Opinion: Wrestling with gun issues in a violent world

I don’t own a gun. My son has five of them. I’m OK with that. He’s mostly OK with me not having one. He wants us to have one at least for his mom to be protected. She’s resistant. So am I. (She might use it on me.)

While I don’t own a gun, I have the right to have one under the auspices of the necessary Second Amendment to our U.S. Constitution. There’s a reason that it was put there and there’s reason why it should stay there.

In the aftermath of yet another mass shooting in Chicago’s Highland Park (an area subject to some of the toughest gun laws in the USA), what’s the solution?

So why the Second amendment? Even the staunchly non-gun Washington Post (in the Feb. 22, 2018 edition) indicated, “At its best, the Second Amendment was a commitment to citizen participation in public life and a way to keep military power under civil control.” Basically, the Second Amendment, exists to protect oneself and those they love from those who wish them harm and to protect from the potential tyranny of government over our lives.

In the beginning, James Madison noticed concern over the balance of powers between a federal government that impose its will on states. So, he argued successfully for the inclusion in the U.S. Constitution of this right to bear arms.

So, why not just limit gun availability? Wouldn’t that effectively eliminate violent crime? Not necessarily. By the way, who would come and take the guns away? Certainly not those who have no guns.

First, categorical elimination of firearms may not solve the problem. The case of gun laws in Australia bears witness to this phenomenon. As the introduction of gun laws in the “Land Down Under” illustrates, one type of weapon can be replaced by another.

Guns were restricted in the “buy back program” in Australia, known as the National Firearms Agreement, and now murders happen with knives and swords. Indeed, academic research indicates “None of the studies reviewed statistically significant evidence that trends in firearm-related homicide changed after the National Firearms Agreement (Ramchand and Saunders, 2021).

While the absolute number of female homicides after the National Firearms Agreement decreased slightly, there was no overall decrease across the population. Indeed, homicide and suicide rates ticked up in some years using different (non-firearm) methods.

As an ancillary illustration, weapons bans have done little to permanent self-harm. Suicide methods in Australia have changed but remain high while employing different methods.

Second, the surprising fact about guns that are used in the commitment of crimes is that they are most often stolen. According to Dan Clark in a Politifact article published in 2018, Dr. Daniel Webster, the director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research, worked with a large team that used data to estimate how many convicted criminals illegally possessed the gun they used to commit their crime.

According to Webster’s best research, 65% of guns used in crimes are illegally obtained.

In short, if we ban guns or buy them back, people will find a way to kill themselves or others. Witness a homicidal car driver in a Waukesha, Wisconsin, parade or the one in France where mass-murder was committed by vehicle in what is called “rampage killing.”

Should there be common-sense laws? Yes, absolutely there should be effective laws that work. What are such common sense standards for restricting gun use to certain individuals? Certainly evidence of mental illness or homicidal intent based on personal history or criminal records are among potential standards. Certainly, other effective standards should be considered.

Unfortunately, if someone has murderous intent, they can find a way to murder. Regretfully, some have decided that their life is not worth living, so they elect to take the lives of innocent others along with their own.

The only way to prevent murder is to persuade people of the value of life and the potential that life can be good. The only way to do that is to comprehend that life is a God-given gift to be and loved abundantly.

North Carolina Lt. Gov. Mark Robinson has said, “The reason people own AR-15’s is in case the government gets too big for its britches.” Is that the only reason? No. Among others, some people also just want to look like Rambo.

Is it easy to effect good gun policy outcomes? No. Is it possible? I hope so. I recently heard firsthand from Attorney General Merrick Garland in a recent speech to the graduating class at Harvard these important words: "In a democracy, people vote, argue, and debate often loudly — in order to achieve the policy outcome they desire. The promise of democracy is that people will not employ violence to affect that outcome.”

I hope he sticks to that belief and acts across the board of the great political divide in what is becoming the Divided States of America.

As Guy Lewis, former deputy chief in the Department of Justice and U.S. Attorney for Southern District of Florida said, “We need a multi-disciplinary approach and it begins with restoring the moral fabric of our nation because it’s not just a legal issue. It requires spiritual, law enforcement, and mental health leaders coordinating together to make a difference.”

That’s the solution — messy, tedious, and unsure as it appears on the surface. It’s the best we have. Let’s give it our best shot to prevent other shots from being fired on others.

Ray Hardee is lead pastor of The Pointe Church in Belmont.

This article originally appeared on The Gaston Gazette: Wrestling with gun issues in a violent world