Why do we keep having the same conversation?
The debate around gun control seems to arise after every mass shooting as if the problem unexpectedly appeared in society but wholly disappeared once the spirits have calmed down. Politicians cannot wait to politicize the issue and sell their slogans in the heat of the moment. Slogans like “Gun control for everybody” and “No guns, safe country” often make the news headlines. Everybody seems to wake up from a vision to find themselves on the reality of guns. Furthermore, instead of finding common ground, these debates often become a deaf dialogue.
When scratching the surface of gun violence, it appears that a culture of confusion about gun violence in the U.S. manifests through media and game industries. Firearms are produced for mass consumption with the aim of profit and not by necessity. In the meantime, specific categories of people, such as criminals, could have access to guns as they want to. Vulnerable groups such as kids and teenagers are not spared since television and media have preyed on them from an early age.
Advocates for gun control do not seem to agree with proponents of gun bearers. The first category argues in favor of demobilizing the civil population, claiming that more guns are tied to more crimes. On the other hand, the second category, gun rights advocates, think that it is their constitutional right to bear arms.
Both sides often portray an irreconcilable interpretation of the Second Amendment of the United States. Nevertheless, the fathers’ intention is neither on the anti-gun activists’ nor the advocates’ side. The questions we should ask then as this discussion unfolds include: “What does it mean the right to bear arms in light of the second amendment of the constitution,” or “Should civilians stop bearing guns for their protection given that there are legal, governmental forces whose prerogatives guarantee the protection for everyone?”
To put this in context, what must we say to a newly married couple that lives in a dangerous area with a high crime rate, where the need for protection or possessing a gun became a discussion of conflicting views in their household? They started addressing this issue since some of their neighbor friends recently had a break-in.
Different views from different sides
For the pro-gun advocates, the right to bear arms is something that is deeply enforced in the Second Amendment of the Constitution, and their primary argument is that the right to bear arms, as part of the three constitutional rights, should be preserved at all cost, similarly to the freedom of speech and freedom of religion. As such, gun laws are often associated with a restriction of freedom, and gun control, with its bundle of laws and restrictions, is often seen as unconstitutional from the point of view of pro-gun groups. However, from its origins in colonial days, the right to bear arms said nothing about types of guns such as riffles. The Second Amendment reads, “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Notice that it is silent on the type of weapon eligible for use. Something that could probably help put some bans on assault weapons in circulation today.
A second argument that people who identify themselves against gun control make is under the umbrella of self-defense. Some people firmly believe -and it seems to be right!- that the only thing capable of stopping a criminal with a firearm is a good citizen with a gun. However, it is not clear how many times gun use has effectively deterred gun violence. Another common argument promotes the responsible use of guns by stating that it is not guns that kill people; it is people that kill people. And, because guns are not systematically kept out of the hands of convicted criminals, one cannot blame the harm done to people on guns, but rather the criminals who have access to guns. This leads to an argument made by John Lott Jr.. In these terms, “Traditionally, people have tried to use cross-country comparisons of gun ownership and crime rates to determine whether gun ownership enhances or detracts from safety” (p.116). Lott explains that there is no relationship between gun ownership and crime rate, so it is true that some countries, such as Switzerland, Finland, and Israel, have high gun ownership rates but low crime rates. Moreover, many other countries have both low gun ownership rates and either high or low crime rates.
So, where does the problem reside?
Alternatively, those who oppose pro-gun advocates affirm that the Second Amendment is not absolute, just like the First Amendment is neither. For instance, though the First Amendment protects freedom of speech, it does not guarantee that someone can say anything they want and whenever they want.
In the same way, many gun control supporters believe that there are limits to the Second Amendment. For instance, we can go back to the question of the type of guns available for citizens in the market today by stressing that it is correct to limit certain groups not getting access to guns.
Another point that gun control supporters make is that societies with more guns have more gun violence. Nevertheless, we have seen in the previous paragraph that less gun ownership does not guarantee a lower crime rate. Chicago banned handguns in 1982, yet in the years that followed, the crime rate and the murder rate rose steadily. In the same vein, Craig Withney clarifies the data by explaining that not all deaths caused by firearms are the result of violent assault. Withney reminds us that Americans have historically committed homicides without guns at a rate higher than the total homicide rate in most comparable countries.
This brings back one of the earlier questions about the newly married couple. When considering the homicides by gunfire in the United States, if this couple had children, should they still decide to carry a gun at home? Gun control supporters often raise the question that gun owners are more likely to harm themselves or a loved one than shoot an intruder. If that is true, vulnerable groups such as children are in danger. Consequently, as potential gun owners, the newly married couple must be responsible enough to provide a safe environment for their children. Besides adequate gun storage, good training is necessary because gun ownership does not guarantee that a gun owner knows how to shoot. The couple needs to be accurate to not accidentally shoot an innocent victim just in case they are confronted by an intruder who has broken into their house at night.
