Man of the West

3D printed guns - time to panic?

How Mail On Sunday 'printed' first plastic gun in UK using a 3D printer- and then took it on board Eurostar without being stopped in security scandal

Scandal!!!

So, 2 reporters from the “Mail on Sunday” bought a £1700 3D Printer, downloaded a program from the internet, and printed a crude plastic .380 calibre pistol. Then they took it on a Eurostar ride to Paris without being detected.

Horror! Disaster! The terrorists have won! Nobody is safe! We must Do Something!

Well, far be it from me to suggest I might be better informed and more, ah, “wordly-wise” than a Mail on Sunday reporter, but I’d like to point out a few things they seem to have missed…

1. The gaping hole in their hypothesis… According to the article, they assembled the gun but “did not load it for safety and legal reasons”. So, if they hadn’t been worried they might get in trouble, they’d have run down the road and picked up a box of .380 ACP ammunition? Oh, wait… In Britain (unlike in the USA), you can’t buy ammo at ASDA. You’d have to go to a Registered Firearms Dealer, who would ask to see your Firearms Certificate. Modern ammunition (brass case, primer, propellant and bullet) is not something you can print on a 3D printer, or easily make at home. So in the UK, you’d have to be a licensed gun owner, or, of course, get in touch with the underworld and buy it illegally. In either case, if you’ve got £1700 to spend, you can get a far better made, far more lethal real gun.
2. Yes, but they printed this at home! From a program from the internet! Yes… and I hate to burst your bubble, but I’m pretty sure that plans for making a more conventional, metal “zip gun” or other improvised firearm from commonly available materials and requiring minimal skill, have been on the internet for almost as long as the internet has existed.
3. But you’re missing the whole point! This gun is plastic! Its undetectable! They can get it on a plane! Anywhere! Hmmm… again, hate to disillusion you, but if you think a moderately intelligent person doesn’t have at least a 50/50 chance of getting a disassembled “zip gun” past most airport security, you’re fooling yourself. The last time I flew, I (entirely accidentally) had 2 1 ½ inch steel screws and a lighter in my pocket… I personally know people who have (again, accidentally) flown with penknives, lighters, spent shotgun shells and in one case a live round of pistol ammunition in their pockets.
4. Ok, lets discount all the above. Lets assume the 3D printed plastic pistol does massively increase the chances of someone getting one onboard a plane. What have they accomplished? They now have a crude, low powered, single shot and single use pistol (the plastic barrel can only safely fire 1 shot- to shoot again you’d have to disassemble the gun and replace the barrel). It would be useful if you want to murder someone – go into toilet, assemble gun, put in pocket, walk out, clap to targets head and shoot them. But if you want to murder someone – well, lets just say that you don’t have to be a black belt to find out 3 or 4 ways of having a good chance of quickly killing someone with your bare hands, or, say, a pencil. As a hijack weapon, though? To quote a friend of mine: “9/11 worked because no-one had done it before. Before 9/11, if your plane got hijacked you thought “oh well, I’ve never been to Cuba” After 9/11….” These days, the cockpit door is locked and reinforced. Each hijacker might, in a worst case scenario, kill one passenger. That would be tragic, but a plastic knife would be just about as effective. Frankly, I’d be more scared of a group of hijackers with plastic knives than with single use plastic pistols. And if 250+ people can be held in abject fear by a single round of .380 ammunition, then the terrorists have won already.

 

I’m not trying to be totally dismissive of the threat posed by 3D printed weapons. But our anti-terrorism/security efforts need to be based on rational assessments of the threats, not ill-informed fear-driven reactions. Its not just that the kind of “we have to do something”, reactive responses we have often seen in the last 12 years aren’t very effective. They are expensive and often compromise our liberty while taking attention and resources away from things that might actually work, like better intelligence and better preparation/resources onboard aircraft. The harsh fact is we will never be able to prevent the real possibility of someone getting some kind of weapon onboard a plane, unless we strip search each individual and ban any carry on luggage not in a small clear plastic bag. If we spent even half the resources we’ve spent on new complex, unpopular and dubiously effective airport security on intelligence and preparing and equipping  aircrew for the possibility of dealing with onboard violence, we’d actually be safer when flying.

