Newtown Massacre Re-ignites U.S. Gun Policy Talk

The mass killing of 20 elementary school students and seven adults in Newtown, Connecticut, by a lone gunman last month has re-ignited the national debate about gun policy in the United States and has caused other actions and reactions. Note the following:
* In his speech at the prayer vigil for the Newtown shooting victims, President Obama alluded to the need for the nation to address its gun policy. He has since vowed to make increased restrictions on ownership of firearms a priority in 2013.
* Senator Dianne Feinstein pledged she would introduce additional laws on guns at the beginning of the new congressional session.
* Gun sales have surged across the nation as enthusiasts and others rushed to buy firearms they fear will be outlawed by a new push for gun control.
* The National Rifle Association (NRA) has proposed putting an armed security officer in every school in the nation.
* There have been calls to allow school teachers and other school personnel to arm themselves, as well as to allow licensed concealed weapons permit holders to be armed on the premises. (This is already allowed in two states.)
* Gun buy-back programs in Los Angeles and Connecticut have brought in record numbers of weapons.
* Several media outlets have pointed out that 119 children under the age of 12 were killed by guns across the United States in 2011, the equivalent of nearly six Newtown massacres.
A few days after the Newtown tragedy, a gunman ambushed and killed two upstate New York firefighters as they fought a house fire set by the gunman. That case showed one problem with trying to limit who has access to guns through legal means. As a convicted felon, the shooter couldn't buy weapons legally but allegedly got his neighbor's daughter to purchase them for him. She is now under arrest.
A few days before the Newtown tragedy, a man intent on mass murder began to shoot random victims at a shopping mall in Oregon. The shopping mall was a "gun-free zone," but one shopper with a concealed weapons permit hadn't seen the sign. He drew his concealed weapon and pointed it at the murderer. The murderer stopped shooting and committed suicide. This case revealed a problem with "gun-free zones."
We acknowledge that gun policy discussions are hard, even among Christians who otherwise agree on many matters. People tend to get passionately entrenched about their views on the types of guns permitted in the hands of private individuals. Indeed, even among the members of The Wired Word editorial team, it's been a hard topic, with some members disagreeing strongly with one another. Still, in our judgment, it's a conversation Christians need to have, maturely and without ranting.
To facilitate discussion, we are including here statements from four individual TWW team members who have volunteered their comments. There are gun owners among our team members. There are some members who wouldn't have a gun in their house. We are probably not that different from the mix among church memberships across the nation.
Micah Holland is a United Methodist pastor in Canton, Ohio, who works especially in young adult ministry. He said, "America has a love of guns and our right to own them. I have no problem with people owning guns. I do struggle with our love of violence. From our beloved video games, which all but mimic real life, to blockbuster movies with endless violence, to our love for revenge, we, as a culture, hold violence too close to our hearts. A reasonable gun policy which limits gun ownership and the capacity in which they are used would seem like a balanced approach for our country to follow. I always try to remember that Jesus tells us to love our enemies. How we respond to this statement is, in my opinion, the crux of the matter."
***
James Berger is a Presbyterian pastor in Fort Myers, Florida. He said, "To say that we need a good guy with a gun in every school, or that every female teacher needs a guy with a gun to protect her, or that every homeowner needs a firearm, makes an A PRIORI assumption. That assumption is that we live in a state of anarchy in which terrorists are breaking into our homes, our schools, our churches, and killing innocents at will. Therefore, every homeowner or renter needs a firearm for self-defense. But that is patently false. We do not live in Syria or Libya or Afghanistan. Ours is a nation of laws, and the vast majority of us are safe in our homes and in public. So in order to sell more firearms, one must first convince the potential gun-buying public that the lie is the truth. Hence, ads that reinforce the fear of home invasion. Or a personal attack. Or a terrorist or a drug dealer or a Jihadist kicking in your front door and coming in behind a hail of bullets from an Uzi or an AK-47 or, more likely, a Bushmaster version of the M-16.
