Guns and People

It didn't take long for the Right-wing spin machine to kick in. A man in Norway attempted a massacre by means of bow and arrow. This is clear evidence that guns don't kill people – people do.

It's true, inanimate objects don't kill people. They do not possess volition, but this oft repeated, mantra-like argument completely misses the point and the recent violence in Norway is a case in point.

Had the perpetrator been armed with an AR-15, with perhaps an extended magazine, you can be sure the death toll would be magnitudes higher. Knife attacks, or assault by means of bow and arrow are never going to prove as deadly. It's just a simple fact.

The problem is the American Right-wing doesn't want to hear it and so they obfuscate the issues and attempt to re-cast the nature of the debate. Guns don't kill people – people do. That's right, but people with guns can do a lot more damage than people restricted to non-mechanised weaponry.

The motivations behind the hyper-gun position vary. By hyper, I refer to those who don't just defend the 'right' to bear arms – a 'right' no Christian would ever claim or seek to justify, but rather they view gun ownership as intrinsic to personhood, an unassailable and inalienable right that no authority can challenge. It's a strange position to say the least, especially given that in the scope of history the gun is a fairly new invention.*

Additionally, (though this is of no consequence to Christian thought) there are serious Constitutional questions as to whether or not the NRA reading of the Second Amendment is even accurate. Not even so-called 'Originalists' can agree on this point. The hyper position is hostile to any limitations or to any regulation. Some among that camp wish things to return to a 'Wild West' scenario though I contend virtually none of the people who advocate this position have even begun to understand what the 'Wild West' was actually like – and what it means in terms of basic security, economics and the like. Additionally, authorities were usually trying to curb the 'wild' aspects to the time and context and the population at large was for the most part appreciative of their efforts. In other words, when considered democratically (which is supposedly a concern for patriotic-nationalist Americans) these same hyper-gun advocates will find themselves in a small if not overwhelmed minority – opposed on a popular-democratic level and certainly in terms of jurisprudence, Constitutional law and precedent. But as we know money talks and the gun lobby is very powerful.

As a Christian I have no use for firearms apart from maybe hunting, a pastime I no longer pursue or enjoy. I cannot take up arms against the state nor do I have any desire to gun down evildoers – though they run rampant in our society. We are called to take up the cross, a concept quite foreign to American Evangelical impulses and sensibilities.

If the state decides to restrict gun ownership and sales, it makes no difference to me. I live in an area of the country that's most definitely hyper-gun in terms of its ethos and culture. It's immoral and at times obscene – especially when it comes to attitudes and practices surrounding hunting. What's even more troubling is how the ethos has been blended with local forms of Christianity – Church gun raffles being perhaps one of the more poignant if disgusting expressions. I wouldn't shed any tears if the gun culture was suppressed and yet that's unlikely to happen. And yet I also tremble, for if the country descends into civil war then my area will become very dangerous and especially so for those like me who refuse to go along with the dominant factions. And let's just say I know how most local Evangelicals will respond.

As the veneer of society breaks down, as the consensus is shattered, as large-scale fragmentation takes place there's going to be more and more violence. There's a reason why the US is the mass-shooting capital of the world and it's going to get worse. The time may come when even erstwhile pro-gun people may beg the government to intervene and restrict gun ownership.

If you talk to people that have fled from unstable situations overseas their comments are almost universally the same. They didn't flee because of rights and rarely for freedoms but primarily because of security. That's what people really care about in the end. Rights are largely meaningless apart from a secure cultural environment in which they can function.

Those that want a return to the Wild West would do well to look to places like Brazil and South Africa. The rich do okay because they can afford walls, armoured vehicles, and security details. Those who cannot are forced to live with insecurity and while you may think you're Clint Eastwood with your gun, the truth is if you anger or provoke the wrong people (that dominate unstable situations) they're going to come after you and your family and you're not going to be able to stop them. There's another way to live and think but that Christ-path, Kingdom way is one that (to be honest) most Christians aren't really interested in.

In the meantime we can be thankful that that perpetrator in Norway did not have a gun. If the laws worked and kept one out of his hands, then count it a mercy and a blessing.

----

*One might argue that if for centuries a weapon like the sword was sufficient to meet the need of self-defense, why the drastic change? The technology changed? It certainly did but it has also changed considerably beyond the technology of the gun. Would the hyper-gun advocates want to argue for the absolute right of individuals to possess tanks or perhaps missiles? I suppose some would, the only inhibition being cost. No doubt a weaponised drone is essential to autonomous personhood. Give it time and someone will make the argument.

And while they would be quick to dismiss such lines of argument against their position, it is by means of this very line of inquiry (reductio ad absurdum) that their arguments begin to collapse. And I only speak in terms of civics. In terms of general morality their case is much more difficult and in terms of Christian morality and ethics, their case (despite their many attempts to twist Scripture) collapses.

And while those concerned with racism in society are publically and absurdly denounced as Marxists and chased out of churches, gun extremists and advocates of a violent and evil ethic wholly in opposition to the New Testament are given carte blanche within the Church.