An Argument that Christians Ought Not Make Against Same-Sex Marriage

Given recent cases before the United States Supreme Court (USSC), I have experienced a resurgence of arguments from well meaning Christians who reason that same-sex marriage is ridiculous because we do not allow (at least not legally) sex with minors or sex with animals. I understand why some Christians make this parallel. They start with the presupposition that each of these types of behaviors (homosexuality, statutory rape and bestiality) are wrong / immoral and that, as such, our legal system ought not recognize any of them as valid, much less grant legal status to any of them.

This argument suffers from several problems and is little more than a confusion on the issues being considered by the USSC. For starters, the Court is not talking about sex at all. It is talking about the constitutionality of bans against same-sex marriage. Yes, we may accurately presume that sex is part of marriage, but that issue is completely secondary to the legal status of marriage itself. In most states there is nothing illegal about sex between consenting adults, be they heterosexual or homosexual, and this is not what the USSC is talking about in the least. This also highlights the hurt and offensive nature of painting homosexuals with the same brush as rapists and those who purposefully abuse animals.

To put statutory rape and bestiality issues on the same page as current discussions on same-sex marriage would require that sex with minors and sex with animals were made legal for some people but not others. Nobody is arguing for this. Sex with animals and minors is illegal for everyone in all times and all places. This is not an issue of equality because no one is granted special rights and privileges to engage in these types of behavior while others cannot. Unfortunately, this is not the case with marriage. Presently, states are allowed to declare marriage acceptable for some consenting, monogamous adults while simultaneously denying it to others. THIS is an issue of equality (violated) and thus has nothing in common with laws against statutory rape and bestiality.

So please, as a person who is passionate about his faith in Jesus and who deeply values equality and mutual respect among people who may have irreconcilable beliefs and doctrines, I beg my fellow Christians to stop making this hurtful and plainly ignorant argument against same-sex marriage. I recognize that we live in a representative democracy which entails the right to free speech, and I would not revoke that privilege from anyone, but this is simply an argument that Christians ought not make for the sake of their own credibility. Not only does it fail to connect with the issues; it also fails to promote genuine dialog between heterosexual Christians and just about everybody else. If we really think that people will care about our all-loving Jesus when we start by claiming they’re just like rapists and abusers of animals, then God have mercy on us (because no one else will).

Thanks for reading me,

-Corbin

What the Heck is an “Evangelical” and Should We Care?

If anyone in the general public is familiar with the word “evangelical,” at the minimum it will evoke some sort of Christiany association. But what is the difference between an “Evangelical Christian” and a *regular* Christian? How many people would be able to distinguish one from the other or even know what factors to consider? Is it a major Christian branch like Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Anglican or Protestant? Is it a denomination like Methodist, Baptist or Presbyterian? Can most evangelicals even define it? Most importantly, should we care?

I grew up in a Restoration Movement Christian Church also identified as the “Disciples of Christ,” and one whose members and management would surely self define as “Evangelical.” Interestingly enough, it was only after my childhood ended that I discovered what denominational labels applied to my church of origin in southwestern Missouri. Glendale Christian Church always tried to present itself as a non-denominational or “independent” church, but it clearly associated with the denominational labels I used above (even though the average congregational member had no idea). That’s not necessarily a condemnation (that church is where Jesus found me after all), but it is to highlight the fact that many Christians don’t know what particular Christian labels and associations apply to them. And that begs the question: Does it matter?

For theology geeks and self-styled ecclesiological nerds (like me), it does matter… or at least we often pretend like it does. There are certainly some labels that evoke a strong reaction from me. “Calvinism” for example, makes me choke back my own vomit (a god who predetermines who goes to Hell before the dawn of time does not comport with Jesus’ message), but there are a few other brandings that I do identify with and feel passionately about (Protestant, free-will, open theism, etc.). But what about Evangelical?

Is it a major Christian division? Not really, at least not like “Roman Catholic” or “Protestant.” Is it a denomination? No. What is it? If pressed, I might be able to muddle my way through it. As I recall, “a clear, singular, emotional conversion experience” is one of the components that Evangelicals try to enlist within the definition, never mind that many non-Christian religions claim the same thing. Of course there are several other features that committed and articulate Evangelicals would likely include, but I don’t have a running list or definition rattling around  in my head. Why not? Because I don’t care. Any definition that I have to work at memorizing indicates that it’s either not connected to my daily experience or so bland and inconsequential to my experience that I simply have no reason to memorize its precise nuances.

