Don't Shoot! (by Mary Nelson)
"Don't shoot -- I want to grow up," read the protest sign an 11-year-old boy held in the wake of 30-plus shootings of Chicago schoolchildren this school year. The Supreme Court's recent assertion of the individual's right to own a gun for self-defense stands in sharp contrast to the anguished pleas of the father of one of the schoolchildren to stop the tragic gun deaths in our community, and to get rid of the guns so available on our streets. His pleas reminded me of Jeremiah's account of Rachel weeping for her children.
We are a violent nation. Forty-nine percent of U.S. households have guns in the home (Just Facts, 6/08). The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence reminds us that 80 Americans die from gun violence every day in America. The Supreme Court decision is a blow to the scourge of gun violence in our communities and probably will be used to seek to block passage of common-sense gun laws that require background checks, forbid bulk sales of handguns, and other efforts. However, the decision as reported did not give license to "any gun, any time, for anyone" (Brady Center), and those of us who want to eliminate readily available guns have a lot of work to do to see that reasonable restricting laws are enacted.
The affirmation of the individual's right to bear arms must also be countered by us, as people of faith, with what is in the interests of community, of public safety, and what makes for the common good. We shouldn't be silent about this tension.
Mary Nelson is president emeritus of Bethel New Life, a faith-based community development corporation on the west side of Chicago. She is also a board member of Sojourners.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Comments
The affirmation of one's right to own a gun is a constitutionally-guaranteed one. If this right is at the whim of a community, judges, or 'people of faith' in what way is it guaranteed?
Posted by: Starrs | June 30, 2008 2:59 PM
Mary asserts that we are a violent nation, and cites as evidence that half of American households have at least one gun. Does mere gun ownership make one violent?
Posted by: kevin s. | June 30, 2008 3:29 PM
I completely agree with Starrs. We live in a country that is not defined by religious values, so when a case like gun control comes up, we must follow the wording of the Constitution, not our own personal feelings.
Yes, it may be harder to enact some of those "common-sense gun laws" with this decision. But I don't understand how holding this decision and the need for responsible owners of guns in tension is a bad thing. Christianity is all about holding things in tension: taking two ideas that seem to be incompatible and realizing that God makes them compatible. As people of faith, we can take that tension and by constantly weighing things against each other, have a world where we have the right to own a gun and at the same time enforce reasonable restrictions so that we do not hurt our community.
Posted by: Jesi | June 30, 2008 3:30 PM
I really don't see a conflict between Christianity and the Second Amendment being interpreted as a right to own a gun. As I think Mary understands, the Supreme Court didn’t say common sense laws that require background checks are invalidated. It simply says a government can’t constrict gun ownership as the city of Washington, D.C. did. Reasonable limits can still be placed on what type of guns may be purchased, where they may be sold, and to whom they can be sold, but a government can’t prohibit ownership, which was the effective result of D.C.’s law.
Posted by: Eric | June 30, 2008 3:38 PM
I hate guns, but the day any government restricts my access to one — law-abiding citizen that I am — I'll go out and get one.
Growing Grace-full
Posted by: CJD | June 30, 2008 3:52 PM
Honestly, guns aren't the problem. It's the criminals running amock that are. Sure, let's prevent violence by all reasonable means, including giving people a deent education, and locking up the proven violent offenders. Shall we censor speech because speech has been used to harass, spread hate, and so forth?
Posted by: Ngchen | June 30, 2008 6:28 PM
I have 26 guns in my possession. They are in two locked cabinets in my lower level. I have bullets that go with a few of those guns - they are in a secure box in my garage. Anyone that has taken gun training knows that you do not store a loaded weapon and you do not keep bullets with the guns.
I love to hunt - times being what they are and with two kids in college/grad school. I don't get to go much as I am helping them so money is a little tight. 9 of the guns belong to my brother and he will be collecting them sometime soon. 3 are collectables and are worth some money. One will someday go to a mueseam that has inquired about it - I am just not ready to part with it.
So - what laws do you want to enact so that my guns are no longer a threat to you Ms. Nelson? What do you want me to do so that you will have your safer community? When will you come for my collection and have them melted down so that I as a law abiding citizen is disarmed? What are you going to do when I am robbed in broad daylight because the criminal knows that I don't have a gun but have a lot of electronics that he can pawn for his next fix of whatever.
