Is Gun Control a Pro-Life Issue?
— Tuesday, July 24th, 2012 —
As the nation grieves over the shocking and senseless murder in Aurora, Colorado, the conversation turns to how to prevent such violence in the future. Some wonder what role violent media play in motivating twisted killers. Others suggest that stricter gun control is a key step in curtailing such havoc. Some of these are suggesting that gun control is not only the only sensible measure but the only thing consistent with a pro-life ethic.
In this morning’s Washington Post, David Gibson of the Religion News Service examines the charges by some religious leaders, most specifically a Jesuit priest in America magazine, that it is hypocritical to call oneself “pro-life” and yet not support extensive gun control measures. He asked me what I thought. Is gun violence a pro-life issue?
Gun violence is clearly a pro-life issue to the extent that murder is evil and a violation of the dignity of the person and the right to life. That said, usually what people mean by including gun violence as a pro-life issue is not about gun violence, directly, but about gun control measures.
I don’t own a gun, and have no desire to do so, but I hold to pretty traditional conservative views about the Second Amendment as a personal and individual right. Like every other constitutional right, this right isn’t unlimited and all-expansive. But I’m generally suspicious of gun control measures as naive and ineffective, if not counter-productive, preferring to combat gun violence with strict law enforcement of existing laws. Having said that, I hold my Second Amendment views for different reasons and with different conviction than I hold my First and Second Commandment views.
My views on this issue are informed, I hope, by my conscience as a Christian, which is to be shaped by Scripture and the church. But my position on this question is not “Thus saith the Lord.” It’s “Thus thinketh Moore,” and there’s a big difference.
Many Christians and other pro-lifers support gun control measures, of course, and some support very extensive measures. But the question of gun control is a different question than the issue of gun violence itself.
The gun control debate isn’t between people who support the right to shoot innocent people and those who don’t. It’s instead a debate about what’s prudent, and what’s not, in solving the common goal of ending criminal violent behavior. That’s why orange-vested NRA members and vegan gun-control advocates can co-exist, as the Body of Christ, in the same church, without excommunicating one another.
The abortion rights question is a different one, both in American political culture and within the structure of Christian life and thought.
Tut the question of whether the unborn child is a human person bearing all the right to life. Wherever one stands on gun control, no one is denying the personhood of gun victims or their right to be protected from violence. Whatever one thinks about gun control, no one in the American debate today supports selling guns to those who intend to kill. The question instead is how to prevent guns from being used criminally. Some think gun control measures are a necessary way to do this; others think such laws are averting the real issue altogether, which is about enforcing existing laws not creating new ones. That’s a very different debate than the cultural divide over whether life in the womb is worth legal protection at all.
Behind all of this, there’s a larger question. I agree that pro-life convictions are about more than just abortion. We ought to be pro-life and whole life. Our convictions about the dignity of women and children harmed by abortion ought to prompt us to stand against criminal violence and dehumanization wherever it is. But we ought not to let the term “pro-life” become so elastic as to lose all meaning. In most cases, the expansion of “pro-life” is a way to divert attention from the question of pershonhood and human rights.
Gun violence is a pro-life issue in that it is a horrible evil, and it ought to remind us that all persons deserve protection from such violence. That doesn’t mean that we’re going to agree on all the specifics of how to achieve that goal. The abortion issue isn’t about prudential means to a common goal, but about legally protecting those who are subject to lethal violence.
Let’s grieve for the victims of gun violence. And let’s work to reason together about the best ways to achieve the common good on helping to prevent guns from being used for malevolent ends. Let’s let our pro-life convictions guide our consciences to work for peace and justice for all persons. But let’s see the difference between questions of clear conviction and questions of provisional prudence.
Yes, indeed. There are some issues on which a biblical worldview demands a clear response, and others not so much so. The problem is that we as conservative evangelicals often fall into the trap of accepting the following false syllogism: 1) my biblical worldview demands a clear response on issue A; 2) political party A takes a position on issue A that appears to be in accord with a biblical worldview; 3) political party A also takes views on issues B, C & D that may or may not be in accord with a biblical worldview; 4) because political party A takes these views, they must be the correct views; 5) although I can’t put together a cogent biblical argument in favor of my position on issues B, C, & D, I must assume it to be the biblical position, because it accords with the position of political party A on these issues. As a result, we lose credibility in the eyes of the world, and cause division within the Body of Christ where there ought to be unity.
Russel,
Gun control being a pro life issue is like scalpel control being a pro life issue. We don’t blame abortion on the proliferation of scalpels.All a gun is is an instrument, the problem lies with the person wielding the gun.
