A Friendly Firearm Debate – Part 1 – Violence

If I believed getting rid of firearms would rid us of violence, I’d turn mine in tomorrow.

In the spirit of talking about things most organized religious groups don’t want touch, I’d like to offer a friendly firearm debate.  Gun control and gun rights are two hot and explosive topics, especially right now. It’s worth thinking about both sides’ points without demonizing each other.

I’ve invited longtime friend and professor of American religious history, Dr. Seth Dowland, to join me in a friendly debate about gun control, violence, pacifism and Christian options. By the end of this three-part post you will find that Seth and I do not agree, but I’m convinced our conversation helped both of us humanize the ‘other’.  I believe we need more civil conversations such as this. Places where gun owners are not being demonized and pro-gun control advocates aren’t being ridiculed, places to debate, disagree and still go out for a beer afterwards.

A few weeks after Adam Lanza’s murders at Sandy Hook (Five Ways to Process the Sandy Hook Shooting), I tweeted from @JonalynFincher:“#Guncontrol is too small a solution for a wider problem: http://t.co/JEZGBeml.” What follows is a development of Seth and my original disagreement about my tweet. Part 2 will post tomorrow, Thursday, at 10 am. Part 3 will post this Friday at 10 am.

Seth’s first comment:

Gun violence is far, far more prevalent in the U.S. than in any other industrialized nation. As another friend put it, the Japanese, Swedes, and Indians share our human condition, but they do not share our glorification of guns and violence, and thus are far less likely to die of gun violence.

Why is it childish (a reference to the link in my tweet, an article by John Eldredge, “Why Newtwon is More Important Than You Think“), to suggest that limiting access to high-capacity clips and military-style weapons might make a dent in the body counts when evil does visit us? Why is it childish to think that in a civil society, arming ourselves more is a recipe for disaster and further individualization?

And, in Christian terms: acknowledging that evil will be with us in this world does not consign us to ignoring “sociological, psychological or political explanations” for it. I’d say thoughtful Christians have a responsibility to grapple with the structural causes for evil so that we can work together (with Christians and others) to fight it. Not attempting to fight evil strikes me as hopeless–and that should never be Christians’ posture.

Jonalyn’s first rebuttal:

Violence

Seth, I agree that we need to stop glorifying violent actions. It’s a great goal, not childish at all.  However, before we delve into this I think we need to clarify a few terms.

Violence against people by any weapon is a problem: knife-violence, pen-stabbings, gun-violence, lynching, assault, rape. I want to be clear that it’s not simply “gun violence” that’s a problem. To think guns are the source of our violence would be like saying Porsche is the source of our speeding issues, not Toyotas or Subarus. It’s violence we want to stop. On this I think we can agree.
I don’t think it’s helpful to assume guns are always violent. I see a hinted-at argument in your words that firearms produce a culture of violence.  What leads you to believe this? My first thought is the countries where violent acts occur regularly without firearms. For instance, India, a place where women carry stones to protect themselves from rapists (see more on CNN as Frieda Pinto, “Slumdog” star, responds to the problem of gang-rape).  It bothers me how easily you’ve assumed that a firearm or an increased number in firearms automatically means more violence (Shane Claiborne makes this similar argument at Huffington Post). I want to point out that guns play the role of stopping violence, as well. Often by simply existing on a hip and rarely, but sometimes, by being pulled, aimed and fired. Here’s a statistic to consider. Between 800,000-2.5 million violent crimes are prevented each year due to firearms in the hands of responsible citizens.  The low estimate, in the Atlantic article last month (“The Case for More Guns and More Gun Control“), puts this number at a conservative 108,000. Regardless, firearms can substantially stop violence.
What is a military style weapon? In 1968, military weapons were banned.  Nobody has grenades and bazookas.  Not to mention, the “military style” firearm in question (AR-15) was put in civilian hands a half-century ago.  Surely the military has updated in 60 year (e.g. muskets were once military weapons and, if style means anything, they are “military-style” from the seventeen century).

AR-15

The 1911 pistol is still one of the most popular pistols today in civilian and military hands. It helped the free world win World War 1. A few examples of “military style” would help.

Violence exists in the heart of humans, and perhaps more so in the hearts of Americans where disdain and violence toward women gets mistaken for masculinity. And it is true, gun violence is higher in our country by comparison to Australia.  But we must limit the variables before we start assuming correlation means causality.  For example, there were few homicides (and trending downward) in Australia before major gun overhauls. If gun eradication were so effective I’d expect rates to be even further decreased than they currently are. But the difference in Australian homicides before gun eradication and after are relatively small. In other words, the culture itself produces the homicides, not the firearms.

Double Standard

The naivete I see is the double standards in our lives. It bothers me that we are willing to introduce firearms to our banks, our president, our president’s children, but not to the children in our schools. It seems naïve to think our children are somehow protected because our schools have a “no-gun” policy. Or that we should lay children on the altar of proving our civil society works.

I would say that better enforcement of the laws we currently have (not disarmament) would be a good start.  Much of the gun violence today is linked to improper enforcement of the current checks we have in place.

If public schools will continue to make their grounds gun free they better have a metal detector security system as criminals, evil or unstable people often don’t obey posted signs. Why shouldn’t all who come onto school grounds be required to go through a metal detector? I just don’t get why we have trouble with enforcing that idea.

That said, I am regularly dismayed at how the pro-gun and anti-gun groups miss one another. For instance, in your comment have you taken into account our disproportionate population in comparing Sweden, Japan and India’s population?  I would like to add the idea to consider the gun violence in pro-gun cultures like Switzerland and Israel.  Both have, arguably, more guns per capita than the USA. But Switzerland and Israel also have lower gun volence.  We need to eliminate the variables.  I haven’t heard very many people talking about the age factor, something a Japanese expert mentioned. The low homicide rate in Japan is more due to the aging population than a no-gun policy.  It seems to me that most extreme firearm crimes in the USA are committed by people under age 35.  That’s something worth considering as we make new, more effective, structurally helpful gun laws.

I love the idea of reducing violence. Did you know that all gun owners agree on this? But I don’t think it’s realistic to think getting rid of high capacity magazines and clips will help anyone but the criminals.  80% of violent crimes committed are done so by people illegally using a firearm (http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/guns.cfm).  So how will gun bans stop gun violence?

When I was at the grocery store today I saw an armored truck picking up the cash deposit. The woman carrying the money was also armed. I thought, again, how I want to see children as well-protected as our money.

To my mind a firearm is a tool, like a car. And while car accidents kill thousands more people each year, we don’t outlaw automobiles because we know they serve a purpose, a good one. Do you think handguns are primarily an evil tool?

Finally, I’d love to talk more about the structural issues behind the Sandy Hook shooting.  To blame guns or limit guns is simplistic and narrow in my thinking. It’s like a baseball coach blaming the team’s bats for all their errors in the field.

I’d love to hear more. Maybe you could also share a good working definition of violence.  For instance, is shooting a piece of paper violent? Is throwing rocks into a creek violent? Is shooting an elk violent? Is throwing a snowball violent?

Seth’s rebuttal to post tomorrow, Thursday, at 10 am.