 

 

Some follow-up on the Romeike Home-School asylum case

A little while back I generated some good discussion (which I regret not continuing longer and digging deeper) when I posted about the case of the Romeike family, who applied for asylum in the USA after clashing with the German government over their desire to homeschool their children

For those of you who were interested in that discussion, and thanks to a conversatio on Alan Noble's FB page, I bring you this fascinating piece - http://papermakeweight.wordpress.com/2013/04/19/why-patheos-is-wrong-about-romeike-v-holder/

In which blogger The Paper Make-Weight (I have no idea who he/she is, but they appear to know law and can certainly write...) responds to a piece attempting to rebut the Home School Legal Defense Association's case againsty the US government. The majority of the original piece is quoted in that article, but for those of you who feel its only fair to read whats being critiqued in full first (a laudable goal!), here is the piece, by Libby Anne of Patheos blog "Love, Joy, Feminism". - http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/2013/04/why-hslda-is-wrong-about-romeike-v-holder.html

 As you might guess, I tend to agree with Paper Make-Weight, but its all good thought-provoking stuff!

Wise words on Morality, Law and Terrorism from Denis...

My friend Denis Haack, of Ransom Fellowship (awesome people,  amazing writing, go to their website, sign up for their magazines, buy Margie's book...) blogged on the film "Zero Dark Thirty" and his thoughts on the Rule of Law and the fight against terrorism.

His conclusion (similar to mine) : "We need to talk"

I am not convinced, however, that as a people we have thought about this issue or discussed it sufficiently. That our leaders could so easily sacrifice our deepest ideals in the name of security is troubling. In fact, just war principles had been raised in the last few decades as justification for conflicts in which American soldiers would be participating. Why did such ethical considerations not enter the picture here? The rule of law in war is vital because without it a nation can win a conflict only to discover that in the process they have sacrificed their souls.  Terrorism remains a sad fact in our broken world, the yearning for security still lingers amidst the fears generated by the daily news, and decisions need to be made about fresh threats as time goes by. We need to talk.

...

Both topics, the use of torture and the use of unmanned drones, are difficult to face and more difficult to discuss with civility. Still, this is a national conversation that is badly needed and that needs Christians as participants. For one thing, civility is not an option for us since the command to love even our enemies requires it. Hopefully that will help.

 

Dennis' post is deeper and more theological (though worth reading even if you don't share the faith he and I do) than my rants. I highly recommend you read it, all think about it and prepare yourself to contribute to that discussion.

http://blog4critique.blogspot.com/

Is Homeschooling a fundamental right? The US Government doesn't think so...

Here, courtesy of the Home School Legal Defense Association (HSLDA), is one of those court cases which most people who aren't involved in the specific issues it touches on (homeschooling/home education, political asylum) will probably never notice at all - but which has profound implications.

In one sense, its a simple case: Germany forbids homeschooling of school age children in all except a very, very few exceptional circumstances. Uwe and Hannelore Romeike wanted to homeschool their children and wouldn't take no for an answer. After being threatened with jail time and having their children taken to school by the police, the Romeikes left Germany for the USA. When they got here, they applied for political asylum, claiming the German government's treatment of them and other homeschooling families amounts to political persecution. The immigration judge agreed, and granted them asylum. The US government disagreed, and sucessfully appealed the ruling. They appealed, and now the case is before a Federal Appeals Court (1 step below the Supreme Court, where it could well end up if both parties are determined not to give up).

"Simple" - but profoundly important. At its heart are some of the most important questions for any society:

Who do children belong to - society or their families?

What can society/the state legitimately demand of families?

Germany bans homeschooling to "counteract the development of religious and philosophically motivated parallel societies.” (German Supreme Court). With incidents of "home-grown terrorism" occuring, and concerns about communities totally disconnected from their societies, this is understandable. But is there not a equal or greater danger from a state that asserts the right to enforce one society and mode of thinking?

I should probably "lay my cards on the table". My wife was home-schooled throughout her education, as were her younger siblings (her elder siblings went to public school for a while, and were later homeschooled). In fact, my parents-in-law were heavily involved in the political campaign in the 1980s that made legal homeschooling much easier in Iowa. We are currently homeschooling our 5 year old daughter. As the compulsory education age in Iowa is 6, this year our decision to homeschool her is an entirely private matter. If we continue, we will have to choose which of the 3 methods that Iowa law allows for state oversight of homeschooling we will follow. We probably will continue, but that's not absolutely certain. Several of the most intelligent (and best read) people I know have been homeschooled. I also, however, know people whose current level of education and knowledge is very much in spite of being homeschooled, rather than because of it.

