This blog entry was started over a year ago. Some time in June of 2014. At this moment, I cannot remember what specifically inspired me to write this. I am sure it had something to do with a shooting in a church or school and other places looking at passing laws to forbid the lawful carrying of a firearm inside of a church. And, it's interesting to me… I had forgotten that I had started writing this paper/blog entry until a few days ago. Recently, though, a number of events, including the shooting the shooting in a church in South Carolina and, most recently, the shooting at a Marine recruiting station, brought gun control to the forefront of my mind.
While reviewing my blog entries, I saw that I had written one on the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting on December 14, 2012 (Reflections on the Connecticut Shooting). It was a terrible incident where a young man stole a car and several weapons and proceeded to kill a number of people at the Sandy Hook school. And, without wasting much time, many people on the left were immediately screaming for more gun control. They screamed for more background checks, for stricter control on guns (pistols and rifles), for the banning of 'assault rifles,' etc. Though I was sickened by the senseless killing of the children at Sandy Hook, I was deeply offended and angered by the left calling for bans, control, etc.
When our Forefathers wrote the US Constitution, the added onto it the Bill of Rights, freedoms that all law abiding citizens were to have. The 2nd Amendment states thus: "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." (Found here.) Why was this written? In the 1700's we were a British Colony. The government of England decided that they could do with us as they pleased, including taxing us heavily, allowing soldiers to search peoples' homes without cause, to arrest people if they pleased, and many other abuses. We eventually rebelled against England and, after many years of armed conflict, gained our independence. The Amendments was added to our Constitution to protect every person's individual rights. Those writing the Constitution, like George Washing, Thomas Jefferson, etc., had seen what tyranny was like. Therefore, they wanted to enable future generation to have protected freedoms.
Protected freedoms of practicing one's own faith, of being able to peacefully protest for or against something, etc. But, without the ability to actively resist tyranny, even from one's own government (local, state, national, or even a foreign power), none of the other Amendments really matter. As a whole, we have many good laws on the books, both locally and nationally, to protect the innocent while prosecuting the accused law breakers. However, law enforcement officers and judges can become corrupt, a criminal can be very intelligent and hide what he does from others, or law enforcement can be delayed in responding to an incident.
From my experiences as custody staff with the Nebraska Department of Corrections, I have seen depravity at its finest. So to speak… While I believe that people can change, and I have seen God do some awesome things in the lives of inmates, I also know that it is not always the case. There are some very evil people who are incarcerated in our prison system. They are people who would be more than willing to do a person great physical harm if they felt that it would benefit them enough. Many are very good at putting on a façade towards their family, lawyers, religious volunteers, etc. But, if one has to deal with them on a day-to-day basis, away from the public eye, one will sometimes observe a very different side of them.
We have law enforcement professionals, local, county, federal, etc., for a reason. Because of our sinful nature, we are inclined to act out on our sinful and selfish natures. Whether it is something self-destructive that causes harm to others, like drinking and driving, or whether it is something directly aimed at harming others, like assault or murder. I am thankful that we have such people that are willing to put their lives on the line to protect people from those that would want to do them harm. However, they are only human, can only be in one place at one time, and have to respond to when an emergency call is made.
And, that is why I am against these 'weapon free zones.' Unless a place, like a Federal Building, has an armed security force, you are jeopardizing the lives of others within the 'gun free zone.' From the time that a person makes a phone call to 911 (or hits a silent alarm), it can easily take several minutes for the dispatcher to inform those on duty where the emergency is, let alone for the law enforcement officers to actually get on scene. Sometimes it is less than 5 minutes, but it can easily be more. Having done many training scenarios in the Army and with the Department of Corrections, a lot can happen in one or two minutes, let alone 5 to 10 minutes.
The thing that many people either don't understand, or choose to ignore, is that most of those who choose to commit many of these great atrocities do so because they have a blatant disregard for laws. Although some crimes are committed “in the heat of the moment,” many are actually planned out. In fact, many who are serial killers or plan on doing major crimes do major planning before they commit their crimes. The take their time to choose when and where to commit it, as well as how they plan on escaping. The James Holmes, who was recently convicted in the mass murder of the people in the Colorado theater, did a lot of planning before he executed his attack. He choose a movie to do his killing spree in that had lots of action and gunfire so as to mask his shootings. He planned ahead with selecting his weapons and body armor (one article is found here). All of this points to a very evil and vindictive personality, who calculated what to do and when to do it.
