Gun violence, regulation, and love

JOHN LOCHER/ASSOCIATED PRESS

Meriah Calvert prays during a candlelight vigil on Oct. 1 in Roseburg, Oregon.

Until this world is made new, violence will not stop. Until then, we pursue love...

Some may scoff at such things, but since about 11am Mountain Time, I've been in knots about something...something that felt both distant and near. I couldn't place my finger on it. But it was as real and tangible to me as the keyboard on which I type. Then this. Do you recall the "life force" that Yoda talks about in "Star Wars", the the force or influence that gives something its vitality or strength, the spirit or energy that animates living creatures? Being plugged into this has been something to which I seem to have been born. And a piece of it, a piece with a distinct signature (my hometown), was not right. Now I know why. But knowing why doesn't take the pain away nor make sense of the senselessness. God, please let love flow. Please help us to keep hatred and malice and blame away. Please help us to see this world made new. Please help us to love...

Get this image from the Ford Family Foundation

In response to a recent mass shooting at the community college I attended and where I met my wife, I was recently asked about my 'take' on open carry policies at schools.

I'm still not fully sure of my take.

I don't believe gun violence is the problem. The violence is symptom of larger, more deeply-seeded issue(s). Issues of poverty of mind/soul/bank accounts, people feeling unloved and in utter despair, mental illness, lack of belonging, and so many others!

I  support open and concealed carry, both. I regularly carry during hunting season and when playing in the woods (familiarity with firearm use is tremendously important, in my mind). I think a policy of MANDATED  carry is problematic (e.g., the timid/uncomfortable are probably better off not carrying). Neither do I want children carrying.

Safety is illusory. And fleeting. And the risk of something happening to you/me from a deranged shooter is so minuscule (our chances of being struck by a car are so many orders of magnitude higher) that putting guns in the hands of many more incompetent handlers without some sort of training or regular check-in on their competency levels gives me considerable pause. We don't balk at mandatory hunters safety courses before we are allowed to hunt. We don't balk at having regulations on the dairy industry keeping blood and puss levels below an "acceptable" level in our glasses of milk. We don't balk at having regular check-in with drivers license or for aged drivers. We don't allow children to drive. I don't think I have many issues with making gun ownership more rigorous (e.g., required education programs, safety, handling, situational scenario play, routine relicensing, etc.). Yet, I also worry about someone keeping track of my guns (or any of my belongings; strange that we largely find it acceptable for businesses to keep track of our purchasing/browsing habits, though; whole other topic).

Would I rather have more rigorous gun ownership requirements (presuming there is sufficient public oversight so as to keep from government overrun) than not? I think so. It would depend on the likelihood of such requirements thwarting potential attacks. The gun lobby is tremendously powerful and has ensured our right to continued bearing of arms. Sadly, I find the gun lobby and its message to have been mostly hijacked by a few individual businessmen bent primarily on profits. I get economic motivations. I like to make money, too. But profits have taken center stage over values (to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness). We cannot serve two masters (God and money).

Navy Yard Shooting, Rick McKee, The Augusta Chronicle

I don't see this as an all-or-nothing issue (everyone with a gun vs. nobody or just police/military with guns). It seems like there IS common ground (public opinion polls bear this out). But our governance system is so in shambles and public confidence in it at all-time lows, I'm not sure new policies would be as effective at addressing the ROOT(s) of the problem (mentioned previously) as they should be. Too many policies, in my mind, do less about addressing problems as they do addressing symptoms. If I have a cancerous tumor, I don't want to just treat the pain it brings. I want the cancer itself treated and gone. Sadly, I don't think enough policies have this sort of focus. Well-intentioned, maybe (probably?). But still missing the mark.

Long story even longer, I'm still not how to get to B (less gun violence) from A (here). But neither unregulated access nor complete lockdown seem to be viable options (either end of the spectrum). There is a middle ground, of that I'm sure (very few issues have simple yes/no, right/wrong answers). How to get there, however...another story.

But I leave you with a poem that - upon re-reading it today - struck me particularly deeply: Wendell Berry's The Peace of Wild Things. (or hear Wendell read it)

Rest in the grace of the world, and be free.

When despair for the world grows in me
and I wake in the night at the least sound
in fear of what my life and my children’s lives may be,
I go and lie down where the wood drake
rests in his beauty on the water, and the great heron feeds.
I come into the peace of wild things
who do not tax their lives with forethought
of grief. I come into the presence of still water.
And I feel above me the day-blind stars
waiting with their light. For a time
I rest in the grace of the world, and am free.

Gun rights, NRA and the diametrically opposed

Or used to be, anyway...