Furthermore, it seems that right or wrong, the word “evangelical” often gets Christians painted with a cultural brush that we don’t want: (up-tight, Right-Wing, Conservative, anti-intellectual, anti-gay, dogmatic, biblical inerrantists, literalists, capitalists and on and on). In fact, some Christians prefer these modifiers to be associated with the tag. I certainly don’t, and a historical survey of the term reveals that such unbiblical infusions are largely inappropriate. Nevertheless, sorting out these miscues and defending an accurate understanding of “evangelical” is completely uninteresting to me. In short, it is a largely irrelevant branding and misunderstood descriptor that I have left behind with surprising ease (at least in my consciousness).

In fact, I hadn’t ever devoted much thought to the topic until recently when a Christian author whom I respect, Rachel Held Evans, was invited by my alma mater (George Fox Evangelical Seminary) to co-host the latest installment in the seminary’s ever-popular “Ministry in Contemporary Culture Series.” She is co-hosting a discussion on the future of evangelicalism with another author, theologian and professor whom I have immense respect for, Roger Olson of Truett-Baylor Seminary.

In Rachel’s recent blog post, she asked for readers to comment on what “Evangelical” means and its future, etc. In fact here are the first two questions she posted:

1.     Do you identify yourself as an evangelical? Why or why not? How do you feel about religious labels in general?

2.     How would you define evangelicalism?

Having graduated from a Master’s program at a school that has the word “Evangelical” in its name, I thought I might have something of value to say in response to these questions (such is the usual hubris of people who go to seminary). But the more I thought about it, the more I had to admit that I feel no connection to the word “Evangelical” whatsoever. Frankly, I never understood why George Fox Seminary wanted to bear that label in the first place. Please don’t get me wrong, other than one particularly useless spiritual formation class called “spiritual leadership,” I would be hard-pressed to say anything negative about George Fox Seminary itself, but I don’t think the Evangelical label is helpful for its mission. Most people simpy don’t understand the term and/or they have the completely wrong set of associations attached to it.

To highlight my point, I’d like to ask my fellow Christians of their impression of the Islamic designation and subculture of “Sufi.” How many of us readily understand the difference this makes for a Muslim believer? Do our eyes just glaze over, or do we ever transcend connecting it with Islam in general? Do we just presume “religious fundamentalist” or “mystic”? It might make a big difference to a Muslim who identifies with the label (or doesn’t), but the rest of us usually fail to understand the nuances within. I suspect the same can be said of certain Christians’ use of the label “Evangelical.” It might make a difference to them, but most people don’t understand it and don’t care, and rather than trying to educate or defend the tag, I would prefer to spend my time elsewhere. It simply makes no difference to me at all.

Please feel free to share your own thoughts and experiences with the term “evangelical.” Start with Rachel Evans’ questions above (in bold) if you would prefer.

Thanks for reading me,

-CL

The Way I Should Have Answered that Interview Question on Diversity

I’ve recently been on the hunt for meaningful, gainful employment. I am passionate about a few things, and helping higher-ed students continually rises to the top, whether it’s career counseling, financial counseling, spiritual counseling or even regular ol’ counseling-counseling. While the majority of my academic and recent employment history has focused on the spiritual side of student life and development, I am open to wherever the path may lead. I just want to be the right person in the right place at the right time to make a positive difference in another person’s life. “When a body meets a body coming through the rye,” and all that (thanks, Holden Caulfield). But I digress.

I had an interview today with a school and a department that I would really like to be a part of. In that interview they asked me a variation of the standard diversity question: “How would you relate to a person who held different philosophical and religious views from yourself?” Here’s the basics of what I said: “Tolerance isn’t a problem for me. I don’t even like the word because it indicates that we are merely ‘putting up’ with something that we don’t really like or agree with. I appreciate others’ perspectives, and I’ve found that labeling doesn’t work that well anyway. As I recently found out in Texas, and depending on the context, I’ve found myself to be the most “liberal” guy in the room at one moment, and then the most “conservative” guy in the next. My personal philosophy is to find ways to agree and make new friends rather than looking for ways to disagree and create enemies. When it comes to coworkers and students who see things differently, it just isn’t a problem. I am easy to get along with.”

