Sensible Weapons Regulations: A Longstanding Tradition

When talking about gun violence, gun enthusiasts often act like any regulations on firearms would be some kind of radical, unprecedented break with our fundamental rights outlined in the Bill of Rights. Lions, tigers and bears, oh my!

However, this is not true at all.

I always remind these folks that the vast majority of weapons are off limits to the public and only the military has access to them. We have a longstanding tradition of banning weapons from public use and always have. Loaded tanks, missiles, grenades, machine guns... the list goes on and on. It's NOT a radical break in the 2nd amendment to suggest that assault-style guns and rifles should be included in the list "for military access only." 

There are thousands and thousands of weapons restricted from civilian use. Further, these regulations are very effective at keeping them out of public access.  Adding a couple more (like the AR-15 and its class of weapons) would only move the needle slightly but studies indicate it would have a significant impact on public health. There are some weapons so heinous even the military won't use them, but it is still the only group authorized to research them or keep them in any way. Sure, you can buy some stripped-down, neutralized versions at a surplus store, but that's not the same, of course.

Just for the record, I don't know which weapons are included on which list or which ones specifically need to be banned, so before you respond with "But what about the XYZ semiautomatic which falls in between categories??" that misses the point: CLEARLY the line between civilian and military weapons needs to be re-evaluated significantly in light of new technologies and in light of public risk. If someone is willing to shoot up a shopping mall and doesn't seem to mind getting killed in the process or spending the rest of their lives in prison, you simply don't give them easy access to firearms, especially those of mass destruction. Arguing semantics about gun categories is fine when it comes time for an official committee to set proper parameters, but we in the general public do not need that to make an informed decision NOW.

It's the same rationale why bombs, nukes and related items are severely restricted from civilian use. If your neighbor wants to blow up a city with a nuke, whether or not you retaliate with a nuke of your own is not going to matter a whole lot. Prevention works better than cure here. Something clearly has to be done in our culture and arming more people won't fix this.

The same reason we don't want North Korea to have nuclear weapons capabilities is the same reason I don't want my neighbor to have access to an AR-15.

Look at the recent Dayton shooting: I believe the gunman was shot by security within seconds of opening fire. It's hard to imagine a better response time. Nevertheless, it didn't stop the shooting, it didn't stop the deaths, and it didn't seem to deter the killer in any way. Many were dead in that short time. We can't arm our way out of this. A whole room full of people fully armed will not stop a mass shooting. The shooter can fire off an AR-15 and kill several before anyone could respond.

The US military confirms this:  In their words, you can't defend an infinite number of targets. You can successfully defend specific individual people or buildings. For example, you can guard a building, like the Capitol or a museum. You can have protection around a president and defend him effectively—well, sometimes this doesn't work, as Ronald Reagan was shot despite being surrounded by Secret Service guards. So even this is debatable, but in theory it can be done. But when the potential targets are literally anybody, anywhere, anytime, you have to address this on the supply side of prevention, not cure. It's the same problem the military had with suicide bombers in Iraq and Afghanistan. Arming the population or having more checkpoints isn't going to stop it. It has to be addressed further back in the supply chain of access to materials, in addressing systemic injustices and root causes of violence. It won't be successfully addressed by having more security, by more people employing "open carry" or by arming teachers.

You might say: "They'll use knives! They'll make their own homemade bombs!" However, as tragic as that might be, in both instances, the scale would be substantially smaller and the startup effort required would be significantly higher, which would reduce bloodshed exponentially and perhaps even prevent some tragedies from happening at all. Of course we have to look at root causes of violence and seriously revamp our society on may levels, and I would be thrilled to have that conversation. I would love to do everything to create a society based in peace and nonviolent conflict resolution which builds up its members. Let's do it! I wonder if gun enthusiasts really know what they are asking for when they talk about addressing root causes of violence outside of guns! Peace and love is the way!

But in the meantime—and for all times—we don't give easy access to weapons of mass destruction to people who want to commit mass destruction on the public! Simple. It's the guns. If you look at the example of how we limit weapons to the military only, we are not even following our own logic and policies here. We've always limited them. We've always had regulations. Adding a couple extra models of weapons to the list of thousands and thousands and thousands which are off limits to civilians is not a radical departure from what we've always done. The only radical departure is that our regulations have not kept pace with the increasing technology of weapons.

Adding a couple extra models to the list of thousands and thousands and thousands of weapons which are off limits to civilians is not a radical departure from what we've always done.

We have to remember that both the Constitution (5th and 7th amendments of the Bill of Rights) and the Declaration of Independence guarantees the rights to life, liberty and property IN THAT ORDER (rendered slightly differently as "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" in the Declaration of Independence). We forget that last part: In that order. It may not be written in the text but it has always been understood and interpreted that way. There are reasonable limits to all of the rights enshrined in our founding documents as a result. When one person's pursuit of happiness interferes with other person's life, we choose life. Period. When we live together in an ordered society, one person's behavior can and will impact another person, and this is why we have a hierarchy of rights and liberties to assure the best for all. This is especially true when the liberty of carrying a gun is NOT associated with any increased safety for the gun owner or anyone else—in fact, it is only correlated with increased risk to life, liberty and happiness. 