I believe homeschooling can provide a great education. I do not, however, believe that it is always the best thing for every child and family in every circumstance, or that I have a moral or religious obligation to homeschool.

But here's the point: for those who do feel that it is a religious or philosophical  obligation, or who simply decide it is what is best for thier child - should the government be able to prevent them?

At its heart, this is a classic question of the balance of liberty and obligation between the individual or family and the rights of society represented by the State. Does society have a right to control the education of children? Personally, I think not. Children, ultimately, belong to their families, and only secondarily to "society". The alternative opens a door for colossal abuse of State power. It may help to have a village to raise a child, but the village does not have the right to demand the child is raised as it wants if the parents disagree. The role of the village is to help the parents raise the child, and to prevent the parents massively abusing their parental authority in such ways as physical abuse.

Of course, there is also a culture clash here, between the more individualistic view of rights of the Anglo-American tradition and the more communitarian trend of continental Europe. The German argument, as I understand it, is essentially that homeschooling can lead to the develoment of "parallel societies" with values fundamentally opposed to the nation they are living in. As I said, this is a valid concern. In an age of terrorism, such groups could and can be a very real threat to the safety and security of those around them. Homeschooling means that fundamentalist Muslims will find it easier to raise their children to be jihadists and suicide bombers. Political extremists on the right will be able to raise little neo-Nazis, and on the left the next Baader-Meinhof group...

This is true. But the problem with the German solution is it assumes that the State, or at least the democratic collective, will always be the reserve of tolerance, moderation and wisdom. And Germans, of all people should know how easily the democratic state can be subverted and corrupted. Guaranteeing the right of people to be, as individuals, families and groups, distinctly different from the prevailing culture increses the danger of extremism. Yes. But that right, as a fundamental legal principle, increases the difficulty of the State itself turning extreme, and enforcing its extremism if it does. To go back to my examples above, universal compulsory government education may lower the risk of  Jihadists, Neo-Nazis and Baader-Meinhofs. But in the long term, it increases the risk of government-compelled Fundamentalist Madrassas, Hitler-Jugend and Pioneers

This particular case is complicated by the politics of asylum and immigration - if the US government is compelled to grant asylum to the Romieke's, they may well have many more asylum apllicants from countries that restrict homeschooling. And of course, no country that cares anything about what the rest of the world thinks of it (i.e., just about everywhere other than North Korea...) likes to have asylum granted to one of its citizens by a major world power. Especially Western European countries, which tend to view themselves as obviously the most civilised and liberal places in the world*...Apparently an official of the German government has already accused the US of "treating us like a banana republic" for even cosidering the case.

But what  concerns me most af all as a parent in America is the domestic implications. In a Common Law legal system, judicial precedent is all important. If the Romeikes lose this case, the precedent will be established that it does not impinge on any fundamental right if the government prohibits homeschooling entirely. This will make it far easier for any future US government to do so without legal challenge. It will also probably ease the way for a great many other restrictions on the right s of parents to take decisions for their own children. The Romeikes case involves every parent in America.

 

Links:

German Homeschool Case May Impact U.S. Homeschool Freedom

The first HSLDA report I refferred to. Michael Farris brings out very clearly the legal and philosophical issues at stake.

The Romeike's Journey

HSLDA report on the history of the Romeike family and their asylum application.

Federal Government Tries to Block Homeschooling Refugees

First Things gets on the case - interesting analysis of the governments position.

Give Me Your Tired, Your Poor, Your Homeschoolers

Time magazine article from the beginning of the case - includes some history of the law and concept in Germany.

 

*Who says Western European countries are the most civilised in the world? Well, Western Europeans do, and they are the most civilised, liberal and best educated people in the world, so they must be right, of course... Because they are the best educated and least prejudiced people in the world and so...

 

UPDATE April 23 - A critique of the HSLDA position, and a fairly detailed legal rebuttal of that critique, from some better bloggers than me... http://www.manofthewest.net/blog/2013/04/some-follow-up-on-the-romeike-home-school-asylum-case.html

Greenwald and I on the Rule of Law, again...

So, great minds think alike, or something - found another disturbing-but-vitally-important piece by Glenn Greenwald on the destruction of the Rule of Law in the "War on Terror".

