Random Thoughts, Would Jesus Have A Handgun?
The Supreme Court recently affirmed the right of individuals to bear arms. The NRA promptly sued San Francisco to eliminate a ban on firearms in public housing projects. All this on the heels of a recent tragedy, where a man and his two sons were shot dead at a traffic intersection for no damn reason whatsoever.
Yes, people will find ways to acquire guns. That doesn't mean the government should make it easier for them to do so in volatile situations.
I come from Montana, where hunting is an integral part of not only the culture, but also, for many, subsistence. Hunting elk and deer provides extra meat for many families in a state with a less than shiny economy. So I know that guns are not an undiluted evil.
Nevertheless, there is not much in the way of good hunting in the city, and the proximity of so many people in so many difficult economic circumstances is a powder keg, and guns do not often facilitate cooperation and peaceful resolutions of disagreements.
The economy is getting worse, and working at a credit union, I am seeing more and more instances of stolen credit and debit cards. If this continues, the stress on people is going to continue to mount. Do we really want to allow more guns into the mix, even in the name of self-defense?
Self-defense is hard to argue against, of course, because it is a legitimate concern. Humans can be violent, aggressive, and irrational, as witnessed by the triple homicide I mentioned earlier. However, I think there are more sustainable ways to promote a safe environment; they would perhaps take more work to implement, and would require a societal shift, and we do live in a country that lives for the quick fix: winning the lottery, fad diets, cosmetic surgery, etc; nevertheless, working to eliminate the need for guns for self-defense seems the worthier approach.
If the NRA really wanted to promote a responsible use of guns, to advance a culture where guns could be treated as a useful tool (and really, shouldn't they be focusing on rifles, that are harder to conceal and more apt for a shooting range?), shouldn't they align themselves politically with progressive, liberal causes that would seek to heal economic troubles and close the disparity between the rich and poor? Or those that would promote tolerance and the elimination of hate crimes? If people were better off economically, if they felt more connected to society and had reason to hope, there would be less incentive to use guns against their fellow humans. Work to eliminate--or at least reduce--elements of social injustice, and you will reduce some of the triggers of gun violence, pun intended.
It seems reasonable to assume that many members of the NRA are also Christian. Does it really seem likely that Jesus would say the best way to help the poor and those who fear violence is to provide them with handguns?
So, step up, NRA. Work to reduce poverty and end hate crimes and discrimination; maybe then we'll be able to take you seriously when you say you are defending the constitutional rights of the people.
Yes, people will find ways to acquire guns. That doesn't mean the government should make it easier for them to do so in volatile situations.
I come from Montana, where hunting is an integral part of not only the culture, but also, for many, subsistence. Hunting elk and deer provides extra meat for many families in a state with a less than shiny economy. So I know that guns are not an undiluted evil.
Nevertheless, there is not much in the way of good hunting in the city, and the proximity of so many people in so many difficult economic circumstances is a powder keg, and guns do not often facilitate cooperation and peaceful resolutions of disagreements.
The economy is getting worse, and working at a credit union, I am seeing more and more instances of stolen credit and debit cards. If this continues, the stress on people is going to continue to mount. Do we really want to allow more guns into the mix, even in the name of self-defense?
Self-defense is hard to argue against, of course, because it is a legitimate concern. Humans can be violent, aggressive, and irrational, as witnessed by the triple homicide I mentioned earlier. However, I think there are more sustainable ways to promote a safe environment; they would perhaps take more work to implement, and would require a societal shift, and we do live in a country that lives for the quick fix: winning the lottery, fad diets, cosmetic surgery, etc; nevertheless, working to eliminate the need for guns for self-defense seems the worthier approach.
If the NRA really wanted to promote a responsible use of guns, to advance a culture where guns could be treated as a useful tool (and really, shouldn't they be focusing on rifles, that are harder to conceal and more apt for a shooting range?), shouldn't they align themselves politically with progressive, liberal causes that would seek to heal economic troubles and close the disparity between the rich and poor? Or those that would promote tolerance and the elimination of hate crimes? If people were better off economically, if they felt more connected to society and had reason to hope, there would be less incentive to use guns against their fellow humans. Work to eliminate--or at least reduce--elements of social injustice, and you will reduce some of the triggers of gun violence, pun intended.
It seems reasonable to assume that many members of the NRA are also Christian. Does it really seem likely that Jesus would say the best way to help the poor and those who fear violence is to provide them with handguns?
So, step up, NRA. Work to reduce poverty and end hate crimes and discrimination; maybe then we'll be able to take you seriously when you say you are defending the constitutional rights of the people.
posted by Devin at 10:39 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home