The Church is Failing the Gun Debate—and Young Men

The church is failing the gun debate.

More to the point: the church is failing its men—especially young men.

There are a many young men who are aimless, uncertain and who feel something is lacking. They are looking for meaning and purpose in life. They may not even know they are searching. Doesn't this describe each of us at some point in our lives?

Our communities, congregations and families are fragmented. Everywhere these young men look, people and institutions have little meaning to offer and even question whether there is meaning at all—at least, nothing worth finding.

One day, a young man holds a gun. Suddenly, he feels powerful—important-—impressive.

He never forgets that feeling.

Of course, limiting access to weapons of mass destruction is common sense. Random individuals walking around with loaded assault rifles and zero accountability to anyone or anything was never the intent of the 2nd amendment. If you need proof, just look at the thousands of weapons the military already has off limits to the general public. This should be obvious to anyone.

But all the well-reasoned arguments in the world won't compete with that feeling of meaning and power that an adrift young man suddenly stumbles upon when he holds a gun. There are great arguments here about the original intent of the 2nd Amendment. But those arguments fall on deaf ears when many feel like their very life is at stake if they were to lose access to certain guns—and they are right, but not in the way they think: They sense they would lose their identity and that feeling of meaning and power they have unfortunately never felt anywhere else. So they fight for gun rights with intensity.

These people, mostly men, have never felt meaning and power anywhere else in their lives—THIS is where we are failing as a society. The church especially is failing because it has a message that far surpasses what guns or gun culture could ever hope to offer.

What the Church offers

Unfortunately, the church often enters the gun debate in the same ways as the secular culture—either arguing for or against gun control. But that's not where the church can be most effective in this debate.

There are lots of ways—and much better, more edifying ways—to find meaning, power and stature in life than through gun ownership. There are other place to take risks, rise up to challenges and be brave. There are other ways to make a difference in the world—and I would argue, far better and more satisfying in so many ways. But we are failing as a society for neglecting to introduce these to young men.

Reaching out to the poor, the needy and lost can take more bravery than anything you could ever use a gun for. It takes more creativity and is more of a challenge, too. I've seen it and felt it. And I will never forget that feeling. The excitement of church missions—to build, to serve, to preach the good news—takes all the guts you could ever hope to muster and leaves you with a deeper sense of fulfillment than possibly anything else—but we aren't inviting young men into this!

Think of how Abraham followed God's call and led his family from the wilderness to the Promised Land. Or how Noah built the ark against all odds and against public scorning. Or how Joseph guided a pregnant Mary to a safe place to give birth, and then shepherded them all to Egypt as refugees to escape Herod's wrath. Think of men in mission today, such as Rev. Gregory Boyle who has befriended many of the nation's most dangerous gangs. Or those bringing medical supplies to war zones—or water to remote, parched areas—or education to impoverished children. Good fathers, husbands and workers. The list goes on and on. There is more excitement, challenge, belonging and meaning there than anything else you could imagine!

The excitement that comes from gun ownership is merely about power, and power is never as meaningful or satisfying as the mission that Jesus calls us into through the Beatitudes (Matthew 5:3-10) or the Parable of the Sheep and Goats (Matthew 25:31-46), for example.

Even more fundamentally, the church teaches that every person has dignity and worth. Every person has the image of God and shows us something of God.

It's one thing to own or use a gun for self-defense or for hunting. However, a line is crossed when that gun becomes enmeshed with a person's identity—when that gun is necessary for a person to feel good about themselves. In this case, gun idolatry has set in.

We Can Do Better

We can do better as a society. We can't simply neglect our men and boys as a society and then be surprised when society starts to crumble—and mass shootings are a very good indicator of that crumbling. Catholic priest Fr. Richard Rohr has a great video series about this. He argues that just about every traditional society had rites of passage and a system of mentorship for the young, especially for young men. We don't have that today and the results are disastrous. 