This is a fair and true answer, but I feel like I muddled through it. Here’s what I wish I had said (with gusto, of course): “I learn so much from people who think and believe differently than I do. I can’t even imagine how boring it would be if everyone thought and believed like me. I would never learn anything from anyone, because I would already know it all. Life would stagnate and fester. Use whatever mental imagery seems appropriate there. Would I engage others on where we differed? You bet, but not to argue. It doesn’t make any sense to disagree when you don’t yet understand, so my goal is always to understand others (at least in my better moments) and discover how my own thinking can change and grow from the exchange. I might offer my own thoughts and feelings on an issue, but it won’t be a line in the sand. It will be a ‘Here’s what I think and why, now it’s your turn; tell me what you want me to know.”

Oh, if only I had been that quick the first time.

C’est la vie.

-Corbin

Wait, Is it “Global Warming” or “Climate Change”?

It is increasingly popular in the climate-change denier crowd to express contempt for this issue merely because of the shift in terms used to describe it. The extreme amplification of planet Earth’s greenhouse effect due to human-caused pollution and destruction of natural carbon-sinks (think deforestation and ocean acidification) was first termed “Global Warming” because of the most obvious and easily trackable symptom of the problem (slow and intermittent increases of the globe’s surface temperatures year over year). However, as we have learned more about the problem and as more evidence has highlighted the vast network of problems that a haywire greenhouse effect causes, it has become clear that global “warming” is but one symptom among a host of issues. For example, some parts of the planet have witnessed not just wonky, out-of-norm high temperatures, but also significant changes in precipitation. Similarly, some formerly arid regions are getting more rain, while previous wetlands and areas that have received moderate amounts of rain and snowfall are experiencing prolonged droughts. Still other areas have  gotten cooler, although they are in the minority. As such, the conversation has gravitated more towards using the phrase “Climate Change” as this is a more accurate and fuller description of the big-picture problems connected to the issue of elevated (and increasing) greenhouse gasses in our atmosphere. To be clear, global warming is a symptom; climate change is the disease.

Those who intend to cast doubt on the problem of climate change just because the terms used to describe it have become more nuanced have missed the mark completely. To be blunt, mocking the subtle shift in terms (from Global Warming to Climate Change) only highlights the unfamiliarity of the one levying the criticism. I hate to use the word “ignorance,” but there is just not a nicer way to say it. To be fair however, much of the general public who have come to accept science and the overwhelming evidence of climate change often use the terms interchangeably. Surely this adds to the confusion or at least inspires contempt in the mind of the skeptic. Nevertheless, “global warming” remains appropriate when describing one of the symptoms of climate change, so continuing to use the phrase may still be best in a given situation. In either case, and in any field from biology to sociology, the more we understand a topic, how it works and its related causes and effects, the more precise our language becomes. There is nothing suspicious or shady about the term “climate change.”

Allow me a parallel that may help make the point. In December of 1991, the U.S. Dept. of Commerce changed the terminology used to describe economic production within the United States. Some of you may even remember this: They changed the phrase/letters from “Gross National Product” (GNP) to “Gross Domestic Product” (GDP). This change was incorporated to account for the growing difference in income from foreign sources of U.S. companies. Stated another way, GNP measures the value of goods and services produced by U.S. nationals wherever they may be, while GDP only measures the value of goods and services produced within the boundaries of the United States. For example, all the income received by a U.S. company like Exxon in Nigeria would be counted in GNP. GDP, however, would only include income from oil related services operated within the U.S. and its territories, while excluding the income received from Nigerian operations. The switch from GNP to GDP was justified on the basis of what the figure had actually come to represent versus what it was supposed to represent. There is no problem here whatsoever.

