Over the past few days, several of my coworkers and I have been engaged in a debate over gun control. As a product of a family where hunting came almost as naturally as breathing, I had always rejected the arguments almost without hearing them. As the discussion progressed, it was as if I was hearing the arguments for the first time. We spent a great deal of time tossing surveys and studies at each other.
It seems to me that the statistics are inconclusive, and that a coherent case can be made for either side. Saying this, however, does not mean that I think this to be an insignificant issue. I do think we are missing the larger issue.
Both sides of this debate would, I believe, place a high value on freedom, although they would approach it in different ways. The "gun-control" or "gun restriction" advocates would place the emphasis on freedom from the risk of gun-related injury or death, be it from crime or accident. The other side would emphasize the freedom of each citizen to protect himself and his possessions and to do so using firearms.
The key, I think, is to recognize that both perspectives realize that there is danger in the world and both seek to eliminate it.
Both perspectives also acknowledge that people will make stupid choices involving guns, but again, the approach is different. The "gun control" view would say that people should be protected from those bad choices by eliminating the guns, and thus the potential for bad choices involving them. The other view holds that since some people are going to make bad decisions, we should give the good people the best chance to defend themselves by allowing them to have guns.
When seen in this light, it becomes apparent that while both viewpoints have a noble purpose and each may show some positive results, neither will be completely successful because neither deals with the true root cause. This ultimate cause is the state of mankind: fallen, born into a life of constant sin terminated by death and without hope of redemption by our own efforts. In the final analysis, it is only by dealing with this problem that all others may be solved.
It seems to me that the statistics are inconclusive, and that a coherent case can be made for either side. Saying this, however, does not mean that I think this to be an insignificant issue. I do think we are missing the larger issue.
Both sides of this debate would, I believe, place a high value on freedom, although they would approach it in different ways. The "gun-control" or "gun restriction" advocates would place the emphasis on freedom from the risk of gun-related injury or death, be it from crime or accident. The other side would emphasize the freedom of each citizen to protect himself and his possessions and to do so using firearms.
The key, I think, is to recognize that both perspectives realize that there is danger in the world and both seek to eliminate it.
Both perspectives also acknowledge that people will make stupid choices involving guns, but again, the approach is different. The "gun control" view would say that people should be protected from those bad choices by eliminating the guns, and thus the potential for bad choices involving them. The other view holds that since some people are going to make bad decisions, we should give the good people the best chance to defend themselves by allowing them to have guns.
When seen in this light, it becomes apparent that while both viewpoints have a noble purpose and each may show some positive results, neither will be completely successful because neither deals with the true root cause. This ultimate cause is the state of mankind: fallen, born into a life of constant sin terminated by death and without hope of redemption by our own efforts. In the final analysis, it is only by dealing with this problem that all others may be solved.
posted by Robert at
12:53 PM
0 Comments