Agreement versus non-agreement to possess a gun
Up to this point, we have assumed that the couple reached an agreement to buy a gun, and they see nothing wrong in using the firearm for their self-defense. However, what if one spouse is not enthusiastic about buying a gun and finds that an unethical challenge? In that case, it would be crucial to highlight where their moral principle is grounded as Christians to be sure that it is consistent with what the Bible teaches. Speaking about our goal to glorify God, Arthur F. Holmes quotes Westminster Shorter: “A Christian ethic must put this first, and human happiness comes later because both the worth and the possibility of human well-being derive from God.”
In Holmes’s view, the ultimate ethical must be applied in particular and universal contexts. The Ten Commandments, for instance, give moral rules that apply to significant arrays of human life. Moreover, the sanctity of human life is nonetheless part of the moral principles to the extent that the Ten Commandments serve as the basis upon which every moral rule is built. As such, “You shall not murder” (Exodus 20:13) calls for the respect of human life expected in a just society where people are motivated not by their self-interest but by the love of their neighbors.
However, when an intruder breaks into someone else’s apartment, it reminds us that we are not living in a perfect world where people love each other. The malicious act reminds us of the opposite, namely, a fallen world far from the ideal society expected in Exodus 20. In reality, the Lord warns us in the New Testament that the thief comes only to steal, kill, and destroy (John 10:10). As parents, the couple is responsible for protecting their vulnerable children from the harm of thieves and intruders. Still, can the couple defend their household without committing murder, taking revenge, or retaliating against perpetrators?
In Two Treatises of Government, John Locke tells us of three natural rights that human persons have: life, liberty, and prosperity. In Locke’s view, everyone who possesses reason must also have a sense of awareness that consists of preserving life and not taking away or impairing the life of another. But it turns out that the criminal who breaks into someone else’s house does not have these rights in mind. On that account, if the malefactor does not encounter an effective deterrent such as a fireman shoot, he would likely cause a lot of harm to the victims.
In light of this, it makes sense to answer these perpetrators according to their folly so they will not think they are wise (Proverbs 26:5). But does the right to defend ourselves boil down to a biblical perspective? Or does a Christian who wonders about his reaction against evildoers find ground in the biblical text? But, should the newly married couple be passive and, in so doing, contribute to their extinction? Or, in general, should Christians refuse to protect their own family in the name of “love your neighbor as yourself”?
Love your neighbor as yourself versus the right for Self-defense
Seemingly, bringing the terms ‘Love’ and ‘Self-defense’ together and treating them as referring to a common subject matter might affect Christians, as many continue to see these two concepts as contradictory. For some persons, the term ‘Self-defense’ conjures up images of vengeance, retaliation, and revenge. To qualify self-defense as an act of love would regress to a time of abuse and religious wars that hold Christianity accountable for its past and present shortcomings. Yet, those who reject self-defense would find it troubling to watch their children being harmed directly in front of them by an intruder. Therefore, self-defense requires a Christian assessment that compels parents to be accountable for their love for their children.
In his book, “Moral Choice: An Introduction to Ethics,” Dr. Scott B. Rae clarifies that the New Testament prohibits retaliation but not necessarily self-defense. Dr. Rae reviews several passages in the New Testament, such as Matt. 5:38-48 and Rom. 12:1-7 highlight the legitimate and God-ordained role of government: protecting their citizens, maintaining order, and ensuring justice. These passages also echo the Old Testament, Exodus 22, which deals with retaliation and self-defense in verses two and three. Verses two and three read, “If a thief is caught breaking in at night and is struck a fatal blow, the defender is not guilty of bloodshed; but if it happens after sunrise, the defender is guilty of bloodshed.
On the question of self-defense, Dr. Rae insists that a person is not guilty if violence is used in self-defense. But verse three seems to add more complexity to the subject of retaliation. Suppose the act of murder happens during the daytime, where it is quite inaccurate to call that accidental, where the victim can not only see the intent of the intruder but also pursue the intruder and kill him. In that case, that is considered murder, an act of retaliation, and will likely come with an amount of guilt. In contrast, things would be quite different if the intruder breaks in at night. In that case, the victim is likely seeking to limit the evil intent of the intruder. If the intruder receives a fatal blow in the process, then it is assumed that the victim is only using violence to defend himself.
last thoughts
Therefore, in general, what can we retain from the ongoing debate between pro-gun control and gun advocates? Decisions about bearing arms and gun control should be made in light of the principle of the sanctity of life. The best policies, politics, and laws should serve the end of fostering a better society with responsible citizens who flourish individually and in a safe community. It can be assured that there is at least an agreement between the different groups regarding certain people who should not get access to arms. Among this category, we find convicted criminals and mental illness groups.
We must preserve such agreements because if we fail to do that, it is expected to see arms in the hands of criminals. And politicians would prey on certain groups that are already victims of these criminals. This would create two other problems: the bad perception that associates everyone in that community as criminals. But worst, because of this label, it could deprive the good pro-gun citizens of that community to bear arms and use effective deterrent forces capable of stopping the criminal activities in their respective communities.
