15 Years Ago

One of the difficult things about being joyfully busy is the struggle to have some introspective time of reflection. Today marks 15 years ago when, for a good portion of my generation, our experience in the world changed. Ten years ago I reflected upon the new world under the lens of an active duty soldier stationed overseas. In those conditions it was unmistakeable to myself and those around me, that our lives were certainly different. Tonight I reflect upon how that day of infamy has rippled through this life. Much has happened between these two points of reflection. Although it took longer than I expected, I finally did get to go to war as a soldier. Then as life would have it and providence continued, I would go back to war.

I recall the night we received news about the death of Bin Laden. There was buzz on the classified chat channels that something big happened but we had no idea. My spidey senses convinced the cafeteria staff to change the TV channel to news and I got to witness with everyone else that night the President’s address. It meant something different sitting less than two miles from where that fateful day was planned. Killing the instigator of this new reality did not return us to the world we knew before. That has long since past and cannot be recovered, there is only moving forward.

I have been considering what was so uniquely remarkable about that day. It was not the first time we had been attacked by overseas terrorists in New York. It was not the first time a building was attacked on our soil in our memory. It was far from the first time we had been attacked by people of Islamist ideology. It was the largest coordinated attack with the most devastating results in our history. I have not talked to someone who lived through the attack on Pearl Harbor to describe what the effect was. That was a deliberate act of war by a uniformed nation. This was a cowardly hijacking using civilian aircraft to destroy civilian and military targets.

We experienced this. Many of us watched on live television as the second plane struck the North Tower. Even more of us watched as the two towers collapsed. For weeks those images were replayed countless times on television. We rallied around the flag proclaiming in earnest, “We Will Not Forget!” We invaded Afghanistan and on the coattails of “Never Again” we invaded Iraq. We had to be proactive about this threat we mistakenly thought to be malignant. We struck back and exerted the full force of the United States of America on anyone who dared to threaten us again. Such force had not been displayed in the world’s view since we landed on the beaches of Normandy and dropped the world’s most terrible weapons many decades ago.

15 years of war later, the resolve we began that had such a powerful undertaking has been… strained to say the least. We will have to come to terms that Afghanistan will incorporate the Taliban in their government if they are to ever stop fighting. We have been almost idly sat and watched as ISIS has ripped through Iraq and Syria proudly displaying to the world the fruit of their ideology. For many of us we must be cautious where we utter “radical Islamic terror” so as to not offend people who cannot tell the difference between religious ideologies. We have watched domestic turmoil divide us by political party, race, education, economic status, religion, even patriotism. We find ourselves in a nation full of people longing for heaven on earth who lash out at others in numerous fashions because it is not. We cannot even agree on our own identity let alone who we are as a nation. Who should we be? We used to be a nation that sought “to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity”. But those are words from old white men who were unenlightened and guilty of some of the most grievous sins of the 21st century in their antiquated 18th century ways and thoughts. Or at least that is how the Founding documents are often treated if given some mind at all.  

I cannot help but think back to littlun Percival Wemys Madison. At the beginning of the story he knew his name and address. Repeating such were his refuge and comfort in considerably traumatic times, by the conclusion of the book, he forgot everything, even his own name. This is not to say our reactions to the attack were acts of innocence and our disenfranchisement of those ventures has been our maturing. We certainly started those wars with the passionate fervor of justice. The hope was that such acts were to fulfill the duty of our government to protect ourselves. Even this understanding is under considerable scrutiny.  I fear if we do not remember who we were, first as people, then as a nation, what was lost those 15 years ago will only be a shadow of forgotten memories.

Virtue & Manhood

Throughout this last semester in a Constitutional Law course, we spent a significant amount of time focused on the 1st Amendment. More exactly, once we got past Substantive Due Process, the remaining weeks of class were spent on Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Religion, and Establishment Clause. As we were grinding through the cases it was unavoidable to see progressive change in American values in the 20th century. As the nation pulled away from an exclusively Christian-based set of ethics, sometimes in an effort to oppress fringe religious members and to outright discriminate other religious minorities, we eventually got to the legal space we are now. The three-part test decided in Lemon v. Kurtzman (1970) has been the standard test concerning religious entanglement since its ruling. In the separating of the Church from the State, there has also been a separation of virtue from society. For whatever flaws the secularist might declare about the Christian history of the United States, the clear understanding of American virtue is not likely to be one of them.

