The day after the tragedy in Colorado the web filled up with three predictable positions. 1. “If there had been someone with a concealed weapon, he or she might have saved everyone there.” 2. “The assault weapons used by the killer were all legal. More weapons would have created a cross fire and given the police no idea who to pursue when they arrived. 3. The President said this isn’t a time for politics but a time for prayer.
What makes this conversation so hard is that each position represents an entire worldview. Someone who believes that human beings are essentially violent will reason that only more guns can counterbalance such acts of violence. Those who believe that violence only leads to more violence point out that countries like England have only a fraction of the gun deaths of the U.S. Those caught in the middle believe if we ignore the situation it will somehow all work out.
I fall into the second group and believe that if assault weapons were illegal it would be easier to identify violent and unbalanced people. I don’t believe in taking away all guns, but feel small handguns and military grade assault weapons have no place in a civilized nation. The idea that an armed citizenship could defend itself against today’s military is delusional in my opinion. Just Youtube Iraqi’s armed with such weapons shot down with Apache helicopters from ungodly ranges.
But my point in writing today is not to argue for that one point of view. Instead, I’m hoping as people disagree on what caused the shooting that we not get lost in traditional cliches, but talk instead about what our hopes and fears, and what kind of a world we both want to live in. Is violence the principle that will organize the kind of world we want to live in? Are we becoming safer as we arm ourselves to the teeth, or are we becoming Kafka-like insects? Simplistic arguments will lead us nowhere. Gun advocates are right that we cannot wish violence away, but if the source of this violence is a wound in the soul of our nation, then gun control advocates also have a point: we can’t shoot it away either.
Conversations about whose fault this is will probably be useless. Blaming the NRA or gun control advocates will not answer the question we need to ask. What are the hopes and fears do we share with those with whom we disagree? How can we who disagree fundamentally on specifics and still work together to create the kind of world that is worth living in? If people of good will cannot learn to have these conversations, the Colorado shooting may just be the preview of coming attractions.
Conversations about whose fault this is will probably be useless. Blaming the NRA or gun control advocates will not answer the question we need to ask. What are the hopes and fears do we share with those with whom we disagree? How can we who disagree fundamentally on specifics and still work together to create the kind of world that is worth living in? If people of good will cannot learn to have these conversations, the Colorado shooting may just be the preview of coming attractions.
Is violence a principle around which we should/could organize society? Is this in anyway comparable with the Reformed tenet of universal sin? In my thoughts, sin is essentially alienation from God, neighbor and/or self, and such alienation may or may not lead to violence.
A second thought: Is the threat of violence, violence itself. The 6’6″ 220 lb hulk standing with a baseball bat saying, “Give me your wallet” may do no actual violence. You give him the wallet, he walks away. Assuming we are not dealing with a sociopath, a transaction has been made. I think it was Al Capone who said, “We don’t want no trouble here?” (Of course it was Jesus who said if they demand you cloalk, give them your coat as well.)
Jim and I are good friends, and agree on many issues. At one point in time, I thought my mind was totally made up on this one (on the side of more guns (in the right hands) the better. I have been a deputy sheriff. I am a Concealed Handgun Licence instructor for the DPS. (ANd I am a life member of the NRA and the Texas State Rifle Association.) I used to look forward to every hunting season, shot handguns competitively and have take advance training at nationally recognized training facilities.
After Columbine, the certainty of my convictions began to waver. I’m not saying the changed, but they began to waver, and for a number of reasons. First and foremost is that few people who carry guns train. If they shoot at all, they choose a nice day when it’s not too cold and not too hot and certainly they are not going to shoot in the range. They shoot target guns that are fun to play with but hard to carry, and carry little bitty guns that are hard to shoot accurately. Most shootings take place with amazing rapidity. Some studies show that there is less that five seconds in the average shooting between the first sign that it is legal to shoot and the last shot. A national trainer I know says be polite and respectful to everyone you meet and have a plan to kill them. I have lived that way, and it takes a toll on your soul. I choose not to do it. I spent 10 years actively training people for their CHLs. I haven’t taught a course in 8 years. Part of the reason is that some of my clients were a danger to themselves and others (AND TO ME!). You would not believe how ignorant and casual some of my recertification clients were. They were carrying broken guns. Ammo that wouldn’t work., and would swing around from the firing line with a gun if I wasn’t at their shoulder to stop them. I decided several years ago that if I were to teach again, one of the first things I would do is lay out $800 for a good ballistic vest. Okay, enough about the negatives.
There are people who are trained, and the people I know who stay trained up don’t romanticize getting into a gunfight. They tend to be very observant and walk away from trouble if there is any choice . (Law enforcement is an exception for they are called to move towards trouble, and I hate to say it, but many of them are not well trained. Off duty, most of the well trained officers I know would get their families to safety and call 911 on their cell phones unless there was an active shooter situation going on.