It truly is ironic (not hypocritical?) that the group most opposed (politically) to the killing of innocent children before birth is the same group most opposed (politically) to restricting weapons of mass murder … is it not? It also seems bitterly ironic that our society finds violence and murder so entertaining when it’s on the movie or video screen, yet so appalling when it happens in real life. For the past 20 years or so, we have come to expect “another shooting” every 18 months to two years. It happens in post offices, recruiting stations, schools, restaurants, churches, places full of innocent people minding their own business. Now one has happened in a theater where innocent people paid to be entertained by lots of violence and murder. This is tragically ironic. Sin is out of control, and it takes shocking exhibitions like “the latest shooting” to get our attention. This makes us long for the lordship of Jesus (Isa 2:3-5).
@Hal Dixon, Hal- to support responsible gun ownership is neither ironic nor “hypocritical”. The argument you make is the stepchild of the “why does a supposedly Good God allow bad things to happen to innocent people” argument. There are good people, bad people, and evil people, all of whom are allowed to exist here on this sinful earth. Choices are made by all. You are right on one thing, this earth has a sin issue. We cannot always stop or avoid evil when it happens, but we can pray for our world and each other, and believe that God is soverign, and believe that even these despicable acts using guns will in some way further God’s plan. Because I believe in the end we will see that these acts will be seen as part of His plan. Otherwise we don’t worship the True God. As an aside, millions of unprotected and innocent babies are murdered every year in the name of “woman’s rights”. and there’s hardly a peep by anyone. When was the last time you’ve heard that any pastor or person with any kind of authority [religous or otherwise] has made this an “important” public issue for Christians, or for anyone for that matter ? You haven’t. You won’t. The incidents like the recent one in Colorado are publicised precisely because the media is anti-gun. If they were anti-murder, there would be a constant stream of information as to our real “dirty secret”.
As a gun owner I just wanted to say thank you Dr Moore for this well reasoned and reasonable response to the issues at hand. Let us not become like the Corinthians that were more proud of their freedoms than they were of the God that had set them free!! Blessings, Aaron Smith
Two facts:
* Britain has as many gun deaths in a year as the USA has in a weekend.
* Allowing for the differences in population, that means that the rate of gun death in the USA is twenty times what it is in the UK or even “godless Europe” or even more godless Scandinavia.
Does anyone here have any idea why? I don’t.
@Ross Clark,
Yes because of more restirctions!!
Is that the answer–no
Did you see what happened in one of you Scandinavian countries last year
was around 100 dead even more injured!!
Also I like to live in a country where I do not get arrested for having biblical views on gender roles and society
Restrictions is not the solution to Gun problems
Its America’s refusal to understand that its men need help, they need families,they need to get themselves educated.
Most violence against women is from uneducated men!!
May be if our administration did something for men they will actually reduce crime and other abuses against women.
Oh and in your European utopia they believe Children are a curse - hence a low population (They even debate in their parliaments the right to kill a child until age 7- after all a woman’s right surpasses all!)
I love our freedoms!! and hopefully you can call these countries godless without your sarcastic tone!!
As an outsider (British), I always find it interesting to listen in on political issues in the US.
In the UK gun control is much heavier than in the US and we never have gun massacres. So I find it hard to believe to think of “gun control measures as naive and ineffective”.
The founding fathers were in a very different era where having a right to raise arms was the only way to protect your land from marauding Indians or violent thugs. If they grew up in today’s society (where police do the protecting), I’m sure they’d make the sensible and civilised decision.
What do you lose by stricter gun laws? Nothing. What do you gain? People not being murdered as regularly or as easily. I can’t see the problem.
@Tim Wilson,
“What do you lose by stricter gun laws?”
Gun rights of course. Don’t make straw men.
Here is the central problem, gun control laws only work on those who follow the law. The kind of people that you want to carry a gun (law biding citizens) cannot carry, and the criminals, who don’t care about the law, do carry. Making more laws ONLY affects law biding citizens. Mass murders are not deterred by the threat of violating a gun law.
@Tim Wilson,
It will be interesting to know how many women have been able to protect themselves from abuse because they were allowed to possess a gun
@Tim Wilson,
I am sure that you understand that the US is a far different country than the UK. Based on your comments, I do not think that you fully realize the size and significance of those differences. It’s a bit insulting to say that our founding fathers would make “the sensible and civilised decision”, and allow strict gun control while depending on the police to provide protection.
Americans know that the police cannot always provide protection. The police, in many cases, take many minutes, sometimes hours, to respond to a call for help. Further, our national government is unable or unwilling to protect our borders which exposes U.S. citizens to even more risks. Since the police cannot offer assured protection, Americans have every right to protect themselves.
While the police in a small, more homogeneous country whose borders are the sea may be able to protect their people, it is naive to assume that the police can do the same thing in the U.S.