Virtue is the popular topic in my school’s political philosophy department. Aristotle’s exposition in Book 5 of the Nicomachean Ethics is a required reading for the topic. The Founders were educated in such ancient theory and steeped in the modern political philosophy that was also shaped by the ancient notion of virtue. Between the ancient thinkers and the sacred texts, virtue was at the very least the second half of the Ten Commandments by the time the nation was founded. In the secularizing of our nation, where has all the virtue gone? Throughout the political and legal writings in the first century of our nation public virtue was often the citation for allowing religion in government. There was an undeniable link between the notion of virtue and the role of religion in the public space. As the decades passed, and for whatever reason one might point to, public religion has fallen out of favor. The prominent place houses of worship once had in the community has been lost. Where or what other institutional structure do people from various demographics regularly gather to learn a particular set of morality? This is one of the better definitions I have heard that describes the loss of civic virtue.

What is worse, what has civic virtue been replaced? If not the State, then nothing. Dennis Prager, a talk radio show host,  frequently points out at this loss of social morality. According to the jurisprudence of the Court, the most sacred right appears to be one’s sexual proclivities. Arguably the next most important rights being declared are self-identity and right of conscience. None of these “rights” were articulated by the Founders, but all of them in the not too distant future may threaten the rights which were articulated by the Founders. Where am I going with this?

The recent issues in the news from bathrooms and gender identity, killing a gorilla to save a child, and now an example of justice not fully served, I think all of these are evidence of our lost virtue. It might be worth noting, the ancient philosophers did not find individual rights to even be a issue worth considering within the dialogue of virtue. The notion of individual rights is exclusively a Western principle which I would argue originates in the Imago Dei described in Genesis. Harvard Law’s Professor Jeannie Suk pointed out a difficult paradox concerning the bathroom issue, particularly concerning Title IX protections in which schools will be caught in no-win situations that may cost them dearly. Likewise the concern of a gorilla over that of a child is a clear example of a morally bankrupt understanding of human life opposed to animal life.

How is the case of the sex crimes committed by Brock Turner an example of lost virtue? Less in the individual act but the occurrences of sex crimes at large and the questionable justice that was the sentence. On a positive note, they have been going down on a national scale but one must also question how many of these crimes are not reported by colleges to proper legal authorities. Unless Mr. Turner appeals the conviction, the punishment leveled against him for his crimes will stand and he cannot be retried for a better punishment due to Double Jeopardy. This case has also challenged the validity of the Court to wage proper justice because the sentence was so satisfying. There has been significant writing across the decades concerning the restraint by which judges rule on certain cases so as to preserve the validity of the Court. As the argument goes, if a wayward judiciary acts as an unelected legislature who has power over the Supreme Law of the Land, it would be the people’s democratic duty to abolish such an institution.

Concerning the event, trial, and aftermath, there have been many heartfelt responses offering God’s grace to Brock Turner and  many articles rebuffing his father’s insensitive comments. Often it seems national news fails to get the most basic understanding of a person’s intrinsic value. It appears with this case was a perfect storm of outrage. Justice appears to have been avoided, and the perpetrator was a white male who was at least perceived to be upper class. It is culturally expected that everyone castigate this individual as much as possible. I find the outrage of this case to be completely founded and if I were a voter in Santa Clara County I would see about recalling Judge Persky. My understanding of grace hopes the victim and the perpetrator might recognize God’s goodness in their lives if not now at some point in the future.

Brock Turner has already experienced mercy. He was convicted of three felony counts of sexual assault. His sentence was 6 months in prison and 3 years probation. He was convicted of violating California Penal Code 220 and two counts of violating 289. A violation of 220 “shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for two, four, or six years.” For each violation of 289 “shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for three, six, or eight years.” One’s basic math skills then say his punishment should have been 8-22 years in prison according to the Penal Code. I originally intended on providing the actual text of the penal code but even those were more graphic than I wish to appear on my blogs. The letter of the victim to her perpetrator was even more graphic and difficult to read.

This event is not representative of manhood across the nation. The universal public outrage might be a sign that all is not yet lost. Then again, until civil discourse might occur about masculinity in the United States the state of men might not have a reason to be optimistic. I would argue that manhood cannot be well defined without a clear understanding of public virtue.

