reasoned discourse

… but this time, the good variety.
Earlier this week, I wrote a post on the shooting that took place at the Tennessee Valley Unitarian Universalist Church. In it, I mentioned a Dr. John Bohstedt, who, in addition to being a Rhodes Scholar, graduating from both Oxford and Harvard, and teaching Modern British and Irish history and Riots and Revolutions in Western Europe and the United States (now that is an interesting class title) at UTk, was one of the heroes who succeeded in disarming and disabling the murderer in an amazingly short amount of time.
And, in an amazing stroke of randomness, Dr. Bohstedt dropped by to provide his comments on mine, as well as some of the thoughts going through his mind during and after the attack.
The crazy part, and the reason why I am writing this particular post rehasing everything? Both parties were civil, we exchanged our viewpoints and opinions without the discussion devolving or deteriorating, and, on some points, we simply and politely agreed to disagree. That, ladies and gentlemen, is how discussions and debates on the the internet and elsewhere should proceed, not with pointless namecalling, creative uses of four-letter words, or general-purpose rudeness. Sure, I do not think I changed his mind, but I have no illusions about my argumentative capabilities – the odds of me convincing anyone to do or believe anything are relatively small. But I think/hope I was able to present a good face for myself and other people who decide to carry firearms for self-defense, and we both learned a lot through the conversation (and hopefully will continue to do so, should it go on).
See, folks? People on opposite (or at least different) sides of the fence can still debate, exchange some interesting thoughts, and come away unscathed and still respecting one another. Rare and unusual I know, but it does happen, and it is a pleasure when it does.