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/oct/24/obama-terrorism-kill-list

If you don't have time to read it all, just read the first few paragraphs, because in them Greenwald makes 2 vitally important points:

1.  Greenwald's opening sentence:

A primary reason for opposing the acquisition of abusive powers and civil liberties erosions is that they virtually always become permanent, vested not only in current leaders one may love and trust but also future officials who seem more menacing and less benign.

Yes! I had more than a few conversations, years back with American Republicans and British Labour supporters who weren't entirely comfortable with the loss of traditional liberties that happened under Bush and Blair, but defended the governments basically on the grounds the "they're good guys, we can trust them. He/they (Bush/Blair or their ministers) aren't tyrants". Well, personally I'd say that the traditional  British view, and the entire US Constitution, presume the truth of "Acton's Axiom" - "all power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely". But even if we assume that Blair and Bush were incorruptible... that's beside the point.

The point is, as Greenwald says, that history shows clearly that  it is 100x easier to give up a right to a government than to get it back. Giving up traditional rights and legal guarantees, expanding government power over its citizens, is easy. All it takes is a few months of public fear and a government with a popular leader and a political majority. Getting them back... well, if you're lucky it takes a major political shift, the Margaret Thatcher 1980s, Tony Blair 1997+, Barack Obama 2008 - the once a couple of decades seismic political movements. If you're unlucky, it takes revolution and bloodshed.

So what that means, in practice, is that we should assume that any power aquired by this government, now will also belong to all future governments.

So the question you need to ask yourself is not "do I trust Barack Obama and his cabinet with this unnacountable power, do I trust David Cameron, Tony Blair, George Bush?" - whoever it is or was - but "do I trust the worst government I can imagine in this country with this power?"

2. The whole concept of a never-ending "War on Terror" empowers our governments to claim "war powers" indefinitely and forever - and this is not a good thing!

For centuries it has been recognised that when a country is at war, the "rules" change. Even the most civil libertarian of us generally admit that when the survival of the nation is at stake, some rules need to be bent. Our language is filled with phrases reflecting this concept - "War Powers" "State of Emergency", "For the duration..." and of course "Martial Law". But all of these phrases implicitely recognise that War is not the normal state of being, that is is exceptional, that these exceptions to the rules apply "for the duration of hostilities" and then things revert to normal.

Its true that through the second half of the 20th C a "state of war" has become less and less clearly defined, less definite. But through the 20th C, most of us could say when our countries were "at war" and when they weren't. Historians can debate when the Vietnam War started, but eveyone knows when the last troops pulled out, at least. But in the 21st Century, the concept of a "War on terror" has confused our ideas completely. How does one win a war on "terror"? I first became aware of how disturbing this concept was way back in about 2003, when I heard a Bush administration official taking questions on the Guatanamo  prisoners. He was asked how long the US government intended to keep them imprisoned, and responded "for the duration of hostilities". But when do hostilities end in the "War on Terror"? Its like saying "we're suspending habeas corpus for the duration of the War on Drugs".  Essentially it means "as long as the government likes".

If you still aren't sure what I'm getting at, ask yourself this question: when have we won the War on Terror? When Al-Queda surrenders? But AQ are not a nation state. They're not even a formally organized terrorist group with a command structure and a political front, like the Irish Republican Army in Britain, the Basque ETA or even the FARC or the Shining Path in South America. They are - as far as we know - a loose collection of "cells" around the world, bound together only by a common ideology and recognition of the leadership of (though not military obedience to) certain key leaders. A surrender by one of those cells or leaders means next to nothing. When there has been no successful terrorist attack for x years? But who chooses what the value of "x" is? Who says what counts as succesfull, or a "genuine threat"? Why, the government of course...

The sleight of hand that turned a campaign against a terror threat into a "war", almost without debate, has allowed our governments to claim authority that used to be reserved for very specific, limited circumstances - every day until they chose to give it up.

 

The Strange Death of the Rule of Law

For  more than 10 years now I've watched as both my countries have thrown away perhaps their most precious  gift to the world, the concept of the Rule of Law as enshrined in the Common Law since Magna Carta. I've seen the "War on Terror" be used to justify throwing away rights considered fundamental since the 17th Century. I've written a few things on the subject - a couple of articles sent to friends but never published, a few "letters to the editor", a few letters to my elected representatives on both sides of the Atlantic. In the last few years in the USA, I've written less, falling almost stunned at how many on both sides of the political divide are willing to sell their birthrights for a mess of "National Security" pottage.

And then today Glenn Greenwald wrote the article I wanted to write....