The UK does have crazy riots !! far worse than America
I wonder how many women have not been abused just because they had a gun in their possession.
Tim W. asked, “What do you lose by stricter gun laws?” and answered “Nothing.” Not true.
What ordinary people lose is the ability to defend themselves against bad people who are physically bigger, stronger, meaner and/or tougher than they are.
Think about it. Suppose we could take all guns out of private ownership tomorrow. How would the average American protect themselves and their families against break-ins, street crime, etc? Most people in big cities are afraid to walk on the street, with good reason. Ever seen a knife attack? If you aren’t a streetfighter it’s a scary thing. Wouldn’t you like to be able to fight back?
Let’s turn the argument around. Don’t “gun-control” laws assure the criminal that their victims are unlikely to be able to offer any resistance, particularly if female or elderly? Are criminals entitled to a risk-free assault?
Politicians can insulate themselves in government buildings with screeners. Celebrities can hire bodyguards. The well-to-do can live in gated communities. What about Granny?
Gun-control laws just make the streets safer for the bad guys. If you doubt this, go for a walk at night in NYC, Chicago or LA.
Thank you, Dr. Moore, for your essay. I wish that all discussions of this issue–certainly among brothers and sisters in Christ–would be conducted in respectful language and an irenic spirit, but such seems not to be the case. I believe in second amendment rights, truly, but recognize that these are necessarily not limitless and open-ended. Thus, I have concerns and reservations about the availability of types of assault weapons. When one sincere congressman was asked to what purpose these served beyond the military and law enforcement, all he would answer–five or six times consecutively–is that there are always crazy people out there who’ll do terrible things. This, he followed, with a diatribe that carricatured people who have some specific problems in this one area. To have a discussion, it behooves us to address concerns and questions civilly and answer them thoughtfully.
I know this doesn’t respond to the point of the article, but I wish just for once that I would be suprised by orthodox christian brothers and sisters. I guess I am just suspicious becuase every answer to the issues of the day whether it be gun control, charity or ministries of mercy, the death penalty, etc. seem to tow the party line. Doesnt that make you suspicious? We know that Christianity is going to rub up against and challenge our cultural assumptions. The fact that it doesn’t seem to do that when it comes to evangelicals opinions on todays issues makes me think we are missing something.
Put succinctly, I am very suspicious when all of our answers match up with one particular political party. Especially, when our brothers and sisters in different countries have completely different opinions. It is just too much of coincidence that American Evangelicals think the Bible lines up with right wing conservative values. Right?
@Adam Hawkins,
As I replied above, on this issue and others like it, I am starting to see myself believe politically different than most of my orthodox American brothers and sisters. I dropped my Republican Party status a while back and decided to take each issue and see if it could stand up on its own. I believe gun rights do stand up on their own as a matter of Christian AND American (they are not the same, btw) liberty, but just barely.
I too appreciate the civil tone of this piece. Most discussions of Second Amendment rights and the epidemic of gun violence quickly degenerate into a shouting match of dueling slogans.
Nevertheless I wonder if the vehement reaction to suggestions that weapons and ammo like those used by the Aurora mass murderer should be restricted betrays an idolatrous hold that gun ownership has in some segments of our society.
I too appreciate the tone of this article, and I agree that abortion and gun control are not the same issue. My best friend (a strong evangelical believer) and I are from politically opposite sides of the aisle, although as he has seen where the left has gone in recent years, he has moved away from some of their positions.
One point I would underline regarding gun control vs liberty in this area is that the bad guys always have guns. Mexico is a country with very strict gun control laws, and around 40,000 people have been killed in drug violence in the last few years. While some of them die in battles with law enforcement, many are innocent bystanders who chose not to walk the way of the drug lords. Eighty years or so ago, then Mexican President Lazaro Cardenas armed the common man to stop the upheaval and abuses, and as a result Mexico had a stable government for decades. (compare this to modern Switzerland).
Along with Stephen, the confounding issue here is that in the United States, many people worship guns as idols. As the top rated comment on a related New York Times article says, “We cannot discuss gun control because guns have basically become a religious issue to many. The gun is a magical object with magical powers to preserve life and peace, which makes it a religious object, a totem or talisman or idol. Trying to restrict this religious object freaks too many people out.” This is why there’s over a hundred million guns in this country and yet no one in a crowded movie theater had a gun to shoot back at James Holmes. To many people, where the Word is the sword of the Spirit, the gun is the sword of the flesh. People buy ridiculously overpowered guns, guns that are tools and symbols of war and death, and mount them in their homes, take pictures holding them, etc., defending their guns as one might defend the right to own a Bible.