When will you deal with the real problem which is the person. You can be just as dead with a batt or golf club as a gun and the criminal mind knows that all too well. But by taking my gun - you just made his job easier.
Blessings -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | June 30, 2008 11:04 PM
"Our culture is much different now then when the Founders wrote the Constitution."
Then amend the Constitution accordingly, utilizing the procedures enumerated therein.
Oh, that's exactly what you propose. Never mind.
"I have 26 guns in my possession. "
Atta boy. Can I have one? Crime in Rybak's Minneapolis taken a profound turn for the worst.
Posted by: kevin s. | June 30, 2008 11:13 PM
Posted by: kevin s. | June 30, 2008 11:13 PM
Atta boy. Can I have one? Crime in Rybak's Minneapolis taken a profound turn for the worst.
Little attached to my guns - how about a beer. I am now totally unemployed so I have a lot of time.
Blessings -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | July 1, 2008 11:21 AM
I don't understand how gun-ownership = violence. My father has owned multiple guns all his life, and has never been in so much of a fist fight. I am all for common-sense laws that prohibit felons and known violent citizens to purchase guns or making sure that each weapon purchased is registered, but to keep the thousands of peaceful gun-owners from having their guns is completely unconstitutional, ridiculous and unneccessary.
Posted by: Bethany | July 1, 2008 5:30 PM
I hate guns. I don't know why anyone needs one.
Statistics tend to show that countries without guns have a much, much lower murder rate than the United States. You can google it.
So -- if guns aren't the problem -- we need a better way to address the problem. People can't shoot up a mall or a school with a baseball bat --and even if they do -- they will hurt a lot fewer people.
You can't hide in a the trunk of a car and just wipe out folks with a club.
I really do believe that if it was a crime to own a gun, we'd see a lot less murder and mass killings.
Posted by: frankie | July 1, 2008 6:53 PM
The tension you feel is the logical disconnect between lawful gun ownership by responsible citizens, and the illegal possession of guns for evil purposes by street criminals. Criminals have never been deterred by any kind of laws. In DC, they could get guns just as easily during the failed ban as they could before it.
The Heller decision in no way impacts the ability of states and localities to enact REASONABLE controls on who can buy guns. The problem with DC's handgun ban was that it was an outright prohibition. Nobody, no matter how sterling their character, was allowed to own a handgun at all, or to keep a lawfully owned long gun assembled so that it could be used in self-defense. DC's law went way too far, and Chicago has gone down the same road with its draconian restrictions.
Posted by: slackmaster | July 1, 2008 7:54 PM
In an era where our government is nuclear-armed and even the least of these have automatic weapons and RPGs, the time when a voluntary militia of citizens armed with constituionally-guaranteed blunderbusses could enforce their democratic primacy against a tyranny of force has long passed.
The Second Amendment survives in guaranteeing the citizens pea shooters that only they themselves are vulnerable to while no longer of any effect whatsoever to guarantee the purpose for which it was enacted.
As Christians, guns and our "rights" to own them don't save anyone in the cosmic sense, which is the reason for which He came and we serve Him.
Posted by: Sojourner Truth | July 1, 2008 8:40 PM
Moreover, every jurisdiction of local authority now maintains a standing army, and our federal government one with the greatest force in the world - which is precisely the fear the founders had that they enacted the Second Amendment to guard against.
If ever there were a practical demonstration of the futility of seeking security in weapons, rather than in Christ, this spectacular failure is definitive, because it was done with the best of intentions and with a remarkable and obviously ingenious design to counter a great evil of the time, but one yet constrained by technological limitations of governmental destruction.
Yet it has failed in our own time, for no one can doubt that a similar universal ownership approach to nuclear devices and WMDs, or other military-grade weaponry, would be an even more egregious disaster. We don't even want other sovereign nations to have what our government brandishes, let alone individual citizens.
We are left with a Second Amendment with only ceremonial and symbolic meaning as far as the practicality of its admirable original intent, but with all the negatives still intact, where the corporate trust in violence leads the citizens to slaughter one another to resolve their individual conflicts and passions, instead of guarding against depradations of authority against them.
As a nation, is it so surprising that "we who live by the sword, shall die by the sword?"
Posted by: Sojourner Truth | July 1, 2008 9:01 PM
Lets put it this way.
The day that everyone needs to own a gun for self defence to live in America you better all run for cover cause I might just go berzerk.