Women in Combat: Theological Considerations

Gender has become a rather contentious issue in recent years. From the Obergefell v. Hodges decision on marriage, to the transition of celebrity’s gender identity, to the bathroom issues within the private and public realm, it appears to be a defining time in our social history. Within the military community changes have also been made and achieved. Most recently women almost had to register for the draft.  There are several military cultural factors that contribute to the discussion which have not been articulated well. I will attempt to address them as best as I can. In this part, I’ll consider the theological implications.

A brief summary of Complementarianism. It is a theological view that gender roles exist for men and women. This takes place in the home and church. As a single guy, I have never had to work out the exact details of what that will look like for the family I hope to have. I have had amazing demonstrations of what this looks like in practice with a number of families in my church. Of particular influence has been the example of the family I have lived with for the last several years. Their godly example has added numerous practical examples to a theology I embraced from a predominantly scholastic understanding. Men and women are of equal value as image bearers of God, but they are not the same. Based on my observations, outside of churches who make this position a distinctive, complementarianism is a minority view within the Christian community.

Perhaps the most misunderstood aspect of complementarianism is the confusion with chauvinism. Gender roles are not about ability or fitness. Given the whole of the Christian life is not about our abilities or anything we do but depends on who God is and what he has done, this understanding should not be difficult to receive. This probably makes more sense coming from a Reformed theological position concerning salvation.

How does a theologically conservative Christian integrate his somewhat libertarian political beliefs within this political discussion? Yes, I am a “combat veteran” according to the Department of Veteran Affairs. Excluding the infrequent basic combat training, my time in the  Army were all as staff positions. Every level of training and every unit I was assigned was integrated. Throughout the totality of both my deployments I worked alongside of and was subordinate to women.

Being subordinate to women in those roles did not challenge my complementarian view of gender because Complementarianism concerns itself with the order of the home and church. I do not see it necessarily applying outside those institutions. I do not see a conflict between women in secular supervisory positions and a complementarianism. I do not see a clear theologically based teaching that would prohibit women from operating in combat roles.

Even in the designation of men as protector, the context is between a husband and wife. The Genesis account of the Fall makes certain implications that the man should be the protector, but again, that was a husband and wife context. The argument is “Why did God call to Adam even though Eve sinned first?” I think this implied that Adam should have protected his wife, he failed to protect her in that instance. The purpose of the text was not to articulate a firm position on gender roles, at best I have to insert my understandings to find that conclusion. The examples throughout the Old Testament where only men were designated as soldiers were descriptive over prescriptive. I think there are certain practical and strategic reasons why the armies in the ancient world were almost exclusively for men. Those reasons are not based in a theological understanding.

The best biblical instance of men being designated as the protectors come from the analogy of husband and wife to Christ and the Church. Once again, this is limited within the husband and wife relationship. This is where I derive that the man is to be the protector. To be the protector he does not have to have a disposition towards violence. In fact, I have known many women, Christ followers and not, who had better dispositions to physical hostility than men. Half jokingly even as ushers we have coined the emergency exit in the sanctuary adjacent to childcare as the “mama bear door.” Given the instance of an emergency evacuation, there is no question many moms will attain what might be superhuman strength and will to get to their children.

Whether one is predisposed to address physical hostility or not on a theological level is irrelevant. Remember, the basis of the Christian faith is to do things through God’s power and ability, not our own. Therefore the sacrificial husband needs only to sacrifice himself in obedience to God. Whether that means engaging in the fight he may or may not win, or he will pick up the extra shifts of work to provide, all of it is in obedience to Christ from the example he provided. To be the head means to set himself aside for the good of others. When there is a sacrifice to be made, it first comes from the man. Depending on the day, this may look like a burden or a joy, hopefully it will be a joy more than a burden.

Within the secular context, the sacrificial nature of the relationship tends to only exert itself in the dire circumstances. There is certainly a predominant view that men are natural protectors, whether this comes from an evolutionary understanding of society and social constructs or is an example of biblical masculinity, I would argue the popular understanding is a result of all the influences. Anecdotally, I have encountered many agnostic and non-theist men who held a “traditional” view of women and children especially when the issue relates to self defense. Especially in this nation of immigrants there are innumerable stories of poor families with hard working parents who provided opportunity for their kids they could not achieve. This is perhaps the most common and still compelling example of sacrifice in American society.

