I've never really understood why citizens of the United States
love firearms. Even in the aftermath of the most-recent mass shooting in Orlando, there seems to be no
widespread desire to enforce tighter gun laws or abolish private ownership of
firearms. As a Christian committed to Jesus and his way of nonviolence, I
still find it very difficult to believe that Americans generally can't see that fewer guns in the
hands of the general public would lead to fewer shootings. Granted, if a person
tips over the edge so much that all s/he wants to do is slaughter, that person
is likely to find a way to do so by whatever means available: Gun, knife,
homemade bombs, intentional hit and runs, and so on. But guns and rifles are
quite easily available to the average American, and so mass shootings seem to
be more common in the United States than in other Westernized countries --
though there are notable exceptions, as the recent killing sprees in Norway and
France prove. (I recently was watching coverage of the shooting of President Reagan in 1980 from my childhood, and noticed that any number of those protecting him were armed -- some even with automatic firearms like Israelite uzi firearms -- and were still unable to prevent the shooting.)
Gun ownership is fairly well ingrained in the American psyche (not a surprise, given the country's own birth in blood and bullets). And for me, this is nowhere more obvious than the response of certain segments of American society in response to gun ownership: The answer to the problem of guns is ... well, more guns. When I bring up the issue of guns and our society, though, inevitably there are intractable arguments over the meaning of the Second Amendment -- the "right of the people to keep and bear arms" in order to preserve the freedom and dignity of the nation-state. Those arguments are "intractable" for precisely this reason: Any citing of the Second Amendment carries all the religious devotion of a sacred text, therefore the passion associated with that text is overwhelming.
Since that's true, I have maintained for years that rifles and bullets are, to many Americans, an idol. A dangerous idol.
But let me be clear: It's too easy to dismiss American fondness for guns with a simple, less-complicated argument. I realize I'm not going to convince anyone of the Way of Peace in following Jesus Christ by calling guns idols. That's because a number of Americans aren't nearly as daft as the rhetoric of gun control folks want to make them. While I disagree with them, many of my friends are gun owners and gun users. They believe in safety and in the creation of a cultural context that respects the violence of which guns, in the wrong hands, are capable. They've taken the gun safety courses. They've gone through the necessary channels to secure verified and verifiable permits to own and even carry their guns safely. So I'm not going to go down the road that liberals go down -- calling their opponents stupid or whatnot. That kind of divisive "negative democracy" (as I said yesterday) can't create a common good. So I'll have none of it.
One of the most commonly-overlooked reasons for gun ownership in the US, I think, comes down to geography. Namely, the sheer size of the US as a whole. I have any number of friends who claim -- and with a lot of good reason -- that slow police response times are the main reason they own a gun. In the case of a home invasion, the hostile person could well have killed all the residents in a house before the police arrive. Now this could happen in any country, but the sheer size of the United States means that the cavalry can't guarantee a timely arrival, especially in certain areas. (But can anyone ever guarantee the timely arrival of emergency services?) Another reason is that the Second Amendment apparently was introduced as a means for US citizens to protect themselves against corrupt government. Americans typically don't trust the government for their protection, and thus to own the means by which they can protect themselves is a necessity.
What interests me theologically about that second position is its relation to Romans 13. These are the same folks, who in different contexts (such as in election cycles), believe that governments are established by God and for the good of the people -- Romans 13.1 does talk about governments generally, but refuses to identify a particular government (i.e., Republicans), but that's for another day.
In trusting their own ability to use a handgun appropriately but effectively rather than the US government's policies on national and state security, does the typical gun-favoring American deny the government its divinely appointed role -- that is, do the people seek to take back the power they ostensibly give to local and national governments in elections? Does it imply a lack of trust in God?
I'm pretty sure the same folks who quote Romans 13.1-7 to me when it comes to passing laws against abortion, for example, will see the disconnect when it comes to passing laws about guns and curtailing gun violence.