I think its an insane idea and I don't think any of us are mentally reliable enough to own and use a fire arm safely.
Our own law enforcement people can't keep their weapons safe from theft. How do you expect private citizens to keep their weapons from being lifted by professionals who do nothing but steal guns for a living.
If you don't have bears or lions for neighbors you don't need a gun in your house.
Start a new hobby. Drums not Guns. Use weapons of Mass Percussion. Choose life.
Posted by: Ms. Cynthia | July 2, 2008 6:27 AM
This saying is so quoted, and so cliche, that it is almost a turnoff when it is spoken, but here goes: "When guns are illegal, only criminals will have them." The reason it is so necessary to throw that out here is - - it is so true!! If one wants to see an increase in violent criminal activity, then simply disarm the law-abiding populace. Police cannot be everywhere. And it is the prospect that the homeowner owns a firearm that keeps a lot of home-invasion types of crimes (burglary, armed robbery, rape, murder) from happening.
We 21-st century 'progressive' thinkers may wish it were otherwise, but the simple fact is - - human nature is not fundamentally benign, or good.
Posted by: joekc | July 2, 2008 6:50 AM
PS
By the way are any of you reading about what the drug cartels are doing in Jarez.
They are having an all out war with automatic weapons just less than an hour south of our border. We have something more serious right under our noses. They are already doing target practice for it on our side of the border. Forget Al Khaida. Why?
Who do you think is supplying the machine guns for their pitch battles?
Us !! Our own gun industry.
How long do you think this is going to stay in Jarez? We are feeding a monster.
IF you love your Flag and Country its time to send the Gun Industry a message.
Posted by: Ms. Cynthia | July 2, 2008 6:52 AM
What makes you think that you are so mentally ballanced that you are more trust worthy of a weapon than I am.
Any human being can deveope a health condition that causes depression sometime in their life. How are we to know who it will be?
One of the first things a thief searches for in your home is a weapon. It's worth more than most of the things in your house on the open market that he can get out the window with easily.
Do you think a professional thief is going to take it while you are in your house? All you are doing is making the world more dangerous for the rest of us.
Posted by: Ms. Cynthia | July 2, 2008 7:06 AM
- human nature is not fundamentally benign, or good.
Are you talking about us foolish people again?
By the way most thieves wait until you leave the house to steal your gun. Why would a smart person steal from you while you are there? A gun is the first thing they look for because its worth something on the black market. Why should they buy one when they can get a free gun from you?
Our local law enforcement have all they can do to keep their own weapons out of the hands of gun theives.
Being a women I am well aware of the fact that the people most likely to harm me are people I know personally and would find it difficult to aim a gun at.
Posted by: Ms. Cynthia | July 2, 2008 7:23 AM
Cynthia, then by all means, you should not own one. There must never be a law requiring you to own one. If anyone tries to pass such a law, I shall be in the front lines of protest, with you.
But, those people whom you know personally? If they try to harm you, then it seems to me they aren't really caring for you, at that point. And I am not saying aim a gun at them; but I would want that option. It may be the only way to "wake them up" from their evil (yeah, there's that human nature word again) intent against you.
The fact is still there: "If firearms are illegal, only criminals will have them."
Posted by: joekc | July 2, 2008 8:26 AM
If Jesus told you to put away your weapon, would you?
Or would you say, "Jesus, you can have it when you pry it from my cold, dead hand!"
Whether there is a legal right to arm ourselves with deadly force or not is irrelevant to what Jesus would have us do.
There's a kind of folk religion which uses some biblical words and images while really having nothing to do with serving and loving the Lord.
Our worldly laws permit a lot of things that as Christians we simply ought not to focus on.
The real battle is not for weapons that can blow a hole in a human heart, but for that which can transform the human heart.
I want to live by Jesus, and die by Him.
Posted by: Sojourner Truth | July 2, 2008 9:37 AM
Criminals don't own guns where they are illegal in Europe. That line of, "If they're illegal, criminals will own them" just isn't true. For some reason, it comforts us to think that here.
Posted by: frankie | July 2, 2008 12:06 PM
I belive that the Second Amendment establishes more a responsibility for personal gun ownership than it does any mostly selfish right.
True rights are only properly understood insofar as they maximise the amount of good one can do for others.
There is no concept of the common good for which the nation was established unless that responsibility for one another is understood.
