Gun laws, gun control, gun violence—they’re all over the news every time there’s a tragic incident involving a firearm. Along with the sensational headlines from mass shootings come the push for gun control and “common sense” gun laws.

I’m all for common sense gun laws. I think we should pass legislation that follows common sense, not just when dealing with guns and violence, but in anything. Unfortunately, laws are often written out of sentiment, by those who know nothing about what they’re affecting, or they’re motivated by power, money or revenge.

My idea of common sense gun laws start from a very different place. If we truly are to make gun laws—or any legislation—common sense, we have to change our way of thinking and come to some common conclusions about how we write laws in general. Here are my ideas:

Start with where we agree. I’ve watched our nation become increasingly fragmented and tribalistic over the past few years. We’ve lost the ability to engage in honest debate with those who disagree with us because we’ve stopped listening to each other.

While I can’t blame social media for human choices, I do see how sites like Facebook contribute to the demise. Social media services are designed to give you more of what you like; that’s how they make money. The more you like anti-gun posts, the more you see them and stories that are related. The more you like NRA posts, the more they show up. The other side of the argument disappears because it doesn’t “sell”. Without dissenting views, it’s easy to slip into the belief that the whole world agrees with a particular point of view, and that those that don’t are just dumb. 70% of Americans rely on social media as their primary news source, so it’s very likely that 70% of Americans are strongly biased and don’t even realize it.

It is impossible to have an honest debate with someone who thinks your dumb for holding your viewpoint. Yet if we would stop to listen to each other, we would find that we agree on lots of things. This applies not only to guns and violence, but to any other debate we are having right now.

It’s safe to say that 99.9% of the population of this country wants kids to be safe in schools. If someone came up with a fool-proof way to prevent violence, we would all put our money and support behind it. The problem is not in what we want, but in the disagreement about how to achieve it. Let’s at least come together to agree on what we want before we attempt to beat each other into submission over how we want to achieve it. Just because we differ about how to protect children doesn’t mean one of us wants children to be in danger.

Laws should be written by people who know something about the subject. I got a German Shepherd with my marriage. I love that dog, and I immediately wanted to become a good doggy dad, so I started studying training techniques. I quickly discovered that dogs look at the world very differently from humans. Unfortunately, many don’t get it and end up treating dogs as if they respond like humans with human emotions. Those dogs quickly become confused, unmotivated and unhappy, leaving their human masters wondering why they don’t behave. Imagine if those people wrote laws about how to treat dogs! It would be like commissioning 14 year old kids to write traffic laws, or men to write laws dictating how women should dress.

As someone who knows quite a bit about guns, I can tell you that the vast majority of people talking about passing new gun control measures know very little about the subject matter, and that includes politicians, news media, and some of my friends. They use completely inaccurate terminology, refer to things that don’t exist and cite statistics that are completely irrelevant, yet they feel qualified to write authoritative measures governing such things.

We often seek expert advice in other matters, so why not gun legislation? Why do some people feel like they know how to best solve an issue without first being educated? Either there is an ulterior motive at play, which needs to be brought to light to facilitate honest conversation, or education from qualified individuals and groups needs to be taken seriously.

Laws must not be written out of emotion. Survivors of trauma need to be heard, understood, have their pain validated, and then be comforted. I can’t imagine experiencing the loss of a family member or friend to senseless violence. It’s very real, raw, and tremendously powerful—often overwhelming. The effects of trauma can last for years.

Children react emotionally when they encounter something they don’t like. Take away a toy or refuse their deep “need” for a cookie and you’ll face the wrath of pure emotional response. Some children take a long time to grow out of it, becoming volatile, angry, reactionary adults. When humans move from reacting emotionally to making sound judgements based in fact, it is a sign of maturity. The volatile nature of emotional reaction is why we are a nation of laws. We don’t want the guy who got cut off in traffic to respond emotionally with the multi-ton deadly machine he’s driving.

While it is important to acknowledge the deep emotions that result from trauma, it is equally important to recognize that strong emotions drive irrational responses. Trauma is neither a basis nor a validator for legislation. The students from Stoneman Douglas High School did not suddenly become experts in guns and violence because of their experiences, yet they were hailed as such because of their trauma and anyone that argued against them—even logically—was shamed. Emotion is a powerful motivator for getting something done, but it is never an informed agent of the best course of action.

The emotionally charged notion that we have to do something and anything is better than nothing is a complete farce. Writing half-baked, reactive legislation is often more damaging than helpful. Sure, it may have a positive effect for a short time or against a specific crime, but the long-term consequences often outweigh any good that might have been achieved.

Acknowledge your biases. Along with the fragmentation and tribalism, in the past decade we have also seen a more biased news media. It used to be that good journalism carefully and equally examined both sides of a debate, but we rarely see that these days. I trust the NRA more than CNN, not because either of them is accurate, but simply because the NRA acknowledges its bias while CNN doesn’t. You know what side of the debate the NRA will take, and you would expect it to do so. CNN and others claim that their reporting is accurate and unbiased, but all news sources are biased—some more than others. It’s not just the news, though. Everyone is biased.

When I got divorced, I was often asked what happened and I always started with, “This is just my side of the story. If you want to get the whole picture, you have to ask my ex, too.” It is impossible to make informed decisions about issues without listening to both sides of the story. I listen to many different news sources, including CNN and talk radio. Not only does that help me be better informed, but it also makes it obvious when a source is biased. I am often amazed at the blatant slants different news sources will put on the same information.

Use history as a guide. We’ve all heard the saying, “Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.” Our Constitution was written by people who had experienced the tyranny of a monarch firsthand and wanted to create a government that would turn the power of governance over to the people to ensure that monarchies and dictatorships couldn’t happen. The United States of America was called “The Great Experiment” because it was a form of government that had never been tried before. It was a delicate balance of power meant to keep one person or group from rising to rule the rest.

Those who don’t understand history and human nature promote rules and laws to subvert others in the name of the greater good, but miss the bigger picture, which ultimately leads our country back toward tyranny. It sure seems like a good idea to limit the speech of those that make us feel bullied, but in doing so, we also limit our ability to speak out against those with whom we disagree. The Bill Of Rights was put into place specifically to combat that tendency. The First Amendment is more important than protecting anyone from bullying.

The Second Amendment is a significant part of the balance of power between the government and the governed. It’s not about hunting, self-defense or sport shooting. It’s about people having the means to band together in the face of tyranny and restore freedom from a government gone wrong, when required. The Second Amendment represents a bigger cause than just being pro-gun or anti-gun.

These common sense ideas about how we write laws could apply to any current day argument between two sides of an issue. Maybe if we implemented a few of them we could come to productive and helpful conclusions, maybe even solving a few of the issues instead of just reacting to the other side.