3D Arguing: Common Ground

Voters need to do the exact opposite of politicians in arguments in order to preserve democracy. In an argument a politician seeks to show the differences between that politician and his opponents, to show voters why the voters should vote for that politician instead of that politician's opponents. In arguments with other voters we should seek to find common ground with other voters, so that together we can hold politicians accountable for acting or not acting on that common ground.

This is going beyond reaching out, it is fighting to find agreement. What if I were to tell you that as a progressive, I was able to come to a consensus with an Alt-right acquaintance on gun control? I have open contempt for the 2nd amendment, as I consider it to be a relic of slavery, where as my acquaintance sees the 2nd amendment as a sacred protection for all of our other rights. How could we ever see eye to eye on this issue? Here's how:

1. We both agree that soccer moms with cheap handguns in their purse with no training were a public safety problem.
2. We both agree that no matter the political views of a serious gun enthusiast, the kind of gun enthusiast that owns a wide range of firearms and shoots at the range, this enthusiast is of no public safety risk whatsoever. This gun enthusiast is not going to break the law, threaten the police, threaten other people, use the gun unsafely, fail to teach children adequate gun safety, allow children to play with the guns like toys, fail to lock up the weapons, etc.
3. Therefore, we both more or less agree that gun enthusiasts shouldn't really have restrictions on any weapon they want to own, but also that there should be less casual gun owners who do not take their weapons seriously.
4. Though we both agree the Texas gun "license to carry" system isn't perfect, we both agree it's far better than what most states have now.

In our era of constant calls for gun control, how come politicians are not fast at work making a federal system based on Texas's "License to Carry"? Because we voters are not holding them accountable, we have allowed ourselves as voters to be divided. But when I am arguing, this is the effect 3D Thinking has on the debate: any common ground I can find with the other side is precious. 

Look at it like this: are there any stupid people who agree with your views? Obviously. Therefore, is it possible that there are smart people who disagree with your views? Yes it is. Would it be wise for someone with your views to understand why smart people disagree with your views? Of course. Is that smart person better off if they understand why you disagree with their views? We are all better off, if we can see were we disagree, and then understand where we DO agree.