And yet, if we take a page out of the climate change denier’s script, we might be tempted to believe (and argue) that both the terms “GNP” and “GDP” were ridiculous and economic doublespeak invented to deceive the gullible for no reason other than the shift in terminology itself. This is an argument that ought not be made. It fails to understand the issues, much less offer a valid criticism of them. The same can be said of those who scoff at the addition of the phrase “climate change” to the vocabulary of climate science, atmospheric pollution, planetary degradation and one symptom called “global warming.”

So the question remains: Is it Global Warming or Climate Change? Unfortunately, the answer is, “Yes.”

Thanks for reading me.

-Corbin Lambeth

In Guns We Trust

This is the second installment of recent efforts on my blog to engage the topic of guns in the United States (assault rifles, high-capacity clips and armor-piercing bullets in particular). The first one can be found here: If You Give A Man an Assault Rifle. Just in case anyone is uncertain about my own feelings on the matter, I believe that too many of us U.S. citizens have a bizarre and unhealthy fixation with firearms. Our addiction to guns is almost always defended by clinging to a particular interpretation of our Constitution’s 2nd Amendment, which safeguards citizens’ rights to “bear arms” in general. However, this amendment makes no provisions concerning the types of weapons which are safeguarded in particular, so for us to believe that the author’s meant that any type of weapon ought to be included in this right is questionable to say the least. As my friend David Manning has pointed out, when the 2nd Amendment is carried to the extreme it could even be (ab)used to justify private ownership of nuclear weapons. That no reasonable person on any side of this issue argues for nuclear ubiquity indicates that recognizing limits to the 2nd Amendment are both healthy and necessary. The argument has never been IF we are legally entitled to have “arms,” but rather “which kinds?”

I have no problem with the 2nd Amendment as it is written. Neither do I necessarily want all the guns to be taken away from my fellow USAmericans (though I have been accused of this). Even though the framers of the Constitution only had single-shot, front-loading muskets and cannons in mind, I admit that we should probably be allowed to retain a few types of hunting rifles and pistols that go beyond what they had in mind. However, it is also clear that citizens do not need more than a few rounds in any given firearm to accomplish the tasks that they can legally complete with such weapons (hunting and target practice). In my other blog-post I said that as many as 5 or 6 rounds in any given firearm would probably be reasonable. However, I believe it is completely unreasonable to have magazines/ clips that hold more than this, can be fired at a semi-automatic or fully-automatic rate and/or contain armor-piercing bullets. As I have said time and again, the only thing these items are for… is killing people, and this is exactly what our history (of civilian violence) has demonstrated over and over again.

In the present blog entry, I would like to change the scene a little and focus the issue of firearms around the person of Jesus of Nazareth. After all, this is a blog dedicated to exploring faith in him (not the U.S. Constitution). If we focus on Jesus, the United States Constitution becomes secondary (at best) and cannot be the ultimate authority for what Jesus-followers should and should not engage in. I believe the Constitution is a good document and perhaps among the best that people can do. However, my faith is in Jesus, and I want to understand and follow him, not just the Constitution.

So I want to look at the two most common arguments for possessing guns (hunting and self-defense), and consider them in light of what it means to be a follower of Jesus. Hunting can be a legitimate endeavor that, apart from trophy-hunting, poaching and killing threatened or endangered species and/ or killing in unethical ways (leg-traps and bear-baiting etc.), has limited ethical issues associated with it. I don’t think Jesus would have any problem with a deer rifle used to hunt deer. However, I also have to point out that guns are not absolutely necessary for hunting. Truly skilled hunters use bows, arrows, spears, nets, etc., and this engenders a secondary question: Is having guns for hunting worth the risk of using those same weapons to murder humans? I think the answer is “no,” but I can understand why some people might disagree with me (especially unskilled hunters) -wink-.

However, the question of self-defense is even more suspicious, for this itself is a tacit admission that guns kill people and that is precisely what gun owners intend when they   make use of this argument. This is a problem for people who follow Jesus, or at least it ought to be, for when we become willing to use violence, we have stopped following the Prince of Peace altogether. This is precisely why the first few generations of Christians refused to join armies and other instruments of violence and war. Christians are still called to trust in Jesus/ God, not in the ways of the world that are opposed to Christ and his message. It seems to me that when we take up the weapons of violence, we are trusting in them, not Jesus. To put in the form of a question, “Can we shoot and kill someone in some sort of civilian/ vigilante justice and still be ‘following/ trusting Jesus?’” I don’t think so.

