Skip to main content

Mass Shootings: Root & Branch

Whenever a mass shooting occurs, especially at a school, two questions go through my head:

1) What kind of prescription medication was the shooter taking?

2) What kind of family life did the shooter have?

It seems like the majority of time I can answer these questions without bothering to read the coverage.

Firearms are, fundamentally speaking, tools.  Tools do their masters' bidding, enabling those who wield them effectively to accomplish their goals or ends more efficiently.  These goals can be productive (building houses, preparing food, etc.) or destructive (theft, murder, etc.).  Throughout history firearms have been used for many productive purposes, especially hunting and self-defense (individually and nationally).

This concept is not difficult to understand.  We all recognize it in our daily lives.  Many medicines and supplements are poisons if taken in excessive dosages, many household products can be deadly if not used carefully, many machines in factories can lead to injury or death, and so on and so forth.  

Inanimate objects are what we make of them.  

The problem, then, is not the tool, but the design or goal in the heart or mind of the individual wielding the tool.  Subsequently, the solution must address the actual problem that lies behind the act, not an incidental tool used in the act.  Treating symptoms will never heal the disease.  In other words, the answer to preventing mass murder will never be banning a tool.  If you remove one tool from the hands of the criminal hell-bent on bloodshed, another tool will take its place.  Evil men will stop at nothing to accomplish their goals, and firearms are far from the only tool available to effect the goal of mass casualties (remember the OKC bombing?).

This leads us back to where we started.  What factors seem to connect all these mass murders?  If we investigate those factors and work to remediate them, perhaps we will find some success in eliminating the end result to which they lead.

Except, maybe we can't.  Maybe we can't because we don't really want to.  Maybe as a culture we are not willing to make the changes required to address the real problem.  

We'd rather medicate, legislate, and fornicate.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

4 Reasons I Affirm Paedocommunion

If you have interacted with me on social media, you know that I have always been outspoken on the issue of Paedocommunion .  It is a theological position and a liturgical practice about which I am passionate.  Having been raised, and having raised my children, at the Table, I cannot imagine attending a church that didn't allow PC.  I hope that when I am old and gray, I will still be an advocate for bringing little children to the Sacrament. Throughout the 12 years that I have had this blog, I have written scattered thoughts on the topic, but it appears that I have never written a concise summary of my reasons for affirming PC.  I was thoroughly convinced that I had, but I can't seem to locate it, so I guess I never did.  So, to rectify the omission, here are four reasons I hold to PC. 1) Paedocommunion is Biblical.   Any discussion of the topic should start here, and I would hope that both sides of the debate would make this assertion.  However, l...
Post a Comment
Read more

1 Corinthians, the Covenant Hermeneutic, & Paedocommunion

As an adherent to Paedocommunion  (hereafter PC), I have always found it painfully ironic that Credocommunionists use 1 Corinthians 11 to withhold children (among others) from the Table.  One can imagine St. Paul shaking his head as he watches theologians using his discussion of unity at the Table to divide the body at the Table.  You're missing the point! he would say in exasperation.  Not only does 1 Corinthians 11 not forbid PC; I would go so