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/feb/05/obama-kill-list-doj-memo

Well, ok, I wouldn't have written it exactly like that. It would have slightly different emphases, and also probably be nowhere near as well written. But Greenwald's article does what, sadly very few others do. It has the courage to assume that its readers can follow a point-by-point, detailed, argument on an important subject, and it focuses not just on whats wrong, but on why - the principles at stake.

And it gets at the heart of what I think is so terribly, terrifyingly wrong with the approach taken by the last 2 US Administrations.

Surprising as it may be to some people, I am not a head-in-the-clouds idealist. I am aware that the world is a dangerous, nasty place with some truly dangerous, evil people in it. I  even realise that in all probability it is far more dangerous than I realise. I recognise that the "normal rules" have often been changed or suspended in abnormal times. I acknowledge that the terrorist threat we face today is distinctly different from that in the past. I may not like it, but I can accept the idea that we may have to set up new systems to deal with these new threats. I am willing to have a discussion about how we can try to balance liberty, justice and security. About where we may have to compromise on traditional legal protections in order to be able to sucessfully prosecute those whom commit acts of terrorism.

The problem is...

America - as a nation and culture and political system - hasn't had that conversation.

Instead, our government simply told us "in order to protect you, we need to do this". And we just accepted it.

We haven't developed new systems within the law - we've just handed over the power of life and death to unaccountable bureaucrats.

We've allowed - somehow - the idea that for someone to be considered a dangerous terrorist, and to lose their rights, all we need is the word of the government - and for some reason everyone,  even those conservatives who rant against "big government", seem to trust the government implicitly on this.

From Greenwald:

But of course, when this memo refers to "a Senior Operational Leader of al-Qaida", what it actually means is this: someone whom the President - in total secrecy and with no due process - has accused of being that. Indeed, the memo itself makes this clear, as it baldly states that presidential assassinations are justified when "an informed, high-level official of the US government has determined that the targeted individual poses an imminent threat of violent attack against the US".

This is the crucial point: the memo isn't justifying the due-process-free execution of senior al-Qaida leaders who pose an imminent threat to the US. It is justifying the due-process-free execution of people secretly accused by the president and his underlings, with no due process, of being that. The distinction between (a) government accusations and (b) proof of guilt is central to every free society, by definition, yet this memo - and those who defend Obama's assassination power - willfully ignore it.

This is not a "system". This is the negation of the Rule of Law. This may be couched in the pseudo-legal language of the Presidents pet lawyers, but what is happening here is in essence, no different from what happened when the OGPU dropped 10,000 names on Stalin's desk, and the next morning 10,000 people went to the Gulags.

(I'm not saying Obama - or Bush - are Stalin. I think they probably believe they are doing the right thing for unselfish motives. The point is that the process is the same. Once we've established the principle that the President can be an unnaccountable Judge and Jury with the power of life and death, then the only thing protecting us from the next Stalin is the personality of the President)

We can talk about what we need to do to protect us from terrorism. There must be ways of keeping the fundamental principles of our legal and political systems - the Rule of Law, the Seperation of Powers, Accountable Government, Habeas Corpus, the Presumption of Innocence - intact while protecting us.

If there isn't, then the Terrorists have already destroyed America.

 

 

A very good "plea for understanding" on Christians, Poverty and Government

Well, this is something I've wanted to write about many times. I couldn't count how many times I've seen posts or comments from friends who lean more  towards the left side of politics accusing Christians who are politically conservative of gross hypocrisy for their opposition towards some particular anti-poverty or welfare program, or their opposition to some regulation. This is particularly common from Europeans towards American "Christian Conservatives", whom many Europeans seem to believe can't possibly be Christians at all.

Now, I live amongst "Christian Conservatives" in a pretty solidly Republican area of the rural MidWest. And I can tell you that most of the people I live, work and go to church with are not callous hypocrites. I also know that the statistics show that Americans are amongst the most generous individuals on Earth in terms of their gifts to charity. So, why do they oppose the government helping the poor? Why do they oppose universal healthcare, or so many things that seem to those on the other side of the political aisle - or even just on the other side of The Pond - to be such obvious examples of Christian Charity?

I could try to explain, but this guy has already done a really good job:

http://derekzrishmawy.com/2013/01/18/3-ways-christians-can-disagree-about-what-to-do-about-poverty-politically/

(Of course, I'm aware that this is really just scratching the surface. But its a very good place to start.)

