Skip to main content

A Few Thoughts About Guns (Again)

 I wasn't going to say anything public about the tragedy in Uvalde, TX, or about gun rights/control, but I noticed my friend Bryan Cross had added to a thread about school shootings, and I had a thought worth sharing, I think. In terms of my feelings, I will only say that I intend to intercede for all concerned, appropriately, as is my Christian duty, when death comes for any and all of us. I'm sad in the way that lingers beyond a momentary outpouring of emotion. I am seeing their little faces, and imagining them, when I don't necessarily want to.

Beyond that, my thought is this: we often hear this trite piece of garbage when shootings happen: "We don't have a gun problem; we have a sin problem." Let's actually take this seriously, and then think about it thusly: 

If people and the culture at large are less virtuous, it would make sense not to allow bad people (which Christians assert at various times to be all of us) unlimited access to death-dealing weapons on an unprecedented scale.

I have been in and around the politics game long to know what will, and will not fly, with particular people. That's just it, though: If ideology limits your options for solving problems, you remain mired in the problems, and in this case unnecessarily.

And I was confronted in Dr. Cross's old thread with the prospect of essentially a never-ending arms race, not unlike the one among nations with nuclear arms. The race is itself a threat to peace, and a violation of that peace which human beings, by virtue of their dignity, are entitled to possess.

But we can actually choose how we want to live. We're often offered some sort of false choice, between tyranny on the one hand, and senseless violence, on the other.

If guns are tools--and that, they are--for what sorts of things will we use our tools? In light of our weakness and evil, are some of the tools just not worth it? That is, part of a life of flourishing for all people? My answer is yes. 

If someone is not overly fond of say, the federal government regulating the use of firearms, fine. But someone very much should. And government at some level is charged with the common good. I don't think being safe at school--for anyone involved--is asking too much.

I'm going to bring up abortion, and the pro-life movement, not to shame anyone of that conviction, (for I would be shaming myself) but to point out that a central contention of the pro-life movement is that the legality and permissiveness of abortion, and laws to that effect, coarsen people, discourse, and the public awareness of the dignity of pre-born children. If reversing such laws is an indispensable part of creating a culture of respect for all life, then the same logic should hold, for the regulation of firearms. This is so, even as I grant that using a firearm is not intrinsically evil, while elective abortion is. Even so, we have seen enough evil with firearms in these particular circumstances that we should change many of the circumstances.

Thanks for reading.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Hilarious Com-Box Quote of The Day: "I was caught immediately because it is the Acts of the Apostles, not the Acts of the Holy Spirit Acting Erratically."--Donald Todd, reacting to the inartful opposition of the Holy Spirit and the Magisterium. Mark Galli, an editor at Christianity Today, had suggested that today's "confusion" in evangelicalism replicates a confusion on the day of Pentecost. Mr. Todd commented after this reply , and the original article is here. My thoughts: By what means was this Church-less "consensus" formed? If the Council did not possess the authority to adjudicate such questions, who does? If the Council Fathers did not intend to be the arbiters, why do they say that they do? At the risk of being rude, I would define evangelicalism as, "Whatever I want or need to believe at any particular time." Ecclesial authority to settle a particular question is a step forward, but only as long as, "God alone is Lord of the con

A Friend I Once Had, And The Dogmatic Principle

 I once had a friend, a dear friend, who helped me with personal care needs in college. Reformed Presbyterian to the core. When I was a Reformed Presbyterian, I visited their church many times. We were close. I still consider his siblings my friends. (And siblings in the Lord.) Nevertheless, when I began to consider the claims of the Catholic Church to be the Church Christ founded, he took me out to breakfast. He implied--but never quite stated--that we would not be brothers, if I sought full communion with the Catholic Church. That came true; a couple years later, I called him on his birthday, as I'd done every year for close to ten of them. He didn't recognize my number, and it was the most strained, awkward phone call I have ever had. We haven't spoken since. We were close enough that I attended the rehearsal dinner for his wedding. His wife's uncle is a Catholic priest. I remember reading a blog post of theirs, that early in their relationship, she told him of the p
My wheelchair was nearly destroyed by a car last night. That's a bit melodramatic, I suppose, because it is intact and undamaged. But we'd left my power chair ("Red Sam" in the official designation) in-between the maze of cars parked out front of Chris Yee's house for Bible Study. [Isn't that a Protestant Bible study?--ed.] They are good friends, and it is not under any official auspices. [Not BSF?--ed.] They're BSF guys, but it's not a BSF study. Anyway, I wasn't worried; I made a joke about calling the vendor the next day: "What seems to be the problem, sir?" 'Well, it was destroyed by a car.' As it happened, a guy bumped into it at slow speed. His car got the worst of it. And this only reinforces what I've said for a solid 13 years [Quickie commercial coming] If you want a power wheelchair that lasts, get a Quickie. They're fast, obviously, and they're tanks. Heck, my old one still would work, but the batteries ar