When someone walks into a Starbucks with an AR-15, my pursuit of happiness is over, my liberty to spend time there is effectively limited, and I'm worried about my life. I'm planning my exit immediately and so is everyone else. I don't know what the person's intentions are or what their training has been. Besides, accidents happen even with trained people. Even armed security could not stop a person from shooting up a crowd with an AR-15. That is why even just brandishing the weapon—and not using it—is already an act of aggression—even unused it causes a disturbance and it inflicts trauma—and this is why they must be banned immediately and effectively.

Root Causes of Gun Violence

My ears perk up when gun enthusiasts say we need to address root causes of violence and not look at regulating guns. 

Do they really know what they are asking for? 

You mean... you want to create a society that fundamentally reshapes the way we approach and manage stress, which trains in nonviolent conflict resolution (like MLK showed us), and which blossoms in peace and love everywhere? 

That our whole society would band together to continuously work on this openly and enthusiastically? 

To love the lost, to tend the wounded, to make sure no one is isolated, bullied or forgotten? 

To breathe in peace and breathe out pain as an all around way of life? 

I say, bring it on!

To Trust in God's abundance and not make false idols out of weapons?

To learn how to share the earth with one another and to cooperate? To create mutually beneficial relationships rather than exploit vulnerabilities for profit?

Yes! Yes! Yes!

God created all that we know out of love.

God redeemed the world through the cross out of love. 

God has continued to sanctify the world through Pentecost and beyond out of love.

All of Scripture has to be read through the lens of this continual outpouring of love.

Violence only begets more violence, as Scripture also shows quite well. Violent revolutions seem at first to fix one problem only to create another violent society in its place. Oppressive empires are replaced by another evil empire. The king of the hill who bullies others is knocked off the top only to be replaced by another king of the hill doing much of the same. Violence is a chain reaction that only leads to move violence. In the movies, violence seems to puts people in their place and allows goodness to flow, but in reality it just doesn't work that way. Hollywood movies speak to the simple solutions that we all long for on some level, but they shouldn't be taken as a script for real life.

Nonviolent movements for social change have been wildly successful (but woefully under-reported).

The only reasons nonviolence is hard is because it involves mutual change to resolve a conflict. Both parties have to take risks, be vulnerable and be open to transformation.

Yes, part of human nature we struggle with is to be competitive. But we forget that an equal part of human nature is to be cooperative. Humans have always lived in tight-knit villages, clans and families where work and its rewards are shared. People work according to their ability and are given according to their need.

Modern civilization has advanced so rapidly that we have forgotten so many longstanding traditions. Most tribal societies have brilliant, compassionate and very human ways of addressing wrongdoings of members. Mennonite scholar Howard Zehr has lead the movement for restorative justice which resembles much of what human cultures have always done but which we in the modern world have forgotten.

I leave you with this absolutely brilliant video series by Catholic spiritual leader Richard Rohr who talks about the need for "male initiation." Male initiation is something virtually every traditional culture does but our modern one does not. The results are catastrophic—violence, spousal abuse, substance abuse, mental health problems and suicide. In most cultures, young men are groomed through a system of mentoring, challenging adventures such as vision quests and interaction with proper role models. This link is part 1 of a 4 part series, well worth watching for the full hour all together (Parts 2, 3 and 4 should follow automatically). There is much to be said about how we are neglecting men and boys in our society which may be at the root of the violence we are seeing today.

Pope Francis, the Death Penalty, the 2nd Amendment and Fundamentalism

It reads like a headline from the Babylon Bee: 

Catholics Upset Because Pope Francis Doesn't Want Them To Kill People Anymore.

The truth is often stranger than fiction, as the saying goes.

Pope Francis has recently updated Catholic Church teaching by declaring that the death penalty is "inadmissible."

Controversy has erupted. Some argue over whether Church teaching can truly "change" at all. Others take issues with the updated teaching itself.

I wonder why so many people seem to want the death penalty. I can understand (though not necessarily agree with) the argument that the death penalty may at some times be regrettably necessary. But even so, it should always be a last resort and something very sad. It means all other options have failed (and that those other options have been tried and tried again), and that's nothing to celebrate. I wish I saw as much passion from people working hard for envision alternatives to the death penalty as I do from those who want to keep it.

Still, I've been struggling with trying to figure out what actually happened with Francis' pronouncement. I wholeheartedly support the Church moving more clearly in the direction of love, life and nonviolence, but when I try to "work out the theological math" so to speak, I have been left skeptical. My issues have nothing do with whether or not doctrine can develop (as some argue), because I'm convinced it can and has (see below under the section "Fundamentalism"). My questions are about the theological implications of the pronouncement itself.

Here's why:

If the death penalty is "inadmissible" in every single case and condition--including cases of absolute self-defense--then the Catholic Church has taken a step toward a paradigm of nonviolence and pacifism. That would be huge.