Writer, photographer and and avid bird hunter Pat Wray wrote a wonderful piece in this morning's Gazette Times newspaper that really resonated with me, in part because I used to be a long-time dues paying member of the NRA but have struggled in recent years with their fear-mongering and heavy handedness. I'm a strong supporter of our Constitution and the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms...but also believe the pendulum has swung too far, perpetuated in large part by the NRA's fear mongering and extremism. And I've long had difficulties resolving my support of the two seemingly opposite viewpoints.

Find more FoxTrot

So when Pat's column came out this morning, and I realized what he was writing about, I sat transfixed, absorbing every word of his story. And I felt like FINALLY!, finally someone else feels like I do, sitting in both sides of the fence, if you will, on a contentious issue. And I was relieved. Relieved that someone else was able to put to words, in the form of a succinct, poignant, thought-provoking "phone conversation" (whether it was real or otherwise is of no consequence), two seemingly diametrically opposed viewpoints. Well done Pat Wray. Well done. I, for one, think you'd be an excellent candidate for the NRA board. So without further ado, here's Pat's column, in it's entirety, as it appeared in today's (Feb. 2, 2012) Gazette Times Outdoors section:

Outdoors: A phone call from the NRA. by Pat Wray. (as it appeared in the Corvallis Gazette Times Outdoor section, February 2, 2012.)

“Hello, Mr. Wray. This is John from the National Rifle Association. How are you doing tonight?”

“Fine, thanks.”

“Mr. Wray, as a Life Member of the NRA I know you are concerned with our right to bear arms. Are you aware of Obama’s under-the-radar effort to destroy our 2nd Amendment rights?”

“You mean President Obama?” 

“Yes, sir.”

“Say it.”

“President Obama.”

“Good. Now for the remainder of this conversation every time you mention his name the word President will precede it. Is that clear?”

“Yes, sir.” 

“Good. Now, what were you complaining about?”

“Well, er, President Obama is conducting an under-the-radar attack on our right to bear arms.”

“What makes it under the radar?”

“His administration is not talking about it.”

“Then how do you know what he plans to do?”

“Well, Mr. Wray, you have to look no further than his appointees. Consider that Attorney General Eric Holder is on record as supporting the re-establishment of the Clinton ban on assault weapons.”

“Holder brought that up within of month of his appointment three years ago and quickly was shut down by the President. Haven’t heard a peep, since. What else you got?”

“Um, he appointed two of the most rabidly anti-gun Supreme Court justices in American history, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. Given the advanced ages of several of the other judges, a second term may well give President Obama the chance to appoint three more justices.” 

“So, our liberal president appointed two liberal justices. What a surprise! You expected what, another Clarence Thomas? I guess we’ll have to hope that all of his appointees grow an independent streak and decide their cases according to our Constitution. Just like we always do. It’s hard for me to interpret Supreme Court nominees as an assault on my gun rights.”

“Mr. Wray, are you aware that this administration reversed long-standing American opposition and now supports an International Arms Trade Treaty that will ban or restrict our gun ownership in this country? O … er … President Obama knows he can’t get restrictive gun rules through the U.S. Congress so he’s going to come at us through the U.N.”

“You know, I’ve been seeing those emails and so I started doing some checking. It turns out that the U.N. treaty is aimed at restricting dealers who provide arms to insurgencies, rebellions and civil wars. There is specific wording in place, put there by the United States, to protect national sovereignty regarding firearms purchase and ownership.”

“Mr. Wray, our people have done extensive research into the administration’s goals and we know what President Obama is going to do.”

“Sure, you know because of what he said, except that all he’s ever said is that he supports the 2nd Amendment and has no plans to take anyone’s guns. You know because of what he has done, except that he’s made no move in any way to restrict gun ownership. In fact, he’s signed a law permitting guns in National Parks, signed another law allowing guns in checked baggage on Amtrak trains …”

“Those were just a diversion, Mr. Wray, a smokescreen to hide his true objectives.”

“So, even when President Obama does exactly what you guys want, signs laws that you had a hand in writing, you still don’t give him credit. Did all of you intern at Pravda, or what? Here’s what I think, John. I am worried about gun control. I’ve been in Great Britain and Australia and Canada and talked with the people there who’ve had their guns taken away. I know it can be done. I also know there are people here who want to do the same thing. That’s why I’m a life member of the NRA. But the way NRA people simplify and demonize and lie about things — the way you create crises where there are none is abhorrent to me. The NRA singlehandedly created the mass hysteria following President Obama’s election that resulted in ammunition and reloading supplies disappearing off the shelves for more than a year. You did that. And all you can say now is ‘This time he’s REALLY going after our guns! Trust us!’

“Sorry, John. Somehow the words NRA and trust don’t fit together very well for me.”

So what do you think about all of this? Do you have different, similar, or conflicting views on gun control and the right to bear arms?

And to end on a curiosity note, here are some cartoons, images, and pictures relating to these issues that I found particularly interesting. Enjoy!