I do not see a clear biblical teaching which men ought to be generally postured towards violence. I know between my years in the military and working in numerous security capacities, I am not apprehensive to the idea of physical altercation. There is clear teaching that we ought to be Peacemakers. In the months that working as a Bouncer I have yet to get into a fight. Every opportunity so far, I have been able to de-escalate the tensions to prevent the fight that likely would have occurred. In contrast to the methods of my coworkers, the more I approach Security with an apprehension towards violence the more often the altercations are resolved peacefully. Throughout the process of conflict resolution one must be willing to recognize the real possibilities of harm, but one ought not look forward to it. Any violent action should only be done with the most reluctance. This is the same manner I approach my philosophy of self-defense. I have spent thousands of dollars in equipment and supplies. I’ve spent countless hours practicing at ranges and at home. These exercises are fun in their own right, but the purpose for which I train, I hope with the utmost sincerity will never be needed.

Anticipating Love Wins

I saw about a week ago from a facebook post Rob Bell is releasing a new book. Justin Taylor, a well known Reformed blogger, kicked off with a rather controversial blog about a controversial book by one of the most controversial pastors in America. I couldn't see the video of mention that many pastors have took full aim and depending where you stand either jumped the gun or addressed an important issue without haste. This is not about my speculation from Rob's video; it is rather hard to make an informed comment on a video I haven't been able to watch.

I have read all of Rob Bell's books thus far and I will read Love Wins. I don't read him because I particularly agree with what he writes, I read his writings because they reach audiences I am very concerned about. Like a parent taking an interest in their kid's video games or sports, when my students read a book you better believe I will read it too, if nothing else to discuss it regardless of content. I read his first book, Velvet Elvis, in an attempt to gain an understanding of the Emerging Church at the time. I continued to read his books when I learned a number of students read his material as well.

What have I gathered from Mr. Bell's writing until this week? He is one of the most gifted speakers I have heard. He is very creative in how he presents ideas and can quickly grab an audience through empathetic tone and genuine concern. On the other hand, in Velvet Elvis especially he proposed dangerous ideas but in his likeable fashion, those ideas we presented in a non-confrontational "just think about it" type of manner. I have yet to hear any response or clarification from his claims in Velvet Elvis. He does not need to answer to me by any means, as a pastor and teacher he is already held to a higher standard. I got to a point; whenever people discuss "What I think about Rob Bell" all I can say is "be careful". His roundabout speaking/writing style in combination with his rhetorically styled questions which offer no clarification can push people in a very dangerous direction without a firm foundation in scripture. This was where I was two weeks ago.

I cannot comment on what I have not read, what will be in Love Wins. Thanks to a recent blog post by Kevin Deyoung I can comment like Kevin did, on what Rob did say.

"Will only a few select people make it to heaven? And will billions and billions of people burn forever in hell? And if that’s the case, how do you become one of the few? Is it what you believe or what you say or what you do or who you know or something that happens in your heart? Or do you need to be initiated or take a class or converted or being born again? How does one become one of these few?

Then there is the question behind the questions. The real question [is], “What is God like?”, because millions and millions of people were taught that the primary message, the center of the gospel of Jesus, is that God is going to send you to hell unless you believe in Jesus. And so what gets subtly sort of caught and taught is that Jesus rescues you from God. But what kind of God is that, that we would need to be rescued from this God? How could that God ever be good? How could that God ever be trusted? And how could that ever be good news?

This is why lots of people want nothing to do with the Christian faith. They see it as an endless list of absurdities and inconsistencies and they say, why would I ever want to be a part of that? See what we believe about heaven and hell is incredibly important because it exposes what we believe about who God is and what God is like. What you discover in the Bible is so surprising, unexpected, beautiful, that whatever we have been told and been taught, the good news is actually better than that, better than we could ever imagine.
The good news is that love wins." - Rob Bell, Love Wins Trailer

As an example of Rob's speaking style in the trailer Kevin makes a comparable "video" to demonstrate Bell's speaking style in his Love Wins trailer. In Kevin's example he asks a series of rhetorical questions which don't sound like questions nearly as much as "just consider this" and continuous flow of "what ifs" strategically placed that one gets the sense these are statements, not questions. I read a number of the comments to Kevin's blog, one of the more frequent objections to Kevin's assessment of Mr. Bell's speaking style is "not to jump to conclusions solely based on a two minute video".

This is where I chime in, because unlike many of the commentators in Kevin's blog, I have read all of Rob's books. The speaking style from this video excerpt is one of Rob's hallmarks. He speaks the same way he writes. Rob will pose controversial questions to long held doctrinal beliefs and leave it at that, he opens the door to question what has been established as orthodoxy theology and does not develop the pseudo-claims any further.