I walked by a gun store the other day. There were a few guys in there perusing guns, holding them. You could see how that very environment—that access—that privilege—that ritual... changes their posture, it changes their energy. It gives them a sense of importance, power and meaning. You could just see it radiating off of them. Having all that power at their disposal gives a sense of awe and responsibility. In this way, gun stewardship is a kind of a rite of passage for some men. Maybe for some guys that sense of responsibility can be a good thing—good training, mentorship and a culture that supports these goals about guns can help people manage that great responsibility and rise to the occasion (but this goes back to being "well-regulated"—the example of Switzerland shows how a well-regulated gun culture could work). But for so many others this power does not come with an equal share of responsibility, and innocent people are paying the price with their lives and well-being.

The Plight of Young Men

Young men are under a lot of pressure:

1.  They are expected to achieve and to provide for their families. Yet, society has made it increasingly difficult for this to happen.

2.  Hollywood tells them that they must lead and dominate at all times. Yet, real life doesn't work that way.

3.  On top of that, these men are also fed a message that success is solely determined by one's individual efforts. They are told you can't point to any societal factors but only your own hard work and enterprise (despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, this myth persists).

4.  Even further, there are fewer and fewer places where men gather for camaraderie, support and private conversation. My barber used to tell me what his shop used to be like a generation ago: Men would gather on a weekend morning for far more than a haircut and shave. They played pool, smoked cigars and talked about family, sports and the nation. This was once common and is now rare.

5.  Then on top of all this, society tells them that they are over-privileged! Make no mistake: White, male, hetero, Christian privilege is real. But people who assign those labels rarely give witness to the whole story, and this only makes it more difficult to talk about and address the real problems of privilege.

So what do these men do?  They try to boost themselves to make up for it. They carry guns. Some take steroids or drive big trucks. Then many in society make fun of them for that. It's a no win situation. Many young men respond by isolating themselves with their own friends and tune out the rest of society, since the rest of society clearly doesn't understand them. They are trying to live up to the impossible standards that society and Hollywood have set, without having much of a stabilizing influence of older men in their lives offering a better vision and a chance to be part of something good and decent.

We are failing males in our society, including—maybe especially—the ones we call "over-privileged." Yes, their privilege is real, but underneath it is a more complex story. They don't have good mentors, they don't know where else to find meaning—and more importantly, they don't seem to have a sense of their own value and dignity without needing a gun (or wanting to overpower others) to feel good about themselves. Whether or not they discern a gun can be useful for self-defense isn't the issue... the issue is they shouldn't need a gun to feel complete or whole as a human being. We can complain about them and talk about the dangers of fragile, insecure men—and that danger is real. But I actually feel for guys in this situation. We don't know how to raise men, how to talk about men and how to support men. And we see the results.

Is it any wonder why so many young men, especially white men, fall through the cracks and find meaning and belonging in gun culture and in internet chat rooms where this unspoken rage finds an outlet? All this pressure, and a poor understanding by the rest of society of what it means to be male today, leads to stress. They carry a profound internal rage and don't know how to manage it. Some cope with their rage by finding another group to pick on—immigrants, other races, the disabled, lgbtq+, etc. Add in the experience of being bullied or unpopular and many simply reach the breaking point. There are so many young men who are just one mentor away from succumbing to this.

The feminist movement has created space to talk about what it means to be female and what it means to be a woman. Unfortunately, we have made the tragic mistake of assuming that men do not need the same kind of conversation about what it means to be male and what it means to be a man.

Whether or not people discern a gun can be useful for self-defense isn't the issue... 

the issue is they shouldn't need a gun to feel complete or whole as a human being.

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.

Arming Teachers: The Intersection of White Male Privilege and Anti-Democratic Impulses

The subject of arming teachers has again surfaced given recent legislation in Florida allowing the practice. 

This idea is absurd. However, it persists because, I believe, it sits at the intersection of hot-button issues of  gender, privilege and power. These are much deeper than simply a question of gun usage. These issues are key in an ongoing tug-of-war for the soul of this nation.

