Shlog Section-f

Obviously, the first focus in the wake of the awful tragedy at VaTech today is prayer for those affected.  Many lives were forever altered today.

Beyond the grief and heartbreak, there are a bunch of other issues that are bound to arise from this incident.  This was the worst shooting rampage in the history of our country.  Issues of campus security are sure to be debated.  It will obviously also stir a number of gun rights discussions, and rightly so.

I understand that the right to bear arms is a fundamental part of our Constitution which is included to protect us from the threat of an armed tyrannical government.  However, our founders could not have possibly imagined the kinds of firearms that are available in the world today.  Our world is so vastly different from the one into which the Constitution was written that surely current reality demands we rethink some things.  Can we still have the right to bear arms in order to stave off the threat of governmental abuse without having the right to buy any gun any time any where?  Should the list of banned firearms be dramatically expanded?  Should waiting periods be more strictly enforced or even lengthened?  Or should we find some way apart from an armed populace to protect ourselves from the threat of tyranny and do away with private gun ownership altogether?

Moreover, can anyone offer a reason that a private individual would need to own a gun in a society where gun ownership was illegal?  I know that the practical reality of disarming America is nightmarishly difficult, so let’s stick to the realm of theory at this point.

I have always said that I supported the existence of the Second Amendment but that I felt no need to own a gun and would discourage anyone I could from owning one as well.  I’m now rethinking that stance.  I don’t need to own a gun and I don’t think the right to bear arms is worth the price we’re paying in innocent blood.  I think we have to figure out some other way to protect ourselves from our government.  Make no mistake: the Second Amendment was not written to allow us to protect our homes from burglers.  It was written to protect us from our government.  We’ve got to find a better way to do that when faced with the world as it is today.

Also, and maybe most importantly here, how should Christians treat the topic of gun ownership?  We are and must be Christians before we are Americans particularly when the two come into conflict.  When it comes to owning a tool that is designed to wound at least and kill at most, I think we have a conflict between our faith and our nationality.  Our faith teaches peace and non-violence as central tenets.  How does that square with gun ownership?

I expect this discussion will take a number of turns that I haven’t even begun to address here.  That’s fine and good.  I know that no one here is going to claim to own a gun because they like to shoot people.  I’m sure that it’s all about “self-defense.” But there must be better defenses and ones that don’t lead us down the path of killing each other.

Certainly prayer is called for.  I totally agree with your statement.

“Obviously, the first focus in the wake of the awful tragedy at VaTech today is prayer for those affected.  Many lives were forever altered today.” thecachinnator

Also a reminder for us to tell others of the work done on the cross of calvary, by our Saviour, Jesus.

How many of these went out into eternity today without trusting Jesus? 

Concerning how Christians should handle gun ownership, I would say the same, let’s put our energies into prayer and sharing the Gospel.

I don’t like guns.  I would never own one.  But as long as we keep the second amendment in our Constitution, people can own guns.  But I agree with you that the founding fathers could not imagine how things would be today.

Maybe there should be an amendment to the Constitution… although I don’t know if it’ll happen, because there are many people (especially here in the south) that own guns, hunting is popular down here…

God be with everyone affected by this tragedy.  And if you’re able to, wear maroon and orange (Virginia Tech’s colors) today to show your support for the Hokies.

It’s amazing, I’ll tell you… so many friends on my Facebook have changed their profile pictures to a black ribbon with “VT” on it… or that same picture next to an icon of their college saying “Today we are all Hokies.”

I was just talking to my friend on the phone yesterday, who goes to Radford University (a half hour from Tech) and she was saying how it’s sad that a tragedy has to happen in order for people to come together… and then a few months later the oneness fades.  Like 9/11, we were a unified country, and American flags were out in front of everyone’s houses, but then a few months later people forgot and it was back to politics and back to the way it was.  How long will the unity last?  How long until we forget (except for on the anniversary of the tragedy)?

Praying, and will continue to pray.  Being at Texas A&M when the bonfire accident claimed twelve lives, I know a little of what the VT community is enduring due to the willful choice of a man.  Truly terrible.

I would contend that the founding fathers did, to an extent, envision where gun technology would go.  The accuracy and deadliness of guns has been constantly changing since their inception, and having just gone through a war (where having good munitions was of great importance) they would understand this.  I think, perhaps, that they would not have predicted the unswerving adherence to something they made to be amendable.  Nevertheless, the arguments for gun ownership today are largely different from what is set forth in the Second Amendment.  I fully support gun ownership, but I also fully support heavy restrictions on guns.