"The reality? If you have one of those weapons, it is more likely that you or someone in your family will be shot with it than that you will use it to defend your home. Adam Lanza's mother is the tragic confirmation of that statistic. That statistic is not anti-gun propaganda. It is the cruel reality of gun ownership. The answer is not more guns in private ownership, legal or illegal. The solution is more complex and long-term. It will include restrictions on anti-personnel weapons and magazines, coupled with better mental health services and treatment, and a public awareness campaign about the true costs of unregulated firearm ownership. After all, the Second Amendment states that the reason for firearm ownership is to maintain a 'well-regulated militia': 'A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.' So far, no one is addressing the first clause of the amendment -- only the second clause. But any student of grammar can see that the first clause modifies, or controls, the second."
***
James and Kelly Gruetzner are Lutheran laypeople in Albuquerque, New Mexico. In a joint statement, they said, "Even as the bad guy (BG) was breaking through the front door of the school, people in the school office were calling 911. Three staff members tried to rush the BG to stop him. Two of them were killed; the third was wounded. All this took place in the first minute. The efforts of the three failed in this instance, but it was worth doing: Rushing and physically overpowering a BG often works. Unfortunately, the laws of their state ensured that they -- the first responders protecting the children -- were unarmed. Had one of the three used a firearm, the chance of successfully stopping the BG would have gone up significantly. Had all three done so, the news report would have been of an intruder shot (and probably killed). Perhaps one or more of them would have been wounded or killed, but 20 children and several adults would still be alive.
"The Scriptures give a number of examples of people being called to protect the weak from those who victimize them. Of course, real life is a bit messy. Situations vary -- which also means that making universal rules or judgments is a bad way to go. 'One size fits all' -- doesn't. Ironically, gun control laws lead to more violence overall. The anti-firearm Brady Campaign grades states on their gun control laws, from 'A' (many laws) to 'F' (few laws). Not surprisingly, people are almost four times more likely to own a firearm in 'F' states than in 'A' states. With only one-quarter the firearms ownership rate, 'A' states have almost twice the violent crime rate. Minorities are hardest hit; the black homicide rate in 'A' states is over twice that of 'F' states. Since England and Australia enacted their firearms bans, violent crimes in those countries increased (even while, with a great increase in firearms ownership, violent crimes in the U.S. continued to drop).
"Different people will come to different conclusions about their own responsibilities and actions. One person might knowingly delegate defending the weak to other people. As long as he doesn't try to prevent other people from helping, that could be a moral course of inaction, and we should not judge someone who does that. To reduce school murders, someone might suggest putting an armed guard in every school. This has effectively been endorsed by President Obama, all of whose daughters' schools have had armed security guards. Other people who see their own children or grandchildren -- or those of their friends -- as precious might desire and make the same choice.
"A different person might choose to take personal responsibility to defend the weak and helpless. Some might choose to be, effectively, armed first responders. Many teachers in states that, unlike Connecticut, allow it are choosing to arm themselves. Having a few armed is enough: If it is known that just several staff members are armed, it could deter a would-be murderer from choosing that location.
"According to USA Today, it took 'about 20 minutes' after the 911 call for responders with firearms -- the police -- to arrive on the Newtown scene. That ended it: When the BG saw that people who could shoot back had arrived, he killed himself. Those who attempt mass murders are often cowards. When someone armed comes and opposes them, they leave, either physically or suicidally. In fact, fewer than 10 percent of cases required armed responders -- police or civilian -- to fire their weapons in order to stop the crime. If an armed citizen takes action, there usually is no mass murder.
"Whatever action a Christian decides to take in this particular area of defending the weak, we should be careful not to judge someone else's choice nor to hinder that choice. We are not called upon to make other people choose as we have chosen: we are called upon to answer God as we understand our duty."