Those of us in the military have two terms for targets, 'hard' and 'soft.' A hard target would be one that is fortified with various layers of defense. Although a maximum security prison is built more to keep inmates in, though keeping people who would want to break them out is an important aspect of their security, would be an excellent example of a 'hardened target.' Because of the layers of defense, it would be very difficult to get into a maximum security prison. It would also be just as difficult, if not even more so, to try and break out. Many banks and military bases are built with layers of defenses that overlap each other. These layers of defense keep unauthorized people out and those who are charged with protecting the facility safe.
On a personal level, a 'hard target' for common criminal include a number of different things. A few might be observant neighbors that watch out for each other, one or more dogs that can alert the occupants to something that isn't right, solid doors and well made locks, windows that are secured, landscaping that prevent people from hiding near doors or windows, etc. Each of these things would make it more difficult for a criminal to enter the premises and commit their crime. Except for those who are choosing to commit a violent home invasion, most criminals want to sneak in, commit their crime, and then escape without the occupants and/or police knowing that they were there.
A 'soft target' is one that either does not have any defenses or its defenses are marginal or can be easily be overcome through brute force, intimidation, or the like. A grade school without any armed security personnel and is a 'declared gun free zone' is an excellent example of a 'soft target.' If the sole purpose of an attack is to create as many casualties as possible, as quickly as possible, and with little or no risk to the person committing the crime, the school would be a prime target. Think about it… Each classroom probably has 20-40 kids with 1-4 teachers. After a couple of occupied rooms, such a criminal would have easily injured or killed a large number of people in less than 5 minutes, and is on the way out. Especially if none of the school staff were allowed to carry a firearm to protect themselves or the teachers that they were charge to care for and to teach.
As a Christian, I believe that God calls me to care for those around me. Whether it's my immediate family, friends and neighbors, the inmates that I watch over, or those in a foreign country that I am their guest of. God calls me to seek out His justice and to share His love with those around me. From my Presbyterian heritage, one of the things that has helped me in my faith journey is the Book of Confession. It is a collection of writings from various theologians over the centuries to help explain what Scripture says. One of those writings is the Larger Catechism. It is a very in depth explanation of what we Christians believe. One of the things that it covers in detail is the Ten Commandments. The 6th Commandment is “Thou shall not kill.” The thing is, the Hebrew word, ratsach(found here) means to murder. It infers premeditated, planned killing of innocent life. From 7.244 through 7.246, the Larger Catechism explains what this means. In a nutshell, not only am I to avoid causing harm or death to those who do not deserve it (the innocent), but I am also to protect them from others wanting to cause harm or death. It is not just a 'good idea,' it is a biblical mandate (7.246 especially)! (They are questions 134-136 in the Larger Catechism.)
I sincerely believe that if we were to remove the 'gun free zones' so that those who choose to carry in order to protect themselves and others, will greatly reduce crime. As I stated before, most criminals want to go someplace to commit a crime where there is low risk and high rewards. When a place declares itself a 'gun free zone,' they attract criminals. Criminals know that law abiding citizens believe in following the laws. Therefore, if they will either not carry their weapon into the 'gun free' establishment or avoid going it at all. That means the criminal has a much lower risk for committing their crime.
I also believe that if good, quality training were made more available for those who choose to carry, that would also help make our society safer. Every situation will be different, and no training, no matter how good, can cover all possible scenarios. However, any kind of good training that helps a person, during times of high stress, be able to negotiate criminals from the innocent, quickly determine if it is safe to engage a target, how to aim effectively in difficult situations, etc., is better than nothing.
In short, I believe it is a biblical mandate to serve and protect others. Because of my background in the military and corrections, I have a lot more training than others. I wish that those who also seek to take care of others, including using deadly force if it is absolutely necessary, should have access to good, quality training. Not only is it a biblical mandate, but I believe that our Forefathers protected our rights to defend ourselves via the 2nd Amendment. Any time innocent people are injured or killed, we should be angered about it. However, taking away the rights of the individual (in this case, their right to be armed) is not the answer. Creating more 'gun free zones' will only encourage more attacks. Taking away people's rights to protect themselves will create more victims. This is the thing that criminals want. Not just your 'average criminals,' though. Because of the rise of radical Islam, the more 'gun free zones' and the more anti-2nd Amendment laws you create, the victims you create. Such people, espeically terrorists, love 'soft targets.' If you believe that you are called to serve and protect, or especially to serve via creating laws, should you not enable people to protect themselves instead of creating more and more victims who cannot protect themselves from armed assailants?
No comments:
Post a Comment