as seen in the case of the "Guns and Ammo" incident and the government shutdown, it certainly doesn't accomplish anything.
Nothing can be lost by listening. Who knows, something may even be learned.