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.

Our Greatest Sin: Quick to Judge, Exclude and Comdemn

https://www.jw.org/en/publications/books/jesus/final-ministry/trial-before-sanhedrin/

Good people can rightly disagree on a number of issues. We often forget that. Our culture is heavily polarized. We've grown accustomed to the culture wars. Our political parties have drawn hard lines between each other to where working across the aisle can be considered scandalous instead of wise and prudent. Both the professional media and social media have a role to play in these divisions, as well.

What bothers me the most is not that people disagree on important issues. Disagreement will happen. It's that we can be so quick to judge, exclude and condemn.

For example, anyone who has looked at the hard issues around war, peace and violence knows that there are rarely easy answers. This is specially true with nations with long and complicated histories. I've been in academically tedious debates over the nuances of Just War Theory. Folks may argue from a Christian perspective either for or against war. I can appreciate the points on all sides. But what I can't understand is that some folks are just so eager to go to war. At the drop of a hat, it's All Systems Go.

It's the eagerness to go to war that keeps me up at night.

My own Catholic Church has a long history of theological debate over this issue. But even if war is somehow deemed to be "necessary," it should always be a last resort. It should always come with great sadness. It should always be seen as a sin that all else has failed to prevent it, including our own individual efforts. But when we go to war, I just don't see much regret or sadness. I see triumphalism. I see blood lust. I see dehumanizing of the opponent and cheers over bombings.

I see this playing out around other issues:

Anyone who has looked at the issues around immigration knows that there are no easy answers. There are desperate, hungry people at the border. At least some of their desperation (if not all) is the result of our own policies. But there are points to be made about maintaining borders and knowing who comes and goes. Good people can rightly disagree. But what bothers me is that some of my fellow Americans are just so eager to shut the door to our neighbors before hearing their concerns. They find some technicality in the laws as an excuse to shut their hearts and minds, but let's be honest: The law isn't the real reason for their push to exclude.

Take the death penalty. Sometimes a person on death row has another story to tell. His legal team may be screaming, "Wait! Don't execute! We found new evidence!" I'm shocked by how often they have great difficulty even getting the testimony heard. Before even seeing the new evidence, others say, "Sorry, too late, the case is closed!" They don't even want to hear the evidence. I've worked with groups petitioning the state governor just hours before an execution trying to halt the process so it can be re-evaluated. What's the rush? A life is at stake!

Abortion. Anyone who is a parent knows the great responsibility that comes with parenting. It's an enormous life vocation that challenges every fiber of your being--and that's even if you have a supportive family, access to medical care, gainful employment and are in a socially-acceptable relationship. You don't have to convince me how difficult the life circumstances of some folks may be. But what bothers me the most is how quick many are to devalue the life in the womb and find a reason to abort. Maybe we'll never agree on when life truly begins, but there are many medical indicators that it's very early, and many faiths teach that it's conception. Why the rush to devalue that life?

Take the current NFL protests against police brutality started by Colin Kaepernick. Virtually all the opposition is focused on the method of protest while all but ignoring the stated reasons for the protest. We should all be saying, "Gosh, something extremely important must be going on to compel these players to make such a bold and dramatic statement, even to the point of risking their entire careers over it." It should make us stop in our tracks and listen to their concerns. The whole nation should proverbially sit down and talk this out. Instead, many are quick to shout them down before hearing their concerns. These athletes are practically shaking us, trying to tell us that something big is going on that we aren't paying enough attention to. But we're still avoiding it, so quick to deny before hearing what they have to say.

My dear brothers and sisters, take note of this: Everyone should be quick to listen, slow to speak and slow to become angry, because human anger does not produce the righteousness that God desires.
- James 1:19-20

By contrast to these examples above, God is slow to anger (Psalms 103:8 and 145:8). God is eager to love (John 3:16), eager to forgive (Matthew 18:21-22) and eager to include (Mark 2:13-17). Jesus was constantly including people that society wanted to exclude, marginalize or offer only a secondary status. Dozens of verses directly attest to this. This is not just a description of God's behavior, but rather we are called to follow their example (James 1:19-20).

People often cite the example of Jesus overturning tables in the table as an example of biblically-justifiable anger.  Yes, but we forget that Jesus was also slow to anger. This does not mean we rush in angrily as a general way of life. Jesus' one example of anger does not mean that all of our anger is justifiable. It means that righteous anger has a role, but that role is not open-ended. The same is true with teachings about war and violence. Perhaps they are justified in some rare instances, but we should be very slow to choose them and always do it with sadness and much regret.

Probably no other instance in the Bible speaks to this more than the trial and crucifixion of Jesus himself. It was a sham trial, a mockery of justice. There was no case against Jesus, Pilate even said so. The crowd shouted "crucify him!" When Pilate tried to reason with them, the crowd only shouted louder. Mob mentality ruled. Nothing puts the masses into a rage more than challenging the social hierarchy. Jesus was constantly putting the last first and including where society wanted to exclude. How different is that from us today who want to exclude the immigrants, condemn the prisoners, dehumanize the unborn or the people in other nations, and shout down those kneeling for justice?

In every one of the examples above, I see a reenactment of the same sham trial. It's the same mockery of justice and mob fervor. The same mob fervor that put Jesus on the cross is the same impulse that puts immigrants in detention centers and separates their families. It's the same impulse that rushes a person to the execution chamber despite compelling evidence of innocence. It is the same sham trial that finds the flimsiest of excuses in the law (or in Church Teaching) to rationalize evil and rush to war, rush to abortion and rush to exclude, condemn and dehumanize. Those who work with the poor, the suffering and the marginalized know that the crucifixion is an ongoing reality in their lives.

"Black lives matter."
"Crucify them!"
"This prisoner may be innocent."
"Crucify him!"
"This fetus is a child."
"CRUCIFY! CRUCIFY!"
"These immigrants are our brothers and sisters in need."
"CRUCIFY! CRUCIFY! CRUCIFY!"
"These Islamic nations are our neighbors too!"
"CRUCIFY THEM!!!"

Good people can disagree. Even though I have pretty strong opinions about all of these issues, I can at least respect the points from people who differ. But what I can never be comfortable with is the resistance to even hearing the points on the other side. It's the eagerness to exclude, condemn and judge before hearing what others have to say that is so hard to reckon with. Those are signs there is something more going on than mere disagreement. It means that people are resisting the message and resisting the messenger. Where is the resistance coming from? Where is the real discomfort coming from?