Here in Texas you can get a conceal and carry permit, but to do so requires a thorough background check and a training course.  Consequentially, those with such permits are often the safest people with guns (not trigger-happy loons as portrayed by some).  Why not require such just to own a gun?  Requiring a training course, perhaps even for each specific type of firearm (hand gun, rifle, shotgun, etc.), before the person can purchase a gun would likely be beneficial.  And, most certainly, many types of firearms should not be allowed.  Take, for example, shotguns: there is a legal limit to how many shells a shotgun can hold (three plus one in the chamber, I believe) but the guns are made to hold up to six plus one in the chamber.  A plug is put in to prevent the loading of extra shells, but I’ve known many who easily removed the plug.  Why make a firearm that can be so easily modified to an illegal configuration?

In the end, though, I cannot help but feel that the issue of additional gun control is something of a red herring.  The Australian Prime Minister, John Howard, stated that the American “gun culture” was to blame, meaning we should follow his suit in making firearms illegal.  I think, though, that his description of this being a “gun culture” to be more accurate than he intended in using it as a barb.  We have a culture that would have found this sort of action unthinkable 50 or 100 years ago, not because of a lack of destructive weapons but because the society did not encourage or promote such actions but rather worked to disarm them.  (Not to say incidents like this did not occur, e.g. the Texas bell tower shooter, but they were much more uncommon.) From little things like few people now having neighbors they know to talk to and let off steam before going postal to the constant bombardment with violent media (first-person shooter games where you see the blood splatter as you kill your victims, violence encouraged in music, movies which glorify the ultra-violent antihero), this is what I think to be the real issue.  We can pass laws to punish or even try to prevent but we cannot legislate morality, no matter how hard we try.  I think that no laws will prevent such an action from happening again if nothing is done to address why people find such actions to be acceptable.

There in lies the Christian responsibility: not in legislating for or against guns, but in acting to bring peace, love, and healing to the hearts of those who hurt.  The VT shooter apparently left a note in his room, several pages long, railing against groups who “caused me to do this”, including “rich kids,” “debauchery” and “deceitful charlatans”.  If, instead of debauchery and charlatans, he had encountered more reflections of God, then I dare say we would not be having this discussion.

From a purely pragmatic perspective, I believe that as far as politics and law are concerned, we should probably tighten the restrictions of firearms, but not repeal the 2nd amendment.  The reasoning behind this is simple and twofold.  1.) There are legitimate uses for firearms apart from law enforcement, for example hunting.  2.) Gun control laws do not prevent criminals from illegally obtaining firearms.  In the UK not long ago, gun ownership was banned.  During that period, violent crime actually rose.  Conversely, in the U.S. states that allow law abiding citizens to have concealed carry permits have seen a drop in violent crime.
I do however believe we should make it more difficult to obtain fire arms, and I do believe that certain types of guns should be banned (and many already are).

That being said, from a spiritual perspective, I don’t believe that as Christians we should fight for our “right” to bear arms.  That is to say that if our government decides to ban the ownership of firearms, no matter what your political persuasion, you should just deal with it.  Christians don’t have rights.  They are slaves to a master.  Whenever I hear someone talking about their rights, all I really hear is “ME! ME! ME! ME!” This should not be so.

I have struggled whether to say something or not.  First of all, I do not believe that the second amendment allows for public gun ownership.  I do believe that it is easy to get side tracked with what happened and say lets ban all gun ownership.  If a person wants to kill someone, they will find a way to kill one person or a group of people. 

I think the real issue is how we as a society value life.  When society says that life is worthless and easily disposable, why are we surprised by such an act happens.  All I can think of right now is a crime that happened recently here is south eastern Wisconsin.  A mother gave her child a gun and told him to kill the person who disrespected him earlier in the day.  The life of the person her child killed had no value to that mother.  If parents are not willing to teach their children to value life, how does society teach children the value of life?????

Thomas

I agree Thomas.  I know it sounds cliche’, but guns don’t kill people, people kill people.  I’m pretty sure that a gun has never just gone off and killed anyone without someone being on the trigger.  Nothing will change until society’s values are changed.  It’s taken a very long time to get to this point and it will not be an easy road back either.

Beth