So the key question for my purposes here is: “Would Jesus own guns, and why?” A non-anachronistic substitute might easily be a “sword,” so we can ask that question if it helps move the conversation forward.

Would Jesus own guns (or swords)? Why?

Please tell me what you think.

Welcome to the discussion.

-CL

Prosperity “Gospels” and Other Problems with Christianity

There is a growing, hipster church here in Seattle that my wife and I checked out a few weeks ago. We concluded that The ______ Church is not for us for the sole reason that they seem to be focused on a prosperity “gospel” that teaches the tired message that what God really wants for each of us is to be healthy, wealthy and wise, and that if we “follow Jesus,” God will bless us with these things. It’s really the “wealthy” part that troubles me, although on a long enough timeline all of our “health” will decline until it culminates in our death, which suggests at the very least, that God’s primary concern is not our physical health.

One of the many problems with a prosperity “gospel” is that it inevitably leads the credulous to the conclusion that if they are not healthy, wealthy or wise, then they must not be in a good relationship with God. What a bull-crap message for the sick and dying to hear, and never mind that Jesus was a lowly craftsman in backwater Judea (not wealthy), and that speaking against the dangers of wealth is an ever present theme in his teaching. Similarly, the so-called “prosperity gospel” inevitably leads to the conclusion that our world’s richest and most  powerful people MUST be leading lives that God approves of. Does anyone remember the C+C Music Factory? “Things that Make You Go, “Hmmmm.’” I am a Christian, and I find the prosperity “gospel” repugnant and want nothing to do with that type of church. I can only imagine the offense it would generate in an impoverished, unhealthy non-Christian who had heard wonderful, accepting things about Jesus and decided to take a chance and attend the church that my wife and I happened to visit that Sunday. Yikes.

But anyway, my point here isn’t necessarily to get all worked up over the church we visited or its “prosperity gospel.” My point is to use this as an example to create space for others to express trends, ideas and arguments that turn them (or others) off to Jesus and his church. The prosperity “gospel” thing is more of a theological issue, but I know that there are all kinds of other ideas and troubling objections, authors, facts and trends that lead people to either reject Jesus or his church, or even lead Christians to doubt their own faith commitments. So I am offering an informal effort to hear these concerns. My objective is to listen, not to argue or debate, so I invite people to offer from a sentence to a paragraph or two that briefly states a problem they have or have heard about Christianity that remains unresolved, confusing or offensive. All comments are welcome provided that no one attacks, mocks or insults anyone, and if you are uncomfortable using your real name, a pseudonym is perfectly acceptable. You are safe here.

Thanks for reading me and responding if you feel led.

-Corbin Lambeth

If You Give A Man an Assault Rifle…

…he will use it.

Last week (late December, 2012) 26 people were mercilessly gunned down in a Newtown Connecticut elementary school by a 20-year old “man” whose name will not be mentioned in this blog (lest we gift him the recognition he undoubtedly wanted). Of these 26 victims, 6 were adults (mostly educators), and the remaining 20 were kindergarten children and 1st graders. The aggressor was wielding a LEGAL, semi-automatic assault rifle and multiple, high-capacity clips.

This is perhaps the most gruesome and spineless mass-shooting our nation has encountered, but it is not the only one, not by far. Nor will it be the last. In fact, over the past 30 years, there have been 62 such murderers. And as troubling as this is, perhaps what is equally disturbing is that just shy of 75% of the guns used in these killings were LEGAL. I think that fact says something about people who fight to make (or keep) these types of weapons, modifications and clip-capacities available to the public. It also says something about people who lobby and vote to remove all restrictions on possessing weapons in places like schools, hospitals, churches, movie theaters and other public spaces and government buildings. This is so offensive that I cannot help but to view such people as unwitting accessries to murder every time one of these semi-automatic, high-capacity guns is used for a shooting spree.

Nevertheless, I know that mine is not the only opinion on the matter, so I am briefly going to consider the most predominant arguments I have heard for unrestricted access to these murder weapons, and I will address each of them.

1) “Guns don’t kill people.” 