I mentioned Columbine. I spent a lot of time on Emails during those days trying to ask all the would be heroes just what they would do if they were there and had a gun. I can’t imagine a worse environment for a gun fight with unknown parties. If I’d have been there, I’d have grabbed a bunch of kids and pushed them in a class room, barricaded the door, put the kids in a safe place if possible, and put myself behind the teachers desk with one objective– that no one not identified to me as a good guy get through that door. (Doors are referred to as bullet magnets or funnels and they are relatively easy to defend. You only have to focus on one things if there is only one door.
The theater shooting this week would be almost impossible to defend, but it could and should have been done if everyone were trained. We have at least two witnesses that saw the shooter stand up and exit through the emergency exit. If those people had been trained in self defense, they would have followed the guy to the door and made sure that it was closed and locked, even if it meant the other guy had to walk around the building and show his ticket stub to get in.
The final thing I will say is that the defensive use of a firearm is always a last resort, but there are some people who just have to stop what they are doing RIGHT NOW! In one of my last sessions at the DPS recertification course, the DPS trainers were saying to the instructors, “Please get your people to practice, and get them to carry their guns. We are facing more and more active shooter situations and when seconds count, police are only minutes away. THe only way to save lives is for there to be somebody there with a gun who knows how to use it.”
Making the choice to carry a gun– to be willing to use lethal force in dire circumstances is a major commitment and a major responsibility. It should not be taken lightly. Back in my law enforcement days, we talked about “Rookie Cop Syndrome” where someone would get their badge and gun and then go walk down dark alleys, figuratively speaking. My rule of thumb is that if I think I need a gun to go somewhere, don’t go. And that doesn’t mean that I don’t still carry a gun. I carried one for years EVERYWHERE I went. Then I left law enforcement. THe Luby’s shooting took place and my sheriff in West Texas told me that I was a fool if I didn’t carry, even if was illegal. (That was before CHLs were available.) I started carrying again. (No one but my wife knew). While I was living in Coahoma, I even got pulled into a “possie”. (One of the deputies who I complete with drove by and saw me and said, “Do you have a gun with you?” I said, “In the car.” He said “Get it, I need backup”. And with more than fifty law enforcement people looking for three escapees, it was Ed and I who took them at gunpoint.
There is nothing romantic about gun fighting. Anybody who carries a gun should be forced to hunt and kill an animal and see the damage a bullet can do. However, there are times when people must stop what they are doing, no matter what,
One final thought on the ethics of the matter: Is it right for us (as citizens/Christians/progressives) to declare that people should have guns in public, and then turn around and pay people to carry guns in public for us? If you need someone with a gun, call 911? Is it moral to hire people to do things that we think is wrong for the average citizen? In our system of government, we don’t believe in the divine right of kings where God gives power to the king and it trickles down to the dukes and earls and knights. Our government gains its legitimate authority for the consent of the governed. The government cannot have any power that did not originally belong to each individual citizen. We commission agents to act in our name, but hiring and agent does mean that you have given up your original power.
Anyway, this is much too long.
Thank you Walt. Thoughtful as always. It is a very difficult question with no simple answer, but I appreciate your weighing in.
It is in fact, i think, a very simple question. In France, we have around 150 deaths by guns every year, for 60+ million inhabitants. In the U.S. : 9.000. The reason for our low crime rate is because we. don’t. have. firearms.
There is no debate, no arguing. Allowing your citizens to own automatic guns and all that stuff is plainly retarded, as the United States remind us 25 times per day. Now I understand the reason in a historic point of view, why American citizens, most of whom in the 19th century hadn’t read any other book than the bible, when they could actually read, felt the need to express their discontentment regarding property trespassing and things like that by shooting on sight. The other option would have been to quietly discuss about the matter while drinking a good pint in the nearest pub, but sadly, it’s a path that the U.S never cared to take.
We find ourselves today, not with the question of wether guns are good or bad, but rather how to handle a country that’s gone so batshit crazy. As for many things, it will all come down to education, which is the slowest but most effective way to change in the long term. What most gun advocates fail to realize is that, in a country like France or most European countries, displaying that you own several guns, or worse, M16 or other military niceties, that would be like saying that you proudly have sex with your 14 year old daughter. It sounds caveman-worthy.
Of course, we’re talking about a country where 45% of the population believes in young-earth creationism. A country where the strange notion of free speech allows anyone to display a Nazi sign in the streets without getting in troubles. A country where high-school seniors have an average level that is equivalent to europeans 9 graders. A country that has proudly rejected a healthcare system for decades. So it’s going to be really hard to find where to begin…. because guns are not a separate issue, they’re a part of all that.
Pierre, it is hard to argue with France or England’s statistics. What people in the US do is use the statistics of isolated cities in the US that have tried to contain guns, which of course doesn’t work. Thanks for writing.
A good while ago I read an essay by a man who, at one time, always carried a small gun. He decided to stop. His reasoning was something like, “If I carry a gun, I’m stating, by default, that there is some situation that I am ok shooting a person to resolve. I decided I didn’t want to say that.”
Just more food for thought.