After the Aurora, CO theater shooting gun control has
somehow managed to place itself in the center of the current political debate.
The debate is heated and doesn't seem to leave room for any middle ground.
Here's my take on the whole thing; as with everything else, I see my view as
being very Catholic.
I read a tweet by Fr. Josh Miller (I've never met him or
know who he is, just found him on Twitter and started following him), he said
this concerning the issue: "One of our fatal flaws: the conclusion that
the abuse/misuse of a moral neutral renders it a moral evil. More puritanical
than the Puritans" @FrJoshMiller. An inanimate object is amoral, it is
neither moral or immoral. Guns are used to commit terrible crimes but this does
not make the gun, in and of itself, morally evil. This argument easily refutes
those who wish to abolish the 2nd Amendment by claiming high murder rates are
the direct cause of the legal circulation of guns and is the basis for the
"guns don't kill people, people kill people" (or any variation of it)
argument that's widely held. Catholics believe that the world in it's entirety
has been redeemed through the death and resurrection Jesus. This is why amazing
things like alcohol and tobacco are permitted in moderation within The Church,
Fr. Miller's point on guns reflects this. It would be wrong to eliminate one's
right to possess/do something which is amoral simply on the basis that others
have the potential to misuse it.
At the same time, to follow this logic (in terms of gun
control) to its end requires the acceptance of some difficult realities. If
there's nothing morally wrong with allowing citizens to legally possess high
powered rifles intended for military use, then why not allow for the possession
of other more lethal weapons? Land mines? Missiles? Nuclear war head? I think
defenders of gun rights would be hard-pressed to agree that these types of
weapons should be legal for citizens to own, indeed - they shouldn't be. The
distinction lies in the purpose for which the weapon was made.
Also on Twitter, I found actor Jason Alexander's
"long tweet" about gun control that's gotten quite a bit of
attention. I don't agree with the opening portion where he tries to argue the
constitution only affords American civilians the right to own a weapon if the
individual is part of an "organized militia", I think this is a
misreading of the Constitution. But I do like a different point he made further
down about the problem with this "guns don't kill people, people kill people"
logic. He says this:
"Then I get messages from seemingly decent and
intelligent people who offer things like: @BrooklynAvi: Guns should only be
banned if violent crimes committed with tomatoes means we should ban tomatoes.
OR @nysportsguys1: Drunk drivers kill, should we ban fast cars?
I'm hoping that right after they hit send, they take a
deep breath and realize that those arguments are completely specious. I believe
tomatoes and cars have purposes other than killing. What purpose does an AR-15
serve to a sportsman that a more standard hunting rifle does not serve? Let's
see - does it fire more rounds without reload? Yes. Does it fire farther and
more accurately? Yes. Does it accommodate a more lethal payload? Yes. So
basically, the purpose of an assault style weapon is to kill more stuff, more
fully, faster and from further away. To achieve maximum lethality. Hardly the
primary purpose of tomatoes and sports cars."
I think he makes a valid argument and it speaks for
itself. Those individuals lobbying for the rights granted to them by the 2nd
Amendment through this absolutist approach are using flawed logic.
Furthermore, the self-defense, hobby, and hunting arguments (however justified)
do not hold any weight when applied to military grade weapons. I've observed in
my own experience that individuals want to purchase a military weapon for two
reasons: 1) simply because it's possible to own one and 2) because the gun is
impressive - appealing to their pride. There's really no other reason why
someone would "need" to own a weapon that could unload a magazine in
just a few seconds. Any other attempt a sane person would make to justify
owning such a weapon would probably make me nervous and want to re-examine why
I thought they were sane to begin with.
Personally, I am a proponent of the Constitution, the 2nd
Amendment, and minimizing brutal acts of senseless violence. Both Fr. Miller
and Jason Alexander have valid points and represent well the polarized opinions
of each side (not to say that either of them are the extreme of either side,
but they do represent each side). It seems, as usual, the truth is somewhere in
the middle.
My take on it is simple: People deserve the right to own
a gun but not ANY gun. Guns themselves are not morally evil/bad/something to
abolish and, in fact, can help prevent heinous crimes from occurring. They are,
however, dangerous and require a high level of responsibility and respect for
their potential to kill; this should be (and is) reflected in who gets to
purchase something of this nature. In the same way that a weapon for
self-defense or hobby must be respected for what it is, respect for weapons
that are designed to be extraordinarily lethal demand a different level of
respect. I would argue highly trained military personnel are the only individuals
capable of giving the proper respect due to these types of weapons. No one else
within society should be allowed access to such a weapon.
The premise of my view in finding this middle ground is
rooted in the notion of personal responsibility. This, I think, is what makes
it Catholic (since this is fundamental principle in Catholic morality). Some
may argue that the gun control debate shouldn't involve concepts of morality. I
find this to be 1) an oversight to the potential damage a gun can cause and 2)
a misunderstanding and ignorance of morality.
If there's any unifying theme on the two sides of this
issue it's the desire for freedom, specifically freedom from fear. To simplify
the story, one side proposes the solution to be no guns at all, the other, guns
for everyone. Freedom does not eliminate choice. Rather, authentic freedom
embraces the responsibility of choice by pursuing that which is good in order
to promote the greatest freedom.
With this understanding, I contend the position that civilians
have no access to guns because I acknowledge the value that can result in
civilians owning a weapon and that gun owners have the ability and duty to take
full responsibility for the weapon. I also contend the position that civilians
have access to high-powered, military grade weapons because I acknowledge that
these weapons serve no purpose within civilian life and, therefore, cannot be a justifiable option.