***
Frank Ramirez is a Church of the Brethren pastor in Everett, Pennsylvania. He said, "I live and pastor in a region where hunting is an essential part of the culture. Kids go through a rite of passage of passing the gun-safety program. Trophies are prized, to be sure, but hunting is for food, and freezers are filled because of the hunt. For the past 11 winters, I have written an annual litany for the Blessing of the Hunters. We stress our place in God's creation, practicing gun safety, conservation of resources such as the herd, and our own place in the great circle of life. But many of the hunters I speak to are troubled by this NRA obsession with all weapons and can't understand what place they have. No one would hunt with a semi-automatic. Or kill varmints with one either.
"One fellow suggested that the reason a person might want a semi-automatic weapon is the same reason some people want to drive a high-performance car. It seems to me that such weapons should be kept at shooting clubs for those purposes. Most law-enforcement agencies are against such weapons also. They're the ones who bear the brunt as well.
"Which brings me to the Second Amendment. There is an approach to literature which recognizes that all the accrued layers over time are part of the discussion and interpretation. There is the original context, and there is the way people have come to view it. Without question, the original context of the Second Amendment is based in colonial experience. Guns were necessary for ordinary uses in life. Without a standing army, the right to own a gun was also essential for the well-being of the new nation. But we now have a well-regulated militia; it's called the armed forces. The original need for a well-armed citizenry, which is why that essential first clause was written, no longer exists. A responsible citizenry should be able to distinguish between the legitimate uses of firearms and the need for a well-funded gun industry with a powerful lobby to sell guns to people who already own guns again and again.
"There are already many such guns out there, but advocating regulation or at least registration is not the same as black helicopters descending into your town square to confiscate your guns. That, of course, is impossible, even if it were legislated. There is no body, either military or civil, that would either cooperate with or could accomplish confiscating guns. The only reason for these militias that I can see is to eradicate democratically elected administrations.
"So in the end, these terrible weapons are in private hands and are eventually used on other human beings. Then we are told that the guns are not at fault. The fact is, you can only kill so many people at a time with a regular hunting rifle.
"The question is, 'What gun would Jesus own?' We already know Jesus would not aim it at another human being, not even a Roman soldier or a temple guard. I doubt if Jesus would advocate that we own semi-automatic and automatic weapons. There is no biblical right to such a weapon. I think that Jesus would recognize the need for an agricultural society to bear arms for hunting purposes and for protection against various dangerous creatures -- like a good old-fashioned rifle, the kind that can be found in every home in Middle Pennsylvania, locked in a glass case, well cared for, owned and operated responsibly. And I think Jesus would insist we share the venison with the poor and hungry, a la Matthew 25, just as people do where I live."
More on this story and related issues can be found at these links:
Child Gun Deaths Nationwide Number Nearly 6 Newtown Massacres. Chicago Defender
Donors Spawn Connecticut Gun Buyback After Mass Shooting. CNN
NRA Press Conference, December 21, 2012
Gunman's Neighbor Arrested in Connection With Firefighter Ambush. CNN
Dianne Feinstein Gun Control Proposals Help Lead to Massive Buys. Newsday
Why Not Renew the "Assault Weapons" Ban? Well, I'll Tell You. Kontradictions
Why Would Someone Own a Military-Style Rifle? CNN
How Much Do You Know About the Second Amendment? A Quiz. Christian Science Monitor
The Big Questions
1. What attitudes and understandings do we who follow Jesus need to employ to have a useful and respectful conversation on gun policy? What do we need to learn more about? What goals need to be uppermost?
2. If Jesus were physically present with us in the United States today, would he carry a gun? Why or why not? Would he encourage you to carry one? To keep one in your house? To carry one as a law enforcement officer? Explain your reasoning.
3. If Alice is not legally allowed to own or use firearms, but Bob, who is legally allowed to have a firearm, makes a gun available to Alice so she may bypass the law, what level of blame should be legally placed on Bob when Alice uses that gun to kill Carol?