A friend who is a lifelong educator wrote: 

I strongly object to any teacher being armed. I believe if a person with a gun is in a school that person should be a genuine experienced police officer. Handling a gun, shooting with a gun, and becoming effective as a shooter can be trained into some people but developing the needed understanding, rapid decision making skills, and having a keen awareness of all the dangers in a shooter situation takes experience, practice, knowledge and commitment. How is a teacher going to do that while at the same time handling their responsibilities with their students? This is like a secret service job title. I am fearful that one of these well-meaning teachers will become a fine example of why this is a very stupid idea.

MY RESPONSE: What he describes is exactly what some people want. They want to take people who are relaxed, confident, independent and thoughtful and turn them into trained gunmen who react.

Why in the world would anyone want this? Two reasons come to the top. 

First: It serves some politically. As the Ancient Greeks taught us, true freedom and independence comes through education, NOT weaponry. When you are skilled at critical thinking--so that you can sift through information to arrive at your own conclusions and be confident in your conclusions--then you are not easily manipulated by fear rhetoric, fake news or the mob mentality. As a result, education makes you confident and relaxed. However, many do not like a truly free population, so keeping them afraid, armed and on alert changes the psychology of the population dramatically and makes certain things politically possible that would otherwise not be possible. If you want to erode democracy and install authoritarianism, this is an essential step. An armed and fearful population is the easiest for a government to control (which is ironic since so many gun rights supporters see gun ownership as the means to stave off bad governments when it's actually the easiest way to get them).

Second: White male dominance. There is a group of people--especially white males who are not college educated--who have been told all their lives that it is their job to be dominant in society. They have been told they will simply earn that through their natural skills and abilities, and they disregard at face value that any of this achievement comes through structural privilege. But their world is slipping away. Women and people of other races and ethnicities are gaining power more and more. What is the desperate insecure white male to do? He tries to augment himself to get the power he has been told he deserves and merits. He uses steroids, he drives big, loud trucks and he keeps himself armed. I actually feel bad for him, because he feels inadequate--society tells him its his birthright to be the big dog but the facts of the world tell him that he's only average, so he desperately tries to do something to live up to those unfair expectations on him.

HERE'S THE KEY: As long as the world lives and dies based on who has guns and who doesn't, then the one calling the shots (literally) still has all the power. As long as everyone is walking around armed all day, then the uneducated white male with the gun is still the big dog in society--he's still necessary--everything is all based on him--he trains and coaches everyone--and All. Eyes. Are. On. Him. 

If you take away guns, you take away his very identity and his role, and he will feel like you are taking HIM away. It's not true, but the perception is true which is why so many fight so hard to keep their guns. They have internalized that those guns are literally an extension of themselves, so they are fighting to keep them as if their very life depends on it--and it does, but not in the way they think. It's only their PERCEPTION that their identity depends on it, because the chances of them needing their guns because of a pending gunfight at the O.K. Corral are pretty slim.

In the movies, it is almost always the white, western male who saves the day and who naturally takes command. In real life, the person who saves the day might be that Muslim doctor wearing a hijab who performed flawless heart surgery on you. It could be a female politician who commands attention and sets policy. It could be an African-American male who programmed your computer. The gap here between expectations and reality is significant and people will try to address it in better and worse ways. We blame white males for being "insecure" and "fragile" but it is actually quite unfair to put these expectations on them.

The key here is not beat up on white men for being insecure but in reducing unrealistic expectations. White men have only been dominant through complex layers of privilege, NOT by their own super powers or merit. They ARE just average--just like everyone else--and that's perfectly good!

Third: Lack of Will. It would be negligent to talk about this issue without mentioning that the inability of our nation to address gun violence by the most sensible means possible means that we are going to be facing increasingly ridiculous and absurd alternatives, such as arming classroom teachers. What are those sensible means? They certain include better regulation of weapons. Many of the weapons currently circulating in the civilian population are the type that should only be kept by the military--no different than tanks, missiles and aircraft carriers. Speaking of military, if you ever walk onto a military base you won't see weapons brandished randomly by individuals at their own discretion.  Rather, they are stored safely and only come out under the supervision and regulation of a chain of command. Regulation works. The inability of our society to effectively stop the entrenched bullying of this special interest minority means we continue to fail the people living in our society by doing what's right.