2) “If everyone had guns, this sort of thing wouldn’t happen.”

3) “If we outlaw guns, then only outlaws (criminals) will have guns.”

The first statement, that “guns don’t kill people,” is perhaps the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard, not because it isn’t technically true, but because the people that say it are either delusional or oblivious to the relationship between guns and death (which I seriously doubt), or because they want to try and bypass the obvious truth that guns have a direct relationship with body counts. What is doubly ironic about people who repeat this phrase is that, at some point, most of them will also lean on the argument of self-defense to try and justify their possession of guns and ammo. But when they do so, they tacitly admit that guns DO in fact kill people and that this killing is exactly what they intend should an intruder inspire them to open fire. Would these gun-toting “self defenders” have us believe that they only intend to wound or scare intruders? Are they really going to aim for a leg? Are they of the mindset that a gun is merely designed to “scare” someone apart from the threat of death? Again, I am not sure who we are kidding here.  I suppose that if we wanted to get technical about the situation, it is the bullets that do the killing, so if we can’t muster the moral will or political power to rid ourselves of military-type guns, then I suppose that banning their respective bullets would be just as good. Even on my best days, every time I hear someone repeat the pithy political propaganda that “guns don’t kill people,” it inspires contempt and an eye-roll. I honestly don’t know who they are trying to convince, other people, or themselves.

I have the same type of criticism for the militia-type wannabes and ex-military conspiracy theorists who just “know” that the commies (or even worse, the Liberals) are going to invade their town, round everybody up for re-education camps and/ or kill everyone. Well, everyone except the washed-out, overweight, gun-toting Chuck Norris fan who is itching to go Red Dawn on the Russians (Oh wait, now it’s the Chinese who we’ve been taught to fear), and single-handedly start a resistance movement with his AR-15 semi-auto rifle and Rambo knife. Please. And once again this demonstrates that the only reason such wannabes have these types of weapons is because those guns do, in fact, kill people.

2. “If everyone had guns, this sort of thing (mass-shooting) wouldn’t happen.”

This sort of argument is almost as ridiculous as claiming that “guns don’t kill people.” Perhaps the strongest argument against this line of reasoning comes in the form of an argument reductio ad absurdum which my friend, David Manning, succinctly penned on the issue:

“I’ve totally figured out how to accomplish world peace. Instead of nuclear non-proliferation, let’s have nuclear ubiquity! Give nuclear weapons to every country, tribe and militia that wants them. When everyone has nuclear weapons, everyone will be safer. Any country that goes crazy and tries to start something will promptly be taken out by its nuclear-armed neighbors. It’ll be much better this way. Trust me.” 

David went on to suggest that, to maximize safety, we could require an application process and waiting period or even nuclear weapon safety-training courses for those who want to obtain such an armament. Personally, I can’t think of a more frightening world. Knowing that every hot-headed and easily incited idiot I have ever met is packing heat is almost as scary. I am embarrassed that many people have a driver’s license, and now we want to arm them? Dear God!!!

Drawing a parallel with nuclear weapons ought to point out the silliness of arguing that everyone ought to be armed, but I would also like to consider a few other things. First, I would like to remind everyone that 20 of the 26 recent school-shooting victims were between the ages of 6 and 7. Are we honestly going to assert that these children should have been packing heat, and that if all children (and everyone else) did this, that there would be LESS gun violence in our nation? I am going to assume that people who argue that “everyone” should have guns are not completely insane and don’t mean to include children (or the mentally unstable) when they say “everyone,” but as soon as they allow for the caveat, then their initial argument falls apart. If everyone else has guns, then any single class of restricted people (like children) have become easy targets, and this is precisely why the recent school shooter picked an elementary school in the first place. Arm everyone? Fail.

Any good gun-defender will surely then shift to argue that it is the teachers in the classrooms who ought to be armed. This is also stupid, for it assumes first, that teachers will never go insane (a poor assumption), and second, that students will not get access to the weapon (either by force or by teacher negligence). I can’t imagine my 64-year old, dainty, junior high science teacher, Mrs. Jones, wielding any type of firearm, much less keeping our over-hormoned bodies and underdeveloped brains away from it.  And let’s not forget the Columbine school shooting in Colorado. There was an armed security guard at the school that day. That didn’t stop the massacre.