4. Is putting armed security in every school a good idea? Explain your answer. What about in movie theaters? In places of worship? Every public gathering? What about reducing or eliminating "gun-free zones" so that citizens who have gone through the training and licensing process for carrying a concealed weapon can be present with their weapon? Explain arguments both FOR and AGAINST your answer.
5. What can your church do to lessen the amount of violence in our culture today? In what ways is your church involved in mental health, hunger, domestic violence or other programs that might address some of the issues that lead to gun violence? How do you support community and governmental organizations that address these issues?
Confronting the News With Scripture and Hope
Here are some Bible verses to guide your discussion:
Judges 14:19
"He killed thirty men of the town, took their spoil, and gave the festal garments to those who had explained the riddle. In hot anger he went back to his father's house." (For context, read 14:5-20.)
This verse is talking about Samson, who, in the biblical account, comes off as a flawed man who didn't live up to his God-given potential. In contrast to the other biblical judges, who seem to have been following a calling from God and the community, Samson seems to be something of a lone ranger, and it is not clear that his choices, most of which are bad, are in accord with God's plan.
Indeed, Samson, who seems to have had trouble with cognitive reasoning and was unable to connect the dots between his choices and the consequences, apparently had the kind of flawed thinking processes that, if unaddressed, can lead to violence. When the other judges took action, there was some measure of peace that followed, while some of Samson's actions lead to escalating violence.
From the Israelites' point of view, Samson is the good guy in the story, but the verse above makes us wonder. Because some opponents were able to solve (through trickery) a puzzle Samson had put to them, he now owed them 30 sets of garments. He paid, but he did so while acting in "hot anger," killing 30 men of the town and paying his debt with their clothing.
Today, Samson would be called a mass murderer, similar to how the Newtown shooter is labeled.
Questions: Would someone have been right to stop Samson's massacre by killing him? What bearing do you think the fact that the slain 30 were all Philistines (traditional enemies of the Israelites) had on how the Israelites viewed Samson? To what degree does the fact that many of the slain children across America are from poorer neighborhoods than the Newtown victims explain why there's been less outcry about their deaths than those of the Newtown children? What other explanations might there be?
1 Samuel 18:10-11
"The next day an evil spirit from God rushed upon Saul, and he raved within his house, while David was playing the lyre, as he did day by day. Saul had his spear in his hand; and Saul threw the spear, for he thought, 'I will pin David to the wall.' But David eluded him twice." (For context, read 18:5-16.)
Reading "between the lines" of King Saul's story, we gather that he was, at minimum, furiously jealous of David, but, more likely, mentally unstable -- just the sort of person who today we wouldn't want to have access to a firearm. Fortunately, he missed when he threw the spear at David, but with better aim, he could have radically -- and negatively -- altered the course of Israel's history.
Questions: How should the fact that there is no way to guarantee that unstable people like Saul not obtain weapons influence U.S. gun policy? How about the fact that intentional evildoers may be able to obtain weapons illegally, no matter what the policy is? Would we tolerate Saul's instability and actions in our own leaders? What checks and balances are there to help separate unstable people from guns? What does it say about Congress that it does not permit its own members to carry firearms into their chambers?
Matthew 10:16
"See, I am sending you out like sheep into the midst of wolves; so be wise as serpents and innocent as doves." (For context, read 10:5-31.)
Jesus said this to his disciples when sending them out on a mission to "proclaim the good news" (v. 7) in the towns of Israel. He didn't mention weapons, but he did tell them to NOT take money, extra clothing or even a staff (which could be used for protection), so it's likely he didn't want them to carry any swords on this mission either. In fact, he told them to rely on the Spirit (v. 20).
The idea of "sheep into the midst of wolves" -- and the related "turn the other cheek" (Matthew 5:39) -- have long been models for the spirit in which Christians work for God's kingdom -- not allowing possible personal threat to be the only factor in deciding how to proceed.
Questions: How does fear affect our ability to fulfill God's calling? What might the antidote for such fear be? Can you think of instances in your own life, in the lives of missionaries encountering hostile cultures or in the history of martyrs that suggest that returning love instead of retaliation toward hate leads to salvation for others, including former enemies?