I am reminded of parts in Velvet Elvis when Rob questions the necessity of the virgin birth of Jesus in just the same fashion as these lines of questions seem to imply Universalism. Perhaps the scariest thing that came to my mind as I read the text from the video, I was reminded of a section in scripture when similar speaking occurred. It was the conversation the serpent had with Eve... I am not saying I believe Rob Bell is Satan. I am saying the manner in which he writes/speaks and the content behind that may sadly be satanic. I hope I am wrong, but I will have to wait until the book is released to see what is truly said.

Re: 20/20 "If I Only Had a Gun"

Jonathan informed me while I was on Tour that 20/20 ran a special on Concealed Carry (CCW), so what did I do? First chance at high speed internet I get I sat down to watch it. I have generally been pleased with the "Special Reports" and whatnot conducted by 20/20 and their stories... generally. At the same time, on Tour I was able to read tid bits of John Lott's "More Guns, Less Crime", a truly boring yet informative read. I would liken the engaging prose of this work only to that of the same joy as measuring continental drift... but alas just as I ate cans of tuna for years for the protein, I can read the most boring of books they are informative.

Usually with such a simplistic title you'd think it would be a myriad of factual conclusions and rhetoric, instead it is a tedious analysis by an economist on crime statistics provided by various sources, among the most frequently cited are the exit polls from 1988, 1992,1996 and the FBI's annual crime reports. All of which simply provide raw data with no interpretation of the data offered. Although I am less than 1/4 through the book thus far, I have certainly grown a greater understanding of basic criminology. Simply comparing one state's violent crimes against another to show which is more or less safe is hardly useful. A few of the variables necessary to consider when examining crime at the state, county and local levels include: population density, population demographics, income level, police force size, arrest/conviction rate, rate of conceal carry holders, and availability of concealed carry permits. Remember these variables are just a small sample of things we ought to consider when measuring the change in crime and in hopes of finding a cause.

Back to the meat of this blog, I watched all the clips and nearly sat at my desk with my jaw dropped in awe of the stupidity of the "study". I also want to point out that the title of the Special Report seems to be an implicit reply to a headline which plastered international news directly following the Mumbai attacks. Quick summary, Sebastian D'Souza, a photo editor, witnessed the law enforcement hiding from the assailants in cowardice. The editor exclaimed "I wish I'd had a gun, not a camera". Then again after more in depth studies of the training, or lack thereof, for the Mumbai officers, I wouldn't blame them for their poor response. Many of the officers had not fired their weapons since initial academy training, including a number of detectives and officers with greater than 10 years on the force...

Enough of the segue; so the scenario set out to show average people ranging in experience to see if they could be effective in a mass shooting scenario. The six volunteers were given basic safety instruction by police instructors on proper pistol handling and then sent into a classroom with a Glock (I would bet it was a Glock 17), which is also a standard issue pistol for many police departments throughout the US. The pistol was tucked into the pants of a oversized white long sleeve shirt and loaded with training paint rounds. One armed volunteer was placed in a small lecture hall with ABC staff and police officers for a class on safety equipment. Upon donning the helmet in the class a armed assailant walked into the class, shot the teacher first, then proceeded to shoot the "students" in the class. Multiple hidden cameras were present to catch the immediate reaction of the armed volunteer to see how they could react. I have to give ABC credit, to a less discerning individual it would look pretty convincing that being armed in a mass shooting scenario would be pointless.

Now my fine toothed comb of analysis takes a crack at the given scenario. Being that one of the volunteers actually owned and regularly used his firearms I can't complain that they did not choose a good cross section of volunteers. Beyond that I have trouble giving an kind of credibility to the scenario. So let’s start the list:

1) Oversized long sleeve T-shirt - while I understand the safety factor necessary for the exercise on about half of the examples the shirt was a major hindrance to effectively drawing of their pistol. It was worn completely over the volunteers’ waist in such a way that about a foot of t-shirt had to be lifted to gain access to the weapon. In addition the weapon was placed in the pants without a holster in a rather thuggish manner. There are about as many different holsters and methods of carry as there are weapons to pick from. This move seemed like a deliberate spokes in the wheel. I had to wonder if any of the participant brought up this point?

2) Headgear - The individuals were wearing headgear (full wrap around helmets) when the attack took place. None had been conditioned on how to shoot with such hindrance and a typical situation would not involve the extra gear, although it is understood for safety reasons it is a factor which must be considered for "real world" application.