Douthat on "How to read in 2013"

Hi all

First of all, I'd like to thank everyone for the kind words, comments and discussion that my post before Christmas produced. I certainly DO intend to return top the topic of Gun Rights/Gun Control, and in fact I have a couple of ideas for posts in my head now.

But I thought I start the year by linking to this great column in the New York Times by Ross Douthat, who is almost always worth reading.

In it he urges us to read outside our comfort zone, to read those we disgree with and to read about stuff that isn't "our thing".

As a "Anglo-American", I'd especially agree with his urging people to step entirely outside their own national arena. As I settled into the USA, one of the first things I realised was just how innaccurate, and at times totally infair, the portrayal of certain things about the USA in most of the British media is. The same is true to some extent in reverse, though in the USA the problem is more often what Bill Bryson described as "a magic trick any foreigner in America can do - open a newspaper and watch your country disappear!" I also realised pretty soon that if I was going to take any interest in American politics that was both fair and serious, I would have to engage and grapple with ideas that simply barely exist within the spectrum of British political discussion. Personally, I feel doing so did me a world of good: it forced me to go back to first principles, to examine my fundamental beliefs about issues such as the nature of freedom, the role of the state, the way the law works, and so on. In my not-so-humble opinion, one of the major problems of modern political discussion is that we so very, very rarely go back to first principles. Most of our political debates have been re-hashed a thousand times, and we soon fall into pre-set lines, running down the train tracks of our party or ideology's  beliefs, never really stopping to think. Having to grapple with radically new ideas forces us to do that - if we're being honest at all, that is.

So, if you're a progressive Brit, spend some time on National Review Online,  being exposed to intelligent US Conservatism. Read Douthat, Hanson, Lopez... and when you find yourself inclined to shout "that's ridiculous you right-wing bastard!!!", THAT is when to stop and ask yourself WHY is it ridiculous? How would I explain why I disagree to a ten-year old? Assuming the writer is not an idiot, what fundamentally different belief about the world has caused him to reach conclusions I find ridiculous? What do I think about that belief? If its ridiculous, how would I prove that? If its not, can I see how his conclusions follow from his premise logically? Hmmmmm...

And the same, of course, the other way round. If you're a US Conservative, get thee over to the New Statesman and read some centre-left UK perspective. And when you want to scream "you delusional leftie!", ask yourself the questions above.

Here's to a more inquiring, more informed 2013...

Christmas!

Well, thanks everyone for the thoughts, arguments statistics and other comments when I linked my previous post on FB. Y'know, you are free to comment here too- in fact, one of my motivations for wanting to start a website was that i've had so many interesting and informative discussions on FB that have vanished into the ether (oh, I'm sure that Facebook has them somewhere, of course. But FB is not exactly designed for searching or archiving).

Anyway - I shall return to the topic, definitely. But as I said, I want to take a Christmas break - in fact, I think i need to take a few days offline entirely to be with my beautiful family.

SO, I wish you all a wonderful, blessed and happy Christmas, and leave you with a link to Donald WIlliams interesting and profound thoughts on God's punning in Bethlehem... (yes, you read that right. Go read :-)

Bethlehem - Donald Williams

A Plea for Understanding on the Gun Rights/Gun Control Debate

Well, I've had great plans for a relaunch of my website/blog for months, which have remained as plans... This was not the topic I intended to start with, but the more I though about this post the more I realized  that what I'm actually trying to do here is at the heart of something I hoped to acheive here - to communicate across, and encourage communication across political, cultural, national and religious divides. So I'm posting it. For those who know me and pray, prayers it might be the start of a new lease of life for this moribund website would be appreciated!

Here goes...

Some of you may think I’ve been commenting a lot on gun control, gun rights and the Second Amendment in the wake of the tragedy in Connecticut. The truth is, I’ve been manfully restraining myself from commenting/responding five times as much and five times as long. But I don’t want to spend the Christmas season in the middle of an acrimonious debate. The subject is one I’ve actually thought about a lot, and done a lot of research on, provoked by moving from an area and society in which gun ownership is rare and gun laws very strict to one in which gun ownership is very common and gun laws fairly loose – and attitudes correspondingly radically different. Most of my pre-suppositions were shaken up, and my conclusions may well surprise you. But that’s not what I want to talk about today. Before we can have a sensible and reasoned debate on the topic, we – both my nations, and too many people I know or see quoted – need to think hard about HOW we think and talk about the subject. The “national conversation” that America claims to want to have about guns (and the international conversation between Americans and others) all too often resembles a room full of people shouting at each other without listening. As someone who can honestly say that he can “see both sides”, I want to make a plea to each side. This is the last post/comment I intend to make on this subject for a few days. If you have opinions on the subject, and you want to speak them, please read this, and at least think about it.