Luke 22:35-36, 38
"[Jesus] said to them, 'When I sent you out without a purse, bag, or sandals, did you lack anything?' They said, 'No, not a thing.' He said to them, 'But now, the one who has a purse must take it, and likewise a bag. And the one who has no sword must sell his cloak and buy one.' ... They said, 'Lord, look, here are two swords.' He replied, 'It is enough.'" (For context, read 22:33-38.)
Matthew 26:51-52
"Suddenly, one of those with Jesus put his hand on his sword, drew it, and struck the slave of the high priest, cutting off his ear. Then Jesus said to him, 'Put your sword back into its place; for all who take the sword will perish by the sword.'" (For context, read 26:47-56.)
Although the two passages above are from different gospels, they are from the same series of events during the evening before Jesus' crucifixion. In the Luke passage, Jesus reminds his disciples how, when he sent them on the gospel mission to the towns of Israel, he told them to count on local hospitality. What he's telling them now is that things have changed, for the tide has turned against him, and against them if they stay with him. If they stay, they're going to have to depend on their own resources, and the night ahead will be the kind where they'd sell their very clothes for a sword. Jesus may or may not have been speaking symbolically, but the disciples hear him literally and show him that they already have two swords.
The Matthew verses are from later in the evening, when the high priest's crowd comes to arrest Jesus. One of the disciples springs to his defense, using his sword, but Jesus stops him, making the now well-known statement that "all who take the sword will perish by the sword." Jesus was clearly stating that the swords weren't to be used to defend HIM, and he also seems to be making a statement about his way being one of nonviolence. His comment also reinforces the interpretation that he was speaking symbolically when he told the disciples they should sell their clothes to buy swords.
Questions: Knowing yourself, if you were among the disciples, how would you likely have reacted to the crowd? What do you think Jesus would say to you about your reaction? Supposing there had been a daring rescue of Jesus -- with great loss of life on both sides -- and the cross was averted -- what would the salvation history of our world be like? What does Jesus' insistence on being obedient (see Philippians 2:5-11) even to the cross say to us?
For Further Discussion
1. One difficulty in legislating against private ownership of "assault" weapons is that it's a hard-to-define category. Except perhaps for single-shot rifles (that have to be manually reloaded after each shot), almost any modern gun in experienced hands can be used to inflict mass casualties. Even limiting magazine sizes does not change that fact. In the Virginia Tech massacre, for example, the shooter, using one pistol of 10-round capacity and one pistol of 15-round capacity, killed more people than anyone ever had in a single U.S. shooting incident. The reason: He had multiple magazines -- 19 of them in a backpack. When one magazine ran out, it took him less than five seconds to replace it with another one. So, should the national debate embrace a much larger category of firearms?
2. Which points from each of the four TWW team members' statements make the most sense to you? Why?
3. What was the original purpose of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution? (The wording is contained in James Berger's statement above.)
4. Comment on this: Responding to the biblical idea that dying for one's cause was more efficacious than killing others for it, TWW team member Liz Antonson said, "This has kinship with the 'turn the other cheek' message of Jesus. It is so hard for me to wait for the reward of the One who will say to me, 'Well done.' It is so hard for me to entrust my safety to the will of God, so I adopt the ideologies and methods of the world instead of those of the Kingdom of Christ. But, 'I press on to reach the end of the race and receive the heavenly prize for which God, through Christ Jesus, is calling us.' I want to understand the difficult message of Jesus. I want to live out that understanding. Perhaps this year I will understand more, imitate Christ more."
Responding to the News
This is an appropriate time to consider what specific things your whole church group can get behind to lessen the incidents of violence in this country, and then to put in place an action plan to implement those things.
Closing Prayer
Help us, O Lord, as a nation of people to make the policy decisions that will do the most to protect the defenseless and allow ordinary life to go on securely and peacefully. In Jesus' name. Amen.