3) Weapon choice - The Glock 17 is a fine pistol however it is a full-sized pistol, not a very good choice for a concealed carry pistol. A proper concealed carry pistol for an averaged sized person would be a compact or sub-compact pistol with either a 4" or 3" barrel reducing the draw distance and thus increasing reaction time. Talking to retired law enforcement friends in Iraq (called LEPs) they explained to me the vast majority of shooting instances will be a such close range a full size pistol is unnecessary. This apparently is difficult to statistically verify. Then again, one of my sources spoke from multiple personal experiences, I'm glad he won. Regardless of range, the vast majority of concealed carry practitioners do not use full size firearms. Concerns include but are not limited, weight (carry around a 2lb weight everywhere you go, ounces make a difference), concealability (it is easier to conceal smaller items than bigger items), comfort (back to size and weight).

4) Controlled Environment - The volunteer was the only one who was unaware of what was happening, in addition none of the volunteers were previous CCW holders and thus some made spectacles of themselves about being armed. The entire point of concealed carry is that no one else knows you are armed and one should act low profile so as to not draw attention to oneself. Not everyone should carry a concealed weapon, several of the volunteers were such people.

5) Room Layout - the mini auditorium provided perfect field of fire for the shooter versus a conventional room. The shooter could enter and from the vantage point easily target anyone in the room.

6) Shooter - The shooter was an Emergency Response Team Instructor, the equivalent to the local SWAT instructor. Thus the physical responses the shooter would experience (as 20/20 pointed out the responder would experience) was greatly diminished in addition to being a highly trained shooter. Under such circumstances I would be surprised if any individual trained or untrained could effectively respond. The shooter also being tactically trained was not hindered by the protective equipment. The shooter was also mentally prepared for an armed individual to be present. This wholly undermined the value of the CCW experiment. Once again, the whole point is that the assailant does not know if there is or is not someone who can shoot back.

7) Short Time Span - Part of the tragedy of mass shooting events which statistically occur in "gun free zones" is that the initial victims are helpless due to the surprise and close quarters of the shooter. Sadly if the situation was real I would be surprised if any people in the initial room could effectively respond. The situation replicated attempted to address the Active Shooter scenario, but what of the other rooms. Upon hearing gunfire armed individuals could choose to confront or flee from the gun fire. For example in the Virginia Tech and Columbine shootings the shooters strolled the halls and attacked rooms which were easily accessible. The textbook doctrine to Active Shooter events is the sooner resistance occurs the fewer the casualties will result. This is why many police departments across the nation have patrol cars carry tactical weapons and armor for the fastest response to an active shooter situation. Prior to Columbine, the doctrine was to secure the area and wait for SWAT to arrive. When the issue became victims per minute, training and procedure adapted.

These are all points I noticed from watching the videos once... each individual point could cause significant change in the event a similar event actually occurred. Among the other points to note, CCW holders willing to put themselves in harm’s way should remain proficient with regular practice and maintain their weapon, in general be a responsible gun owner/user. Oh, and for those of you who would like to rely on police protection for your personal safety I wonder if you are aware of Castle Rock v. Gonzales, in which the US Supreme Court pointed out that private citizens do not have any right to police protection.

Epilogue: Not long ago a local news station ran a more realistic Active Shooter test. This was much more useful and not deliberately staged to get a certain political opinion. Of course it would be in Texas...

Civilian or Citizen?

I suppose this is what I get for bottling up all my thoughts for a month. My free time has been occupied by one of three topics for the better part of this month. Two of which have been rather constant since I have been out here, theology and learning how to be an A+ certified computer technician. The earlier this month I joined an organization which I have had minimal interaction, however, as part of my plans as a veteran and joyful civilian next year I saw it necessary to look into a topic I have long been an advocate but unsatisfyingly knowledgeable about.

Earlier this month I became a Life member of the National Rifle Association. As politically minded as I am it is odd I took so long to join. Some claim firearm ownership as a boyish hobby which its practitioners have never grown out of. In several ways I see firearm ownership as being the kind of American citizen the Founding Fathers wanted to encourage, an advocate of responsibility, and practitioner of Liberty. I tend to distinguish a civilian is a unofficial individual which inhabits the same country and a citizen is an active member of the country seeking to uphold good law and order.