The themes in this blog post dovetail with a previous piece entitled How White Male Privilege Leads to Fragility and Violence.

The Darth Vaderization of America through Guns

Picture source: https://pixabay.com/en/darth-vader-star-wars-geek-1207142/

"He's more machine now than man. Twisted and evil."

―Obi-Wan Kenobi

Darth Vader is not just a bad guy. He's a tragic and sad character, perhaps even pathetic. It's hard to feel sorry for him when he's intimidating the bejesus out of everyone, blowing up planets and leading an assault on peace and goodwill in the galaxy.

But he's not a happy guy. He's barely even a guy at all, anymore.

Driven by pain, anger and ultimately fear, and literally torn apart by his numerous scuffles, his once graceful form was replaced by cold machine. Part by part.

He may have been the galaxy's chief bad ass, but that armor hid another truth. The loss of his flesh and blood mirrored the loss of his own humanity.

It must have been uncomfortable under all those circuits and wires—for whatever flesh he had left to feel with, that is. He was literally on life support. There was no more potential for human touch or experiencing life with his natural senses. His armor both protected and imprisoned him.

He didn't just participate in a war. His own body was the war zone.

In light of the alarming rate of mass shootings in U.S. schools, a number of plans are being proposed. Some involve stricter regulations around guns and gun ownership. Other plans involve turning schools into barricaded fortress with armed teachers.

This online meme from a Twitter discussion captures the basic idea. @FoxNews issues the following, from Judge Jeanie Pirro: "We need to protect kids, & that means we've got to have metal detectors, we've got to have experienced cops..., & we've got to be able to have perimeter controls. We've got to have teachers who can carry a weapon & react to this kind of nonsense." #Hannity

Journalist Scott Gilmore replied with: "That's a prison. You're describing a prison."

These measures are perhaps what you would do in the temporary, extreme conditions of an actual war zone. It should never be accepted as a regular way of life.

There is a cost to living like Darth Vader. Every piece of armor replaces your own flesh and blood. Every wall between you and someone else means another wall between a part of your own self. You could drape armor over yourself, never leave home without packing firepower and be always on the lookout for danger. Somewhere along the line, perhaps in shades of gray, you lose your humanity and become a hunted beast— always on the lookout, always afraid, always griping this metal extension of your body tightly. No one can shoot you, no one can beat you . . . but is there any "you" left?

Whenever this happens, the gun has become an "essential" part of your life. It is a continuation of your own hand—it starts where your hand stops. It may be held around your heart. Or gut. The gun has in effect become a part of you. By definition—that's what "essential" means. At this point, you will have taken a large step forward on the path to becoming like Darth Vader.

A gun may bring additional power and security, but it always comes with a cost. It's important to weigh that cost before going down that rabbit hole. The gun demands a high price. It wants to become enmeshed into your identity. It wants your very soul.

Case in point: The way the Parkland, FL, students are being insulted, harassed and villified—when they are asking questions, speaking their voices and sharing their testimonies—all during this time of grief—tells me all I need to know about the gun lobby and its bought-and-paid-for politicians: Mean spirited, juvenile, heartless and ultimately selfish. There is no humanity left in the gun lobby.  Or if there is, it is buried so far beneath its armor that it can barely breathe without it.

I don't know what motivates the gun lobby, but it's clearly not freedom. If they were concerned about freedom, they would be supporting these students' free speech. Instead, they slander them and try their various smear, diversion and distraction tactics that have worked so well in the past. America may finally have had enough.

