On one hand we have the many and loud voices clamoring for gun control. "Save our children," they cry, and the like. On the other hand we have the NRA-types who are quick to respond, "Guns don't kill people; people kill people." I'm sure you're following me so far. I'm sure you've heard all this. But here's my question: What next?
It seems to me that no one goes beyond the initial volley. We're talking about murdered people here and all we want to argue about is ... guns. Why is that?
I think it's abundantly clear that more laws, even great laws, won't solve the problem. I think it's patently obvious that guns don't kill people; people do. And while I'm not opposed to good laws and good law enforcement, it seems to me that we're ignoring the problem. People are killing people.
Isn't it interesting? In all the times I've heard one of that ilk say it -- "Guns don't kill people; people kill people" -- I've never seen one of them run on down the path. "Okay, given. Now what?" They appear to think that the fact that people kill people is the answer to the question at hand. It isn't. The question at hand is not "Should we have stricter gun laws?" The question at hand is "Why are people killing people?"
You see, this brings it down to a bigger problem. No, gun laws won't solve it. Neither will gun ownership. Guns or the lack thereof are not the problem. The problem is that people kill people.
This is, for me, the most frustrating thing in this whole mess. While so many are over in this corner debating gun control or gun rights, where are those actually looking at the problem? The problem is the current culture that minimizes human life and maximizes personal desires. The problem is a nation that makes "my feelings" and "my rights" -- always "me" -- the guiding principle. The problem is a society that has rejected the basis for objective morality and then complains that bad things happen. The problem ultimately is the same one that has ever been -- sin. Neither gun control nor gun rights will solve that problem. Christians -- those commanded by Christ to make disciples -- we have the solution to that problem.
9 comments:
I completely agree. While there are some conversations around gun regulations, it all comes back to some more basic issues. When society tells, and schools teach, that we’re just products of random chance, why would people put a high value on human life? When there is an active movement to elevate animals/lower humans to equivalent value, why are we surprised that people don’t value human life? When “my rights”, trump “my responsibilities”, why are we surprised that things end up violently?
There are plenty of additional examples, but it’s definitely not just inanimate objects that are to blame.
"When there is an active movement to elevate animals/lower humans to equivalent value..."
Yes. It makes me wonder. If it was a mass shooting at a dog kennel, do you suppose we'd get faster gun control legislation passed?
I don’t know, but the outcry would be just as loud. We see commercials bemoaning the fact that animal shelters euthanize dogs, but nothing similar for abortion clinics.
I have wondered how many carjackings we have NOT had in this country because the criminals worry the occupant might possess the means to bring the crime to a quick end.
What a shame. I'm pointing out the value of human life and the problem of sin and we still tend toward "guns are the answer" and "We need to remove guns!!!" Precisely the OPPOSITE of my point.
Slightly off topic. But I object to the very concept that the conversation is about if we “need” guns. Clearly we, in the western world”, passed being concerned with need quite some time ago. No one really needs a gun and to suggest that owning one has to be justified by need is only a way to put people on the defensive.
Ok sorry, semi off topic semi rant over.
I don't know, Stan. Seems to me that most people who argue for gun rights do so for the very reason your post highlights...that people sin and therefore protection is necessary to preserve life. I know when I defend the 2nd, that's the argument I use to do so. There really is no other as there is no gun control argument were there not sinful people. Why would people seek to control who has guns if no one was using them to do evil?
Let me see if I understand you, Marshal. I am saying that the problem is not guns, but sin. You are saying that the solution to sin is guns. Is that correct?
If you are arguing for gun rights to protect life because people are made in the image of God and, therefore, are valuable, I'm following you. I've NEVER heard that argument. Nor will I argue whether "guns" or "no guns" would better protect human life. Because we both know that guns or not, people will still kill. That's the problem no one is addressing. (We also know, based on the Parkland shooting, that guns don't always protect human life ... like the armed safety officer who stayed outside.)
No. That is incorrect. I'm saying that because some sinners might try to kill you, there must be no infringement of your right to choose the weapon (or tool, or method) that YOU DECIDE is best suited to prevent the sinner's success.
The best solution for sin is another matter entirely. My initial comment was in support of the notion that guns aren't the problem...sin is.
Post a Comment