Rather than holding to the right to keep and bear arms in case a corrupt government imposes tyranny, is it possible that lobbying the government, protesting against the government whenever it falls short, is actually a more effective way to protect one's family and property in the light of Romans 13? Owning a gun for personal protection may well be a viable, even good, short-term answer, but it isn't going to address the systemic evil perpetuated by a corrupt government. Only a properly Christ-centered protest against unjust rule is likely to have any long-term effect -- even though, historically speaking, Christians who protest against unjust rule are more likely to be slaughtered or ridiculed than affirmed in any perceived right to keep and bear arms. After all, as I said before, slow revolutions have the greater lasting effect that fast, gun-toting ones.
Gun ownership is fairly well ingrained in the American psyche (not a surprise, given the country's own birth in blood and bullets). And for me, this is nowhere more obvious than the response of certain segments of American society in response to gun ownership: The answer to the problem of guns is ... well, more guns. When I bring up the issue of guns and our society, though, inevitably there are intractable arguments over the meaning of the Second Amendment -- the "right of the people to keep and bear arms" in order to preserve the freedom and dignity of the nation-state. Those arguments are "intractable" for precisely this reason: Any citing of the Second Amendment carries all the religious devotion of a sacred text, therefore the passion associated with that text is overwhelming.
Since that's true, I have maintained for years that rifles and bullets are, to many Americans, an idol. A dangerous idol.
But let me be clear: It's too easy to dismiss American fondness for guns with a simple, less-complicated argument. I realize I'm not going to convince anyone of the Way of Peace in following Jesus Christ by calling guns idols. That's because a number of Americans aren't nearly as daft as the rhetoric of gun control folks want to make them. While I disagree with them, many of my friends are gun owners and gun users. They believe in safety and in the creation of a cultural context that respects the violence of which guns, in the wrong hands, are capable. They've taken the gun safety courses. They've gone through the necessary channels to secure verified and verifiable permits to own and even carry their guns safely. So I'm not going to go down the road that liberals go down -- calling their opponents stupid or whatnot. That kind of divisive "negative democracy" (as I said yesterday) can't create a common good. So I'll have none of it.
One of the most commonly-overlooked reasons for gun ownership in the US, I think, comes down to geography. Namely, the sheer size of the US as a whole. I have any number of friends who claim -- and with a lot of good reason -- that slow police response times are the main reason they own a gun. In the case of a home invasion, the hostile person could well have killed all the residents in a house before the police arrive. Now this could happen in any country, but the sheer size of the United States means that the cavalry can't guarantee a timely arrival, especially in certain areas. (But can anyone ever guarantee the timely arrival of emergency services?) Another reason is that the Second Amendment apparently was introduced as a means for US citizens to protect themselves against corrupt government. Americans typically don't trust the government for their protection, and thus to own the means by which they can protect themselves is a necessity.
What interests me theologically about that second position is its relation to Romans 13. These are the same folks, who in different contexts (such as in election cycles), believe that governments are established by God and for the good of the people -- Romans 13.1 does talk about governments generally, but refuses to identify a particular government (i.e., Republicans), but that's for another day.
In trusting their own ability to use a handgun appropriately but effectively rather than the US government's policies on national and state security, does the typical gun-favoring American deny the government its divinely appointed role -- that is, do the people seek to take back the power they ostensibly give to local and national governments in elections? Does it imply a lack of trust in God?
I'm pretty sure the same folks who quote Romans 13.1-7 to me when it comes to passing laws against abortion, for example, will see the disconnect when it comes to passing laws about guns and curtailing gun violence.
Rather than holding to the right to keep and bear arms in case a corrupt government imposes tyranny, is it possible that lobbying the government, protesting against the government whenever it falls short, is actually a more effective way to protect one's family and property in the light of Romans 13? Owning a gun for personal protection may well be a viable, even good, short-term answer, but it isn't going to address the systemic evil perpetuated by a corrupt government. Only a properly Christ-centered protest against unjust rule is likely to have any long-term effect -- even though, historically speaking, Christians who protest against unjust rule are more likely to be slaughtered or ridiculed than affirmed in any perceived right to keep and bear arms. After all, as I said before, slow revolutions have the greater lasting effect that fast, gun-toting ones.