If not, then what has happened is that Francis has simply clarified the teaching that was already there and changed the wording to prevent misunderstandings. The real leap forward came with Pope John Paul II.

As I explained in a previous article, the death penalty has already been de facto inadmissible in the previous version of the Catholic Catechism. That Catechism contains this line: "the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty." However, what follows is a very strict conditional clause: "if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor." It even goes on to spell out that such cases where the death penalty could be admissible in modern society "are very rare, if not practically nonexistent." If that weren't enough, the Catholic Church even put this section about the death penalty under the category of "Legitimate Defense" just to make sure there would be no confusion. 

In short: The Church is not supporting the right of nations to dole out God's punishments, but it does not deny the right to legitimate defense, even if such instances are only hypothetical in the modern world.

For reasons that I have a hard time understanding, many people took that to mean the death penalty was still up for debate. It's not. Simple reading comprehension will tell you that. And this was long before Francis.

The U.S. 2nd Amendment and Other Matters of Interpretation

Church teaching is one thing; how that teaching is interpreted is wholly another.

Catholic blogger Jack Quirk penned a blog entry that gets to the heart of the matter. He mentions how Francis' update to the Catechism negates "prudential judgment" interpretations. This is key. Many take some parts of Catholic Church teaching more literally than other parts. To that latter category, they apply "prudential judgment," which is a fancy way of saying they take the teaching prayerfully and seriously but not authoritatively or literally. Francis is saying that you cannot apply prudential judgment to this teaching--it speaks from a higher level of authority.

In addition, a lot of people were reading the Catechism on the death penalty the way many American conservatives currently read the 2nd amendment: They read the first part divorced from the second part in a manner reminiscent of Justice Scalia. In the 2nd amendment, the opening clauses states that the people have to right to bear arms, but that right is nestled within the necessary condition of a well-regulated militia. Most Constitutional scholars have read it that way since the passing of the Bill of Rights. However, the more recent Scalia style of interpretation separates the first part from the latter context. In other words, the "right to bear arms" now stands alone, largely divorced from its context, namely, the condition of a "well-regulated militia."

Many apply that same interpretative style to the Catholic Catechism on the death penalty. As stated above, the first part says that yes, the Church cannot totally rule out the use of the death penalty. But then there is the conditional clause: There must be no other way to save lives and/or protect the common good. With current resources for incarceration and sociological studies overwhelmingly denouncing the death penalty as a deterrent, it is almost impossible to claim the death penalty is "necessary" for protection. However, many Catholics just read the first part saying the Church cannot rule out the use of the death penalty and stood it on its own. They regarded the prevalence of executions through history as the backing of tradition and they just ignored or downplayed the second part about necessary defense. The door was open just a tiny crack but they attempted to drive a truck through it. That's the problem Francis was trying to address, I think.

If we read carefully the previous Catechism, the death penalty is not actually supported--only self-defense is a legitimate use of force, not the death penalty. However, the previous Catechism seems timid about saying that outright, even though that's really the only logical conclusion to take from the text itself. So I see Francis as saying 'let's quit beating around the bush and just tell it like it is.' I don't think Francis is taking away the option for "legitimate defense" and moving the Church towards pacifism, even though he may personally want to do that and I would be sympathetic to that, as well, but that would be a rather significant can of worms to open. 

Maybe I'm wrong and Francis has indeed introduced pacifism. Case in point: Moral theologians will say that through "double effect" reasoning, an execution--which is "inadmissible"--could still happen, but the primary motive would be to protect the common good and the death of the prisoner would be a regrettable secondary outcome. Others (like Stephen Schloeder) argue that Francis has put the death penalty into a category that makes double effect reasoning null and void, as "inadmissible" sounds a lot like "intrinsically evil." This is fodder for moral theologians to hash out in the coming years.

I believe all that Francis did was try to put an end to opportunistic readings of the Catechism in regards to the death penalty. The Church is against it and this is authoritatively said--no more prudential judgment readings nor separating out isolated statements out of their context.

Fundamentalism

Most of the controversy about this move by Francis is over whether doctrine can truly "change" at all. Some claim that everything that appears to be a change in Church teaching is only an adaptation to the signs of the times and not actual doctrinal evolution. Others--especially Church historians--cite instances of legitimate change in Church teaching over its 2,000+ year pilgrim journey.

The whole controversy over doctrinal development is really just the Catholic Church wrestling with its own form of fundamentalism.  In Protestant Fundamentalism, the defining issue is the literal interpretation of the Bible. In Catholic fundamentalism, the claim of fundamentalists is that the teaching authority of the Church (the Magisterium) can never be wrong on matters of faith and morals. Both camps deny history, deny the written word and bend over backwards to try to make all the pieces fit, instead of just admitting that an absolute, unchanging, literal interpretation of either Scripture of Magisterial pronouncements is the actual error.

Just War Theory

Many have noted the similarities between the theologies of the death penalty and Just War Theory. A change in one could bring about a change in the other. Stay tuned . . .