This is not to say that those who support personhood issues cannot also support gun rights. The question has always been prudence. After all, I cannot simply go out and buy a nuclear bomb. But discussions of any sort of gun control (this post included) with the same depth of detail, nuance and passion given to abortion do not occur - we say to ourselves “enforce existing laws” and move on. It makes me think that guns are idols in this country.
@Joel B. I’m not sure it classes as a straw man, but I take your point. What I was trying to say is what good things do you gain by having a gun?
I would argue your point on the fact that in our country the gun laws are so strict that it is very hard for criminals to get hold of guns. It hasn’t ended gun crime, if you are an organised crime syndicate you can get guns as easy as you get herorin. But if you’re some nutter who thinks he’s the next Batman villain you’d never be able to make the contacts. I don’t think you understand how difficult it is to get guns in our country.
@kash charles Do women actually carry guns in their handbags? That seems incredible to me, but I admit my ignorance. I struggle to believe a woman would pull the trigger on an assailant but maybe that is a cultural difference.
@Bob Peterson I apologise for the use of rhetorical language. I must admit, to me this all seems very uncivilised.
I think your point shows a lack of knowledge of the ethnic diversity of British culture. Our lack of land borders makes us more likely to have immigrants. It’s a lot easier to land on a beach than it is to get across an armed fence. There are obviously no stats on illegal immigrants, but we top the charts on Asylum seekers with 92,000 in 2001, with the US at 86,000. And that of course doesn’t include the nations of Europe who can all enter our country freely (including of course Eastern Europeans). In short the idea of the UK as a homgenous is not true.
Now I have no doubt you have many more illegal immigrants than we do (though I’m not sure as a percentage of the population). My point is immigration is a problem for us too. I just don’t see how guns are the solution.
Don’t get me wrong. British culture is incredibly violent, there are many crimes I am ashamed are committed within our borders. There is only one truly good nation, that in heaven. We have street gangs and as another commenter noted crazy riots for no apparent reason. But at the end of the day gun crime in the UK is incredibly rare and such an event as this could not have happened in the UK. I think the idea that gun control laws do not work does not stand up to the evidence.
Excellent word. Thank you brother.
There was an incident in Colorado wher another crazy nut armed with quite a bit of ammo who was going into a church to blast and kill the people in the church. (He had already killed one woman.) BUT, there was an off duty police officer there with his gun, and pulled his revolver and shot this potential murderer before he could have killed dozens of humans in the church.
Why haven’t we heard about this incident on the media acroos our nation?
Indeed. There have been many times in the past few months people have used a gun to protect themselves and loved ones - man in Florida, new mom with young baby after her husband died just a bit before, a young boy home with even younger siblings, and more.
Per requests for some factual information,
http://justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp#crime
• 42% of Americans will be the victim of a completed violent crime (assault, robbery, rape) in the course of their lives
• 83% of Americans will be the victim of an attempted or completed violent crime
• 52% of Americans will be the victim of an attempted or completed violent crime more than once[24]
Even on NPR yesterday (Friday), two researchers admitted that at least for the US they have been able to establish no real relationship between gun control measures/laws and reductions in crime, death, etc. (and then went on to say, despite this, we really need more gun control measures).
On the contrary, a number of studies and tracking of statistics have shown that states that have loosened concealed carry measures rules over the past decade have seen statistically significant drops in crime, some that are quite stunning.
As a number of people have commentated elsewhere, the problem in the theater wasn’t too many guns, but too few, and too few people willing and trained to act to protect themselves and others.
I strongly encourage all believers who do own guns to get substantial training to use them as safely, effectively, and biblical as possible, and to actually be able to do so if the time comes.
From a biblical point of view, my family’s safety is not entrusted to the police, but to me. The average rate of response from police is 7 or more minutes, depending on where you live. For us, it is easily 10-15. My hope isn’t in the police to protect my family, but the Lord’s providence and example as a “warrior” on behalf of his people. I am to be/display that warrior on behalf of my family and others.
It is my duty as husband and father to, as best I can given my finiteness and frailty, protect them and give them tools to protect themselves in my absence.
Brother Moore doesn’t own a gun? This I would consider irresponsible in light of his duty to protect his family from criminals who would harm them, whether they be drug-crazed thugs or power hungry socialists. It is also a breaking of the local church covenant in which mutual protection is involved.
The founding fathers were not all New Testament Christians, but still they understood that the right to bear arms was most necessary, not for shooting game, but as a final check against unlawful power grabs by the government. (see the Federalist Papers)
The preachers who are teaching that Romans 13 makes us slaves to the government (utter obedience in all things whatsoever) are both unbiblical and cowardly, and no shepherds to their flocks. I’m sure brother Moore doesn’t go that far, but avoiding gun ownership is paramount to offering up one’s self and family to slavery.