While riding the Underground in London. I was simultaneously inspired and disappointed at the sight of posters calling for volunteer watchmen. The initiative sought civilians to receive several weeks of training and an opened commitment to a certain number of volunteer hours to be trained patrol officers. It was encouraging because the call for the citizenry’s participation in protecting and upholding order and law, but the disappointment was the fact that unarmed citizens were being utilized to attempt to prevent crime. I found the scope of authority to be comparable to a hall monitor on the streets of London. Their authority could easily be negated and they put themselves in harm's way without an effective means to defend themselves being they were equipped with a Maglite and a whistle. I could see it so clearly.

Watchman: "Stop or I’ll call the unarmed police!"

Criminal: "..."

The best possible outcome would have the perpetrator ceasing the activity and likely escaping the scene unless the Watchmen was able to secretly call for support.

The UK has among the strictest gun control in the world. Disarming a nation does lead to a certain level of success because that nation is an island. However, because guns are so unavailable, stabbings lead the way in violent crimes. The violence still exists the means to carry it out are merely modified. To claim carrying a knife can prevent crime in similar manner as carrying a gun can gives me the image of Peter Pan fighting Captain Hook, dagger vs. a sword.

The nature of projectile weapons greatly increases the safety in the attacker-defender scenario. Imagine witnessing a crime about to occur, if I had a knife intervening would require very close contact with the potential criminal, and such intervention would not be effective. The greater the proximity between the intervening party and the potential offending party, the safer both will be. If the intervening party possesses a firearm there is a significant threat to the would-be-criminal while the intervening citizen can remain in relative safety. It is possible the would-be-criminal might also be armed but that is when surprise and a logical approach to the situation (such as calling law enforcement prior to being involved) could be beneficial. While it would ultimately be safer for the uninvolved civilian to not intervene such a decision is the difference between a social leech and an authentic citizen. In fact, society even praises such intervention and in some states requires it with “Good Samaritan law". On the flip side, in this world of political correctness even the well meaning Good Samaritan can become the criminal.

I wrote a paper in community college which analyzed the relationship between the presence of legal firearms amongst California, Texas, New York and Illinois and the per capita violent crimes involving firearms. I also conducted similar analysis on the national level between the US, Switzerland, UK, Japan and Australia. It was hardly a controlled analysis which could make the cover of Time as a breakthrough in research, but the trends were clearly apparent. Among the most vexing facts the anti-gun crowd must address are the defensive gun uses compared to criminal gun uses. This is the best article I have seen that has addressed the numbers.

I also think common sense is also a strong ally. They are all but clichés and bumper stickers at this point but their truth still echoes. An armed law abiding citizen poses greater safety for the individual because they are able to actively engage those who threaten one's’ safety. Be it the articles I have read by 2nd Amendment advocates, Op-Eds, or the recent attention the Open Carry practitioners have been receiving, I detect a strong sense of personal responsibility amongst those who own firearms. While the self defense argument is hardly what I believe to be the constitutional reasoning behind the 2nd Amendment it is one of the most valid arguments against those who wish to disarm the public.

Perhaps the most entertaining side of the 2nd Amendment is the opposition’s arguments against law abiding citizens possessing weapons. Often they sight criminal activity as the result of firearms, however; the problem with their logic is that it does not apply to the law abiding citizenry. Too frequently it seems the opposition does not distinguish between law abiding armed citizens and criminals. Be it those opposed to private gun ownership, Open Carry, or even the existence of firearms, they speak as though they have this immunity to responsibility and those who are armed are this terrified group of individuals lacking trust in law enforcement as the answer to all of crime. The irony that those who are willing to be able to prevent crime are deemed the fearful is inescapable. There seems to me that too many people want a Utopia and the means to get there is by thinking happy thoughts. I see similar rhetoric from peace advocates who speak as though they have experience fighting for a cause when it never cost them more than a paper cut passing out flyers or a sore throat from shouting for their cause. Perhaps the supreme advantage of being a veteran, my experience of sacrifice and service cannot be questioned.

Epilogue: I upgraded my NRA membership when I was at the 2009 Annual Convention. I am still very aware of what is going on in California and nationally concerning firearms policy and law. I have taken dozens of people to local shooting ranges, many of whom had never shot a firearm before. I think education is the best way to approach this discussion. If you read this, want to go to the range, and are within reasonable distance, let me know. I would be happy to teach you. I did not become a computer technician. Hopefully one day, I will be a Professor of Political Science.