Third, the notion of arming “everyone” leans on the inherently befuddled notion that having guns will deter gun violence. As a collective, I think it only fair to observe that humans have proved that they are incapable of handling firearms in a responsible way. Thus arguing that we merely need to arm more people suffers from serious cognitive dissonance. If having more guns in the general populace meant that people were safer, then the USA (with the highest per-capital level of civilian firearms on earth) would be the safest nation on the planet. It isn’t. Not by a mile. Arming everyone (or at least a lot of people) has made us less safe, not more.

3) “If we outlaw guns, then only outlaws (criminals) will have guns.”

First, this is demonstrably false. No one is arguing that law-enforcement officials relinquish their weapons. Law enforcement needs deadly weapons at its disposal.

Second, tell the parents whose children were slaughtered this week by a LEGALLY obtained assault rifle, that only outlaws will have guns if we outlaw guns. The idiot shooter who massacred those children had no prior criminal record and had neither the mental capacity nor the resources to obtain banned weapons on his own. Even so, it is likely that if he possessed the money, he would have passed a background check and waiting period to buy the assault rifle he used anyway.

Third, this argument leans on a false dichotomy which wants to press the issue to one of two extremes, namely, that we either have a total elimination of all firearms or a total elimination of all restrictions on all firearms. Very few people argue for either extreme, myself included. I am merely advocating that all semi-automatic firearms be banned, as well as clip capacities that hold more than 3 bullets, armor-piercing rounds, sniper and assault rifles of all types. Such weapons are only for one thing: killing people, and cops in particular when it comes to armor-piercing rounds. There is simply no reason to sell these types of weapons and upgrades to the public unless we want to engender exactly the sort of tragedies that we are experiencing with increasing frequency.

Deer hunters won’t need more than 3 shots at a time, the same can be said of other types of prey, bird hunters in particular. Squirrels and other small game can even be had with a good pellet gun, and I seriously doubt that “self-defense” will require more than 3 shots either. Yes, this may be mildly inconvenient, but that is a laughable price to pay for the safety this will bring to our society as a whole. Get over it.

There is much more to say on these initial three arguments, but I’ll let that suffice for now. However, there are three additional protests that merit a brief evaluation:

4) “We’ve outlawed drugs and look how well that is working out.” 

This argument is confused. First it implies that banning drugs has had no impact on society, an assumption I categorically reject and will continue to do so until evidence can be marshaled by the opposition. Pending that evidence, the analogy is a broken one.

Second, this protest tacitly suggests that if there is a strong correlation between the gun issue and illegal drug issue, then illegal drugs ought to be made legal just as fire arms ought to be unrestricted. Once again, I question the wisdom of this and suspect that even those who try to use protest #4 have not thought through where their argument leads, and that very few politically Conservative, pro-gun types are actually in support of legalizing all presently banned drugs. It is a faulty analogy.

Third, while I admit that abuse and neglect are certainly part of the culture associated with using recreational drugs, it is nevertheless true that, if a life is going to be destroyed by using them, it is usually the life of the user himself or herself. This is not the case with mass-shootings, and at that point, attempting to draw a parallel between guns and recreational drugs completely falls apart.  It’s a broken analogy.

5) “If you want to ban guns, then you might as well ban cars and knives too, because they can also kill people.”

First, this is a poor excuse for an argument on restricting semi-automatic assault weapons, high-capacity clips, amor-piercing rounds and sniper rifles etc. Unlike the items I just mentioned, cars and knives have purposes beyond killing people. I think that any normal adult can see the difference. Of course I recognize that anything and everything, even a paperclip, can be a potential weapon, but to use them in such a way is beyond their purpose. I recognize that the world is not safe and that we cannot legislatively or practically prevent paper clips and other seemingly benign items from being used as weapons, but this is not the case with the kinds of firearms and upgrades I mentioned. We CAN prevent them from carrying out their intended function (killing humans), and the first step to doing so is banning their sale, trade, manufacture, transportaion and use, as well as the bullets that are fired from them. It is impossible for a civilian to use a weapon that he or she has no access to and can procure no bullets to fire from.

