Sorry for the delay. I wanted to take my time and write this up properly.
Mayor Heartwell and I met in his office for about a half hour yesterday. Overall the conversation was very polite and respectful. I would in no way describe it as argumentative, combative, or standoffish. Overall my goal was not to get the Mayor to change his mind in relation to guns, but instead illustrate common ground and demonstrate where our interests are in fact the same.
I started off by talking about how I believe, in the end, we both want the same thing; safety. The problem is we disagree about how to get there. I described my recent efforts at rallies to engage people from the other side in reasonable conversation and how most of my efforts resulted in personal insults that had nothing to do with firearms. I talked about a man that eventually sat down to talk and was probably as surprised that I was honestly willing to talk respectfully, as I was surprised that someone actually sat down. We talked a little about about how difficult it can be to get past insults, especially when it comes to issues with great deal of emotion.
At one point he asked me what I thought about requiring people who attend public meetings armed to sign in and provide some sort of identification as a means of determining who is "safe". I expressed that, while I found his intent acceptable, I did not find the method acceptable, nor did I think it would be acceptable to the community at large. I understand wanting to know more about the people around you. If I could obtain more information about the strangers around me in a room, I would. However, I can't and I don't believe I should be able to, so instead I arm myself. That led us into a conversation about the balancing act between ensuring safety while respecting rights. I described it as a thin line with a steep drop off.
We spent some time on our backgrounds. 1994 Heartwell went to South Africa to monitor elections after they eliminated apartheid. He said there was a lot of violence and every organization was intent on keeping guns and other weapons out of polling places. He said that that "indoctrinated" him a bit. He also mentioned having an armed civilian in the room with the door closed made him uncomfortable. I asked what he would say to someone like myself that is uncomfortable when I am not armed. That led us into a conversation about why I carry. I spoke about being responsible for my own safety and the safety of those I love. The vast majority of police officers are great hardworking people that can't be everywhere even if they wanted to. I also explained that even if they could be everywhere, they still have no duty to protect.
After talking about being responsible, I tried to think of something to volunteer and went with the first thing that came to mind. I said that I would be ok restricting carry in places as long as there were metal detectors and armed guards outside. I explained, essentially, if we're going to take away my ability to protect myself, then we need to also shift the responsibility. (Note: I'm not pushing this idea, it's just something that came to mind for the sake of discussion)
At one point he openly lamented the fact that 'my' legislation is moving while 'his" legislation is DOA. He said that he felt that Michigan's laws are fairly liberal in comparison to the rest of the nation. I said in some ways yes and in some ways no and gave a few examples.
We ended the meeting by going back to common ground and I reiterated that I would be willing to work together on things of common interest. NOT compromise, but on things we both already agree on. I took a few seconds to briefly list a few, but we didn't have enough time left to go into detail. Honestly, the time went very fast.
I don't think either of us know where to go from here, or if anything is going to come from this, but I intend to follow up with an email when I get more time. Hopefully I have demonstrated that I am a reasonable individual who is honestly willing to have a legitimate discussion. Again, the mayor was very nice and open with me and I enjoyed the conversation. There were a number of things that came to mind to counter some of his comments, but as I said, the objective was not to fight. I imagine he felt the same way. It's much more difficult to delegitimize someone in an illegitimate way after you have established a base of respect. All that's left to fall on are the merits of your arguments, of which I am extremely confident in.
I'm sure I left a few things out, I will add more if I think of anything.