 

(If you’re not American – this is mainly aimed at US citizens, but I’d urge you to read it anyway if you have opinions on the issue)

 

To those who support gun control and have been pleading for restrictions on gun ownership over the last few days:

 

It is possible that NRA President Wayne LaPierre and pro-gun politicians like Rand Paul are simply utterly cynical, callous monsters. They may indeed be only motivated by a desire to maintain the wealth of those who sell guns and ammunition, cynically playing on people’s fears and utterly callous of the cost in human lives. They may. It is far, far less possible, to the point of being impossible, that that is true of all the 4 million members of the NRA, or the tens of millions more Americans who agree with their basic beliefs. Virtually every survey in the last 10 years has shown that more than 70% of Americans believe that the 2^nd Amendment protects an individual right to own guns, and that less than 25% of Americans would, for instance, support a ban on handguns. These people are not all ignorant, uneducated rednecks. They consist of tens of millions of Americans, from every State, of every race, level of income and education and yes, every political affiliation. They include quite a few prominent academics, and several Supreme Court Justices. These Americans genuinely believe that owning a gun is a fundamental civil liberty, like freedom of speech or freedom from arbitrary arrest. They believe that prohibitory gun laws would genuinely endanger the freedom and character of the United States of America, as well as being an immoral curtailment of their fundamental right to self-defence. I realize these ideas may sound crazy to you. But if you find it impossible to understand how any sane, decent and intelligent person could believe in an individual right to own guns, or that America would be safer with more people carrying guns in public, then you are also suffering from a lack of knowledge. If you want to have a publically expressed opinion on the issue, if you want to contribute to the debate and expect to be listened to, you have a moral and intellectual duty to try to understand how sane, decent and intelligent people can think like that, and to understand their arguments.

 

To the other side…

 

To those who support gun rights, gun ownership and the Right to Bear Arms: It is possible that Diane Feinstein and Josh Sugarmann are closet totalitarians, whose entire rhetoric is aimed at disarming Americans to allow the unhindered takeover of a dictatorial one-world government. It is possible. It is far, far less possible, to the point of being impossible, that that is true of the tens of millions of Americans who agree with their basic beliefs. And even more so of those around the world who agree with them. These people look at America and see thousands of people being murdered a year, and they naturally and rightly are appalled by that. These people are not all ignorant, utopian, big-government-supporting dreamers. They consist of tens of millions of Americans, from every State, of every race, level of income and education and yes, every political affiliation. They look at the world around them and they see countries that are prosperous, stable and certainly very nearly as free as America, but which have far, far stricter rules on gun ownership, and lower levels of gun ownership. And in most of these countries, hundreds of people are murdered a year, not thousands. And mass shootings happen a few times a decade, or less – not multiple times a year. It is not stupid, it is entirely reasonable to look at this and assume that the reason for this difference is the difference in gun laws. If you believe this not to be the case, or you believe that the positive good of gun rights outweighs the cost, you have a duty to try and explain this – calmly and logically, not shouting or accusing people who, overwhelmingly are motivated by a desire to stop violence and killing. But if you find it impossible to understand how any sane, decent and intelligent person could believe that granting the government the power to say who can and cannot own a weapon, or removing the right to armed self-defense, is a good idea, then you need to listen more before you respond. If you want to have a publically expressed opinion on the issue, if you want to contribute to the debate and expect to be listened to, you have a moral and intellectual duty to try to understand how sane, decent and intelligent people can think like that, and to understand their arguments.

 

Well, there’s my contribution. If you want to discuss the issue, or you disagree with my characterization of either side – please don’t. Yet. I am willing, and indeed interested in discussing the issue, and especially in trying to explain the 2 sides to each other, but I need a break. This Christmas, I want to concentrate on Christ and my family, not the philosophy and politics of living in a Fallen, broken world. Christ came to redeem this world, and one day we will neither fear gun violence or need to defend ourselves, for “the government will be upon His shoulders” and the Lion will lie down with the Lamb. For now, till after the holiday season, have a Happy and Blessed Christmas – and try to have patience and understanding towards your fellow fallen human beings.