The Darth Vaderization of the gun lobby is complete. When grieving high school students are the subject of political spin and slander, there is no line of decency left that won't be crossed. Anyone who comes between them and their gun is an enemy who must be discredited and destroyed. They live, and we die, for the gun. The gun no longer serves them—rather, they serve the gun. They worship the gun. It is supreme. All other concerns are in a far secondary place, if at all.  Everything is negotiable except the wishes of the almighty gun. No other liberty or right matters other than the liberty to carry a gun—even the right to life itself.

Van Morrison sings "Ain't it lonely when you're livin' with a gun?"

The song is Who Was That Masked Man? Fans of old westerns know that masked man was the Lone Ranger—aptly named.

Oh ain't it lonely

When you're livin' with a gun

Well you can't slow down and you can't turn 'round

And you can't trust anyone

You just sit there like a butterfly

And you're all encased in glass

You're so fragile you just may break

And you don't know who to ask

Oh ain't it lonely

When you're livin' with a gun

Well you can't slow down and you can't turn 'round

And you can't trust anyone

You just sit there like a butterfly

You're well protected by the glass

You're such a rare collector's item

When they throw away what's the trash

You can hang suspended from a star

Or wish on a toilet roll

You can just soak up the atmosphere

Like a fish inside a bowl

When the ghost comes round at midnight

Well you both can have some fun

He can drive you mad, he can make you sad

He can keep you from the sun

When they take him down, he'll be both safe and sound

And the hand does fit the glove

And no matter what they tell you,

There's good and evil in everyone

A Surprising Place of Common Ground in the Mass Shootings Debate

When it comes to mass shootings in the U.S., there is something we should all be able to agree on no matter where on the political spectrum we fall.

Whether we are strong supporters of gun rights, gun restrictions or some other approach, there is at least one thing we can all say.

This doesn't happen very often in our polarized nation, so it's worth taking notice.

Mass shootings are very common in our country. Virtually nothing has actually been done to address any of the suspected causes. For the last several years, Congress has not been actively debating the pros and cons of any proposed plans to address this problem with any serious intent. 

Therefore, we should all be willing to admit that mass shootings will continue at about the same rate.

Right?

This is just basic logic.

Like the old saying goes: If you do what you've always done, you're going to get what you've always gotten.

We should all be willing to agree on this regardless on where we stand politically or what we think are the causes of mass shootings. That's simply the most likely scenario. If anyone disagrees with this, I'd sure like to hear it.

Is this something we are willing to accept?

Is this just the way life is going to be going forward?  The new normal?

Who's Job Is It?

So whose job is it to ensure the safety of school children? Liberals and conservatives may have some different views. However, even the most conservative libertarians—who want as small of a government as possible—will argue that "that government's only legitimate role is to protect individual rights to life, liberty and property."

The government mandates that children go to school, but it seems incapable of ensuring their safety while there. When politicians say "now is not the time to talk about gun violence" they are derelict in their elected duties no matter which political philosophy you follow. People are free to use self-defense, but that should be a last resort, not a first resort. The first and primary responsibility for security falls directly on our elected leaders.

What Do We Do?

Gun control supporters actually have plans with lots of ideas. Here's one. There are others. Maybe they will work, maybe they won't, but they are based on real data and real experience in other parts of the world, as well as previous laws in the U.S. The causes of mass shootings are complex, but more and more the data is showing us that the sheer availability of firearms is the strongest correlating factor in mass shootings, like this NY Times article. Other countries have comparable rates of mental illness, breakdown of the family and (lack of) religious commitment of the population, but most don't have many mass shootings. The U.S. has more guns and more gun-related deaths—those are the only two data points that are unique for us.

Other data, like in this Washington Post article, is showing us that a ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines would result in a significant drop in mass gun deaths. We already had a version of that law from 1994-2004 and no one lost their basic liberties over it. It probably wouldn't solve the whole problem, but it would be a significant step in the right direction.

If gun control isn't the solution, then what, pray tell, is?

Some say the solution is better mental health treatment. In this NY Times article, a psychiatrist shares the cold reality about why mental health treatment will not fix the problem of mass shootings. She argues convincingly for better gun control.