Second, this argument fails to consider that many things like cars, cribs, toys, medicines and foods etc. ARE, in fact, banned, decommissioned, recalled and destroyed when they prove to be dangerous to people. If 60+ public shootings and hundreds of dead people do not demonstrate the lethality or inherent problems with firearm “products” then what does? Suggesting that items like unsafe cars be banned does not constitute an argument against the banning of unsafe guns.

6) “Education and Safety Technology would have stopped mass-shootings.”

This argument sounds wonderful, but it fails on several points, not the least of which is that gun education and safety devices are ALREADY easily available, affordable and widely promoted. None of theses things stopped the recent shootings.

Second, education itself will do nothing to prevent people who want to go on a death-dealing gun-rampage from doing so. Safety devices stand a slightly better chance, but only if they are used universally, and clearly they are not.

Be that as it may, in the original Facebook thread that started this discussion, my friend, Brad Steinman, suggested that we develop and use some sort of software and ID recognition device in all guns that prevent them from being discharged in certain places (like schools) and keep non-owners from using them so that stolen guns would be little more than elaborate paperweights. I think this is an interesting idea that has potential, although it would do nothing to prevent snipers from firing bullets at protected zones from afar, and it raises a whole set of other issues in an age of digital piracy and hacking efforts. Don’t tell me that this yet-to-be-created “gun software” can’t be overridden or circumvented and that militaries the world over wouldn’t be able to figure out how to do so.

This gun software device would also do nothing to prevent shootings outside of these special protected zones, and I can only imagine the types of liabilities that would ensue if businesses could, but did not, install such anti-gun devices/ networks. Talk about rising insurance rates and consumer backlashes and lawsuits! Brad’s proposal sounds wonderful, but I think it suffers from too many problems (even if it existed) to be practical at the moment.

Nevertheless, the idea might have potential, so I am willing to compromise and make a deal with my friend, Brad, and like-minded individuals: Until these software safety devices are developed and implemented with 100% accuracy and 100% saturation, all firearms NOT having/ using this technology must be relinquished and confiscated, and there ought to be a full ban on all additional semi-automatic weapons, high-capacity clips, sniper rifles, armor-piercing rounds and the sale, trade, manufacture and transportation of all such weapons and upgrades.

Until that moment arrives, there simply IS no way to lessen the chances that guns will continue to be used for killing people. As such, we must rid ourselves of these types of weapons. When we purchase them and vote for candidates because of their pro-gun positions, we are nothing less than accessories to murder. I have no other way to see this. When we continue to sow seeds of violence and allow for military grade and military capacity weapons to flow through our society, it is no wonder that they are used for their intended purposes: to kill as many people as possible as quickly as possible. We are merely reaping what we have sown, and I for one, am sick of it.

We are not helpless, are we?

We are not helpless, we CAN refuse to buy these sorts of weapons. We CAN vote and speak out against these sorts of needless weapons. We CAN call on our local sporting good stores to NOT carry them, and we CAN divest ourselves from guns and ammo corporations and encourage our businesses, schools and churches to do the same. This is the United States of America, and if we want something badly enough, we have proven that we can accomplish it. The question is:Do we want more gun violence and mass-shootings in our nation, or less? The choice is up to us.

-Corbin Lambeth

UPDATE 1/4/13: My friend Ben (who has posted below), has suggested that my recommendation of 3-bullet clips is too small. Another good friend (Reynolds) who is pro-guns suggested that we limit clip sizes to 10 bullets. I think that 10 is too many, but I can see his and Ben’s point that 3 may be too few. Not that I am in a policy-making position, but I would be willing to concede to a 5 or 6 bullet capacity if absolutely necessary for legislation to be possible.

Furthermore, Reynolds also suggested that any deer rifle could be labeled as a “sniper rifle” which I spoke out against. While I had guns like my brother’s M-60, military sniper rifle in mind, I can also see Reynold’s point, so I think that exemptions for standard deer (30-ought) type rifles is reasonable, especially if they are subject to a 3 to 6 round maximum capacity.

Most of the comments below (but not all) have been imported from 2 of the Facebook discussions I took part in regarding this subject.

Thanks for reading,

-CL