Posted by: N.M. Rod | July 2, 2008 12:09 PM
--"Don't shoot -- I want to grow up," read the protest sign an 11-year-old boy held in the wake of 30-plus shootings of Chicago schoolchildren this school year.--
Typical liberal tactic--bring out the kids who don't have the ability to grasp the issues (just don't show the ones butchered in abortions, that's just distasteful).
--The Supreme Court's recent assertion of the individual's right to own a gun for self-defense stands in sharp contrast to the anguished pleas of the father of one of the schoolchildren to stop the tragic gun deaths in our community, and to get rid of the guns so available on our streets.--
Oh, dear, the Supreme Court didn't cave to emotions and histronics, but actually abided by what the Constitution says. What is this country coming to.
--His pleas reminded me of Jeremiah's account of Rachel weeping for her children.--
Really bad hermeneutic.
--We are a violent nation.--
Based on what exactly?
--The affirmation of the individual's right to bear arms must also be countered by us--
Wow, there's is one of the most crystal-clear examples of liberal elitist thinking I've ever seen. Thank you, ma'am, for showing us so succintly how low and mean you think of us, and how you think it's your job to protect us from ourselves. Such arrogance is rarely accompanied with such candor these days.
Posted by: emergent pillage | July 2, 2008 4:54 PM
There are hundreds if not thousands of laws about guns on the books and we still have the problem. If they would make the laws stronger against the perp. maybe things would improve? When we put a murderer on trial and we start blaming soceity - community - the education system for the problem - it does not make sence.
Try making it double the time in prison if you commit a crime with a gum and see what happends. People with think twice before the act. It is the person not the object that is the problem.
Blessings -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | July 3, 2008 12:57 PM
The issue here is gun control, but it's also the city officials. In Chicago, and many cities accross the US, there is a weak police presence when it comes to prevention of violent crime. You can guess which neigborhoods get neglected. The same ones that cant get a pizza delivered. You may not believe me, but it means you've probubly never lived there. When they tore down cabrini green there were cops surrounding the buildings. It was the only time the cops ever had a real presence there, nobody got shot.
The issue is clearly not simple, but part of the onerous is on the city, I think.
mary nelson's posting is not about hunting, fyi.
Posted by: missmary | July 3, 2008 3:01 PM
Perhaps someone should tell the 11 year old boy that he is more likely to be shot dead in a place like DC which has strict gun control laws. World history clearly shows that the most heinous genocides were in committed in places that enacted the strictest gun control laws. Like Hitler's Nazi Germany (12 million dead), Joseph Stalin's communist Russia (20 million dead), Pol Pot's Cambodia (2 million dead), Communist China (10 million dead) the trail of tears, ...etc. The list is very long and a sampling of the last 100 years can be found here http://www.thegunzone.com/rkba/rkba-12.html. All had strict gun control laws and now have a very, very large mass graves.
For contrast, a handful of Jews in a Warsaw ghetto managed to keep themselves out of the Nazi gas chamber (for a month at least) with guns (found here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warsaw_Ghetto_Uprising). They might be alive today if they had just had more guns and an adequate supply of ammo. And let us not forget how the "Deacons for defense and Justice", armed with guns, stopped a blood bath of civil rights activists sponsored by the local police and the KKK back in the 1960's (found here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deacons_for_Defense_and_Justice).
Then there are the gang related murders and shootings. No matter how many gun control laws liberals pass the gans will contiinue to ignore them just as gangs ignore laws banning drugs like cocaine, heroine and crack. Gun control laws only disarm innocent citizens who are then left with no form of crime prevention. Even the best police force can only respond after the fact to fill out a crime report or zip up the body bag. The police can not do, as did my elderly father-in-law did, "prevent" crime. My elderly father-in-law (on oxygen at the time), owning a gun and knowing how to use it stopped a maniac who burst in his door without having to fire a shot (the bad guy became quite docile when he saw the gun).
Regarding child saftey, if you take out the gang related murders and suicides (hardly gun saftey issues) more children under 10 drown in things like bathtubs, toilets, buckets and pools (over 100 annually) than die of accidental gun violence (about 30 annually). Perhaps liberals should start demanding background checks for purchasing a toilet, bans on assault bathtubs, a 10 day waiting period before buying a pool and registration permits for water buckets then at least they would be encompassing a larger swath of children than those who die of accidental gun shots.
