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.

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.