In one day, the proposed federal assault weapons ban runs out of breath and the Arizona Senate passes a bill allowing teachers to carry guns in school.
I’ve written before of my antipathy toward guns. That I’m not a fan is no secret. But here’s a basic question seeking earnest answers: what is the value of a gun?
Clearly guns are valuable. Their production, sale, and possession is vigilantly protected by the most powerful lobbying outfit in the land. But in what does their value consist? I’m asking you, dear reader, to post an answer in the comments. Here are a couple of ground rules:
- Defense against others with guns doesn’t count as value. That’s simply a circular argument.
- Flameouts against guns and their defenders aren’t helpful.
- Answer the question: what is the value of a gun? Then stop.
Somebody, please, make the case for the value of a gun. I’m eager to hear it.
YoRocko! 
I think the value of a gun is power. First of all the mechanics of the instrument enable a gun to deliver projectiles with incredible force and accuracy. The function is performed effectively, with efficiency. That is by the laws of physics one definition of power. But there is another type of power guns provide: power as influence or control. Simply possessing an instrument with such physical capabilities can influence feelings of safety/security/self-sufficiency while perceiving another with such an instrument can influence feelings of fear/intimidation/submission. This is true whether the interaction is between humans in conflict or between humans and animals through hunting. When the physical function is employed, a gun elevates the potential influence and control to the level of protecting life or exacting death. Here again, is tremendous power.
My man Seth Svaty! Great to have your voice here. Great, great, great. That’s one vote for a guns’ utility for exercising power.
I think you should reframe the question. One way to think about the question of guns is “what is the value of force?”
Guns are not the same as force, but force is a large part of what they are. So it’s useful to think abstractly of force.
Force can be used in defense and in coercion. And the threat of force is extremely effective
Force is kind of an old Testament Idea. As I recall, quite a number of things were listed as punishable by force (stoning was popular).
The New Testament seemed more about natural consequences.
But once we talk about force, and decide that force is acceptable and necessary under X conditions, then the question is “How can we most effectively use necessary force in this acceptable instance?”
A gun is a very effective tool for using force. And if it is determined that force of that specific kind is needed, then it is righteous to use the best tool for the purpose.
In my opinion, one should be sober and thoughtful about the use of force. But when force is required, I should be prepared to use it. It is not an easy thing to contemplate, and I suspect it might be even harder to actually DO. So, having mental drills and discussions about it seems responsible.
It seems irresponsible not to be prepared.
Thoughtful as always, Murphy. Thank you. The value of a gun, then, is as a tool for the exercise of force, which can be done to good or bad purposes. I wonder if there’s a distinction between your “force” and Seth’s “power?”
Ok, now that I tried to answer your question and stop, please forgive this post script commentary. I spoke of power (dunamis), in terms of a gun’s physics (phusis) and psychology (psuche). In my opinion, the natural design of a gun is poor stewardship of creation; it employs the governing scientific laws and own creativity in ways that cause severe imbalance in order (how Presbyterian, right?). More severe are the psychological effects: guns are designed and used to control life. This is apotheotic; we position ourselves as God and thereby become idolatrous.
I’ve used guns though my respect for them still borders on fear. I’m not opposed to the second amendment rights afforded citizens, but I am deeply disappointed that the assault weapons ban will not be a part of the bill. There is much to this malaise in our nation.
That’s a valuable post-script. I can’t get around the technological view of a gun, ala Marshall McLuhan, as an “extension of Man.” Like all tools and technologies, guns extend and amplify a human capability. I hear your expressing dis-ease with both the physical and psychological ripples created by that extension.
To the thousands of hunters in this country guns are a tool for a sport or for food ( depends on the hunter). I was raised with a father who hunted and the meat from said hunts would feed our family during the lean times. There are still people out there like that. There also is sport – trap shooting, target shooting etc.
Hunting. Got it. Thanks mom!
As Donna said, my neighbors hunted and used the meat. That has value… Though seeing the dead deer always freaked me out, I eat meat daily.
Another voice for hunting. Matthew. The best.
Guns are, indeed, a tool, just like any other tool. In that they are valuable, especially when one person has one and another doesn’t, or the other has a bigger one. They are valuable for enforcing power, getting food, as well as self protection (but, as I state on my own blogpost on this matter, self-protection is statistically rare in this country…and I’m trying to find the reference that backs that up…read it some time ago).
Ultimately, and sadly, the value of a gun in this day and age is too often to boost up weak and fragile egos. There are many who own guns who do not flaunt their gun ownership, and I respect them. But for those who have to flaunt it, my fear is that they are using a very dangerous weapon for pop-psychological ego boosting–not a value I share.
The other value is public safety, but only because so many people have guns do we need to have public safety personal also with guns–a vicious and escalating spiral.
I know…more commentary than you wanted…I didn’t stop. But that’s best I can do. Great question, Rocky. Thanks.
I might add that a car is also a tool, and a dangerous one at that, and we have laws, policies, and procedures that try to protect the public from those who cannot handle the responsibility of driving safely. It’s not a perfect system, but a relatively effective system.
Eric, do you see any value in guns?
Well, I guess I danced around it…but I’m not sure what you mean by “value”. Yes, they have value in certain contexts (hunting, protection, enforcing someone’s version of order). Do I “value” them as in “appreciate” them? The answer is no. I do not like guns. So, not sure how you’re asking the question.
You were direct enough, my friend. I hear lots of defenses of guns’ legality. What I’m after is the case for their value, that is, the contribution they make to a society.
okay…I’m stepping away from the OP rules. But…here are some further thoughts.
Guns and the use of force are a symptom of an imperfect (fallen) world. In a perfect world, we would not need to use force. We would not need to hunt, and per Genesis NOTHING would need to die.