Just to have a few statistics found at http://www.nsc.org/research/odds.aspx
According to the National saftey Council, the Odds of Death Due to Injury (for any age), United States, 2004
cause of death # people who died from it
Transport Accidents, V01-V99, Y85 (40% are alcohol related deaths) 47,385
(Suicide) Intentional self-harm, X60-X84, Y87.0, *U03 x 32,439
Accidental poisoning by and exposure to noxious substances, X40-X49 20,950
(suffocation) Other accidental threats to breathing, W75-W84 5,891 (including)
Inhalation and ingestion of other objects causing obstruction of respiratory tract, W80 3,215
Non-acidental Poisoning, Y10-Y19 3,455
Accidental drowning and submersion, W65-W74 3,308
Complications of medical and surgical care and sequelae, Y40-Y84, Y88.0-Y88.3 2,883
Assault by sharp object, X99 2,079
Falls, W00-W19 18,807 (which includes)
Fall on and from stairs and steps, W10 1,638
Other fall on same level, W00, W02-W03, W18 4,458
Other and unspecified fall, W04-W05, W19 9,650
Other accidental threats to breathing, W75-W84 5,891 (which includes)
Inhalation and ingestion of food causing obstruction of respiratory tract, W79 878
Inhalation and ingestion of other objects causing obstruction of respiratory tract, W80 3,215
Exposure to forces of nature, X30-X39 1,102
Fall involving bed, chair, other furniture, W06-W08 774
Accidental firearms discharge, W32-W34 649
Posted by: paul | July 3, 2008 3:38 PM
Matthew 5:39
"But I say to you, do not resist an evil person; but (A)whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also.
What part of that suggests a Christian should own a gun to "defend his family"?
Posted by: brenna | July 3, 2008 3:42 PM
We have allowed the Gun Industry to market fear. We have given them far too much power over us and our elected officials. They are making millions of dollars marketing arms to militias and organized crime organizations. It is becoming increasingly difficult to separate their roll in this. They have another vision for shaping our society. Can you blame them? They want to make the botto line.
We need to stop them where it really hurts. At the bank in their coroporate board rooms. We need an atorney general who has the courage to freeze the accounts of any business or corporation who sells weapons to known dangersous elements of our society anywhere in the world. And yes we may have to increas security in our courts. Big time.
If we don't we will end up with a Government in Mexico just below our border that is powerless and completely out of control. The US should not be exporting arms to anywhere on the American continent.
If you live 100 miles from any small town out in the wilderness you should be able to get a permit to own a hunting gun. It makes sence.
But there is no moral or logic for urban or city people to have such weapons.
Most crooks steal their weapons from us. Thats why we call them theives. Thats why there are so many functioning weapons out there on our streets. As long as they can get their weapons from careless people like us why should they buy them.
Thats why the gun industry is switching to selling their products (military level weapons) to organized criminals and cartels. They would rather sell in bulk.
And yes. We need to listen to our children on this issue. They have every right to complain. This is the country we will pass on to them. What kind of place is it going to be?
Get real! This isn't a world anymore where inocent people can expect to keep a hunting gun in their house under lock an key and expect it to stay there. There are well organized criminal corporations in our society who have power and influence and talent and technology to get what they want.
If you want to own a gun and keep it in your house while you are not there, expect to hire a professional security person to watch over it 24/7.
Posted by: Ms. Cynthia | July 3, 2008 7:07 PM
You can argue gun rights until you are blue in the face but until we change our society and our approach to each other we accomplish nothing. I live in a small town outside a major metropolitan area. Within a two week period, my neighbor's teenage daughter and her friend were shot by other teens whom they had a disagreement with. 22 shots were fired in a narrow street with town houses on both sides. Now, the gun used was for home protection and was taken by the owner's child. Most likely, some families in the townhomes on either side of the street were also armed for self defense. How did those guns protect anyone involved.
In the second incident, a house was broken into in town while mother and daughter were home. The gun they had purchased for self-protection was stolen. Thank God they were not harmed. However, this thief is now armed.
Again, how was anyone protected by their right to bear arms that the Supreme Court has upheld? When do we stop teaching the Wild West mentality and project our Christian values instead?
Posted by: J.S. Brooks | July 5, 2008 9:57 PM
Post a Comment
Are you aware of our Rules of Conduct?