Some gun rights supporters don't actually have a plan, other than the slow arming of the entire population. It seems like the only scenario they support is turning this country into some kind of a Wild West video game, where everyone walks around all day packin' in some kind of testosterone-fueled action movie and schools are turned into fortresses. That seems like a fantasy for little boys, but this is a situation that calls for mature men and women. The fact that virtually every other nation in the world has figured out how to keep school children safe without having to resort to this should be our first clue that there is a better way.

It is hard to accept someone telling me that my child is safer if teachers are armed when the halls of Congress is a gun free zone. 

Don't Believe the Hype: Regulations Work.

Despite all the negative comments you may hear about gun regulations, the truth is that the government does a fantastic job regulating weapons. The vast majority of weapons are only available to the military, and the military does a great job of keeping it that way: Armed tanks, missiles, nukes, chemical and biological weapons, most bombs and grenades, you name it. You just can't go out and buy that stuff, because regulation actually works quite well. In fact, if you want a bomb, you pretty much have to make it yourself. Try to research how to do it and acquire the ingredients without attracting the attention of Homeland Security in the process! A few domestic terrorists have shown us that it can be done, but it's clearly not easy. I'm tired of making it easy for mass murderers.

But you need a comprehensive control. You can't allow it in one city then ban it in the next city (i.e. Chicago). 

People act like a ban on assault rifles would be some major break with the Constitution, but the vast majority of weapons have always been unavailable to civilians. Given our long and bloody history with mass shootings, the line between "military" and civilian" weapons has become blurred and needs to be re-evaluated.

There are clearly some weapons circulating in the general population that only belong in the military. Civilized countries just don't let random people walk around the streets carrying loaded machine guns. You can't even do that in the military—weapons are kept under a strict chain of command and there are detailed procedures for how to use and store them. Large scale firepower should never be in the power of random citizens to use at their private discretion.

Imagine walking around a military base just randomly carrying loaded firepower whenever you felt like it! That would never happen. There are very good reasons for that: Accidents, mental illness, people with grudges, people with power issues, sociopaths, suicidal people who want to take out others, the list goes on and on. There is some firepower that is so large that vast amounts of damage can be done before anyone can react to stop it, so it’s better to stop it further upstream. The threat of losing their lives or life in prison does not seem to deter most terrorists.

Weapons of mass destruction should only be kept and used (if at all) by an organized body (such as the military) which is accountable to the government (the people) where there is a strict chain of command, training and precautions governing their use and storage. I think that's what the framers of the Bill of Rights meant by the term "well-regulated."

"A Good Guy With a Nuke"

Some things are not meant for private individuals to use at their own discretion. Nuclear weapons are a great example. A "good guy with a nuke" is not an effective deterrent against a "bad guy with a nuke." If both parties have a conscience and feel responsible for the lives in their respective nations, then a nuclear standoff might work. But all you need is one crackpot dictator with nothing to lose who doesn't care about the consequences, then suddenly we've got nuclear Armageddon. A good guy with a nuke will be ineffective in stopping the deaths of millions in that scenario. He might get the last word, but at what cost?

A school shooter is very similar to a crackpot dictator with nothing to lose. They all probably know they are going to eventually get caught and either killed or imprisoned. They don't care. They just want to cause as much devastation as possible before that happens.

Social Contract 

The best solution is that we as a whole society should come together and make a social contract with each other—making the free choice to give up the use of some weapons because the lives of our children are simply more important—and their freedom to live is more important than our freedom to own weapons of mass destruction.

Living in the large civilized society means that we have to continually make adjustments and compromises in order to figure out how to share this space together and accommodate each other in the best possible way. There is nothing new or unusual about having to make adult sacrifices in order to be in relationship with each other. We do it all the time, as we are a nation of laws and sensible regulations. Like a successful marriage, you give up some things so you have have even better things. We can choose to stomp our feet and complain that the "government is taking things from us," or we can maturely come together and take responsibility for these choices because we realize that are indeed the best options available.