But this ain’t that. We are this side of perfect. And this side of perfect requires response to imperfection as well as the opportunity to practice imperfection.
[ i practice imperfection every day…once day I will perfect it…ROFL]
*wiping away tears of laughter*
Okay, in a perfect world we wouldn’t need to use force or guns. Guns are a reminder of the fallen state of the world, and therefore make me uncomfortable.
I think YOU, rev.Rocky, are particularly uncomfortable with the use of force and especially guns, because your pastoral calling is pretty much the opposite of force.
As a pastor you are supposed to be healing, and comforting, binding broken hearts and souls. I bet I would run out of mercy and patience with all that sort of thing PRETTY FAST. I wouldn’t want to be put to the test the way you are. But it’s what you do, and I am sure you aspire to higher and higher exercise of that holy calling.
But…if the world were not fallen, your pastoral gifts would not be needed. We would all be in perfect communion, not wounded and not needing comfort.
Its the flip side of force.
And to push the metaphor further, there are people who are called to use force in this imperfect world. There are warriors, soldiers and policemen for example, who have a calling to do this thing that many people would not want to do.
There are times when I am called to do a pastoral sort of thing, and comfort the hurting or minister to others for a time. I am not a pastor, but sometimes I have to do that sort of thing in my life.
There are also times when I am called to use force in the cause of good.
This world is complicated and frustrating. It’s not one thing or another.
In response to:
“As a pastor you are supposed to be healing, and comforting, binding broken hearts and souls. I bet I would run out of mercy and patience with all that sort of thing PRETTY FAST. I wouldn’t want to be put to the test the way you are. But it’s what you do, and I am sure you aspire to higher and higher exercise of that holy calling.”
I have to ask: If we are Christians (i.e., followers of the Way of Jesus), aren’t we all called to this way of life? Aren’t we all to be aspiring to a higher and higher exercise of that holy calling? Yes, pastors (and I am one) are called to help a community in their journey of faith, but it is only through all of us working to aspire to live as Jesus lived, do as Jesus did, and seek to continue Jesus’ work of transforming the world into a more peaceful and holistic place.
I agree, however, that sadly sometimes force is necessary, but we must be very judicious and critical of our use of any force. Even after, I hope and pray we consider whether there was another way, and maybe way before it got to the point when we had to decide whether or not to use force. There are times when I, as a pastor, have had to be forceful and even violent (breaking up a fight, trying to protect someone, etc.). My challenge to guns, however, are that they do not invite transformation, rather they end any hope for transformation.
Just a thought. (And please understand, I appreciate what you are saying…but it is really up to ALL of us, not just a select few in particular roles).
you are showing your bias TREOL…yes we are called. Sometimes we are called to mercy, and sometimes we are called to use force. Even Jesus used force (the moneychangers). He used mercy more than force, by a huge margin. And most people are probably going to need to practice mercy more than force.
Since we use more mercy than force, the pulpit should probably talk about mercy more than force. But a discussion of proper use of force should probably be somewhere on teh agenda.
But I think a conversation about this that starts with the tone of “EW! guns are icky and make my tummy hurt” is disrespectful to those who are called to use force.
Using force as a calling: that’s a helpful elements to raise
another good topic: under what circumstances can the use of guns provide opportunity for transformation?
That is a good question! I like that last part. On my blog post in regard to this, I clearly state I have nothing against guns or people owning guns, though I am not a fan of them myself (witnessed too much). I’m still struggling with Rocky’s original question: What is the value of guns? There are other ways to hunt (and more sporting ways, IMO). There are other ways to seek peace. There are other sports in which we can engage.
I pray for those who are called to use force every day: police, correctional officers, military, those charged with carrying out executions on behalf of the state, even parents sometimes (though hopefully not with a gun). There are others: nurses, fire fighters and paramedics (especially with unruly crowds or difficult victims). I continue to pray for a day when we won’t have to do such things, or when we can at least be more sparing in our use of communal violence.
Prayer is a critical part of figuring this out
Nation building?
FYI (and excuse the plug, Rocky): my blogpost (which uses Guns as an example) is at: http://www.faithandcoffee.com/2013/03/economics-gun-control-and-hb-2455.html
This is very well put
Recently I saw a freind’s facebook post, which informs my view of this discussion:
“When I joined the military I understood that my job was to kill people and break things (or assist others in doing the same) in support of my government’s policies — often in support of policies I did not agree with. I served for more than 20 years with the full belief that “I am an american fighting man. I server in the forces which protect my country and our way of life. I am prepared to give my life in their defense”…. for this I am labeled a “domestic terror threat”. What happened? and why is no one outraged? The only reason that these people can sleep safely at night is because rough men (and women) stand ready to do harm on their behalf. And this is how we, (the rough people) get treated? We deserve better.”
This is to say that he feels alienated from many parts of society. He felt he was using force in a careful, and certainly legal way.
Force happens in life all kinds of ways. If the church’s discussion of this fact of life is dismissive and exclusionary, then the church is missing an opportunity.
a few sundays ago, Rocky, you led a discussion about how families don’t look like the cookie cutter template we have in our heads. It’s not JUST mom, dad and 1.4 children. Families come in all forms.
I would say that forms of force and gun usage are varied too. Talking about it could be a source of healing.
I hear you loud and clear that there’s an opportunity here for the church to be a constructive part of this discussion. We have a 9:00 Sunday am forum scheduled for this discussion in April. This post has produced what I hoped it would–constructive conversation about what a gun is good for, rather than the routine 2nd-amendment-defense vs. pacifism rhetoric. Thanks for your contributions.