Since the shooting in Tucson there has been a lot of debating what should be blamed for the shooting: political rhetoric, unproductive gun regulations, or ineffective mental health services. I think it is important to keep in mind that as tragic as this situation was, it is a cold reminder that we live in an unsafe world. The unreasonable belief that we can ensure our safety causes more distress than results. However, there is also little doubt that things could be done to make a positive impact. That positive impact could be in the arena of safety, but more significantly a cultural evolution. Each of the potential causes should be addressed. The political climate is toxic and is inevitably holding back and real progress. Mental health services that are effective and efficient are in the best interests of everyone. And, to the indirect point of this blog, gun laws need to be addressed.
There are two distinct sides to the argument regarding gun laws. On the side that supports gun ownership there are a lot of valuable and reasonable arguments (in the midst of a lot of redneck arguments). These include the constitutionality and historical tradition of gun ownership, the unfair punishment toward the far more dominant group of responsible gun owners, the potential impact on negating or stopping violent crime of violators, the ability for violators to have guns regardless of gun laws and the need to level the field, and on. Then there are a lot of valuable and reasonable arguments supporting stricter gun laws including the likelihood of innocent people being killed by guns, a misinterpretation of the context of the constitutionality of gun ownership, and systematic impact that stricter gun laws would inevitably have on gun availability for criminals. I tend to be on the ladder side of the argument and was quick to agree with those who felt that the love affair that America has with guns and violence is systematically unhealthy.
As I reflected on why I support stricter gun laws I ran into some hypocrisy. My basic belief is that responsible gun ownership still has a negative effect on the culture of violence. The potential good that could come from gun ownership doesn’t negate the negative impact that it has. For the sake of society, a stand has to be taken against the glorification of violence, regardless if it is done “responsibly” or not. However, I like beer. I like it a lot. I am a responsible drinker, but usually have something in the fridge. But I can’t deny that alcohol has a negative impact on society. Not only does it impact violence, dangerous driving, health problems, and more, but it is an escape for many from the struggles of this life that lead to addiction. I am not sure how to reconcile this inconsistency. Now I could reconcile it by arguing that nothing is inherently good or bad, but can be used for good or bad and that therefore I could have the same dilemma with sugar. But to be a little more pragmatic about it, there are obviously some things that have a much more significant negative impact than others. So in the spirit of all things are permissible, but not all things are beneficial- I have to either reconsider my views on gun ownership or alcohol.
However, my struggle is a moral issue: is it okay to own a gun and is it okay to drink beer? I would have to say yes to both. Despite my feelings on the negative impact that I believe gun ownership has on society, because I believe this to be a moral issue, I am forced to believe that, as long as either is done responsibly, each is permissible. However, the current debate is an ethical issue (not simply a political one). That is when I go to the words of Martin Luther King Jr.: a man who has given me significant direction in my recovery in Christianity. In response to an argument that morality can’t be legislated, King stated:
“Now the other myth that gets around is the idea that legislation cannot really solve the problem and that it has no great role to play in this period of social change because you’ve got to change the heart and you can’t change the heart through legislation. You can’t legislate morals. The job must be done through education and religion. Well, there’s half-truth involved here. Certainly, if the problem is to be solved then in the final sense, hearts must be changed. Religion and education must play a great role in changing the heart. But we must go on to say that while it may be true that morality cannot be legislated, behavior can be regulated. It may be true that the law cannot change the heart but it can restrain the heartless. It may be true that the law cannot make a man love me but it can keep him from lynching me and I think that is pretty important, also. So there is a need for executive orders. There is a need for judicial decrees. There is a need for civil rights legislation on the local scale within states and on the national scale from the federal government.”
There are two distinct sides to the argument regarding gun laws. On the side that supports gun ownership there are a lot of valuable and reasonable arguments (in the midst of a lot of redneck arguments). These include the constitutionality and historical tradition of gun ownership, the unfair punishment toward the far more dominant group of responsible gun owners, the potential impact on negating or stopping violent crime of violators, the ability for violators to have guns regardless of gun laws and the need to level the field, and on. Then there are a lot of valuable and reasonable arguments supporting stricter gun laws including the likelihood of innocent people being killed by guns, a misinterpretation of the context of the constitutionality of gun ownership, and systematic impact that stricter gun laws would inevitably have on gun availability for criminals. I tend to be on the ladder side of the argument and was quick to agree with those who felt that the love affair that America has with guns and violence is systematically unhealthy.
As I reflected on why I support stricter gun laws I ran into some hypocrisy. My basic belief is that responsible gun ownership still has a negative effect on the culture of violence. The potential good that could come from gun ownership doesn’t negate the negative impact that it has. For the sake of society, a stand has to be taken against the glorification of violence, regardless if it is done “responsibly” or not. However, I like beer. I like it a lot. I am a responsible drinker, but usually have something in the fridge. But I can’t deny that alcohol has a negative impact on society. Not only does it impact violence, dangerous driving, health problems, and more, but it is an escape for many from the struggles of this life that lead to addiction. I am not sure how to reconcile this inconsistency. Now I could reconcile it by arguing that nothing is inherently good or bad, but can be used for good or bad and that therefore I could have the same dilemma with sugar. But to be a little more pragmatic about it, there are obviously some things that have a much more significant negative impact than others. So in the spirit of all things are permissible, but not all things are beneficial- I have to either reconsider my views on gun ownership or alcohol.
However, my struggle is a moral issue: is it okay to own a gun and is it okay to drink beer? I would have to say yes to both. Despite my feelings on the negative impact that I believe gun ownership has on society, because I believe this to be a moral issue, I am forced to believe that, as long as either is done responsibly, each is permissible. However, the current debate is an ethical issue (not simply a political one). That is when I go to the words of Martin Luther King Jr.: a man who has given me significant direction in my recovery in Christianity. In response to an argument that morality can’t be legislated, King stated:
“Now the other myth that gets around is the idea that legislation cannot really solve the problem and that it has no great role to play in this period of social change because you’ve got to change the heart and you can’t change the heart through legislation. You can’t legislate morals. The job must be done through education and religion. Well, there’s half-truth involved here. Certainly, if the problem is to be solved then in the final sense, hearts must be changed. Religion and education must play a great role in changing the heart. But we must go on to say that while it may be true that morality cannot be legislated, behavior can be regulated. It may be true that the law cannot change the heart but it can restrain the heartless. It may be true that the law cannot make a man love me but it can keep him from lynching me and I think that is pretty important, also. So there is a need for executive orders. There is a need for judicial decrees. There is a need for civil rights legislation on the local scale within states and on the national scale from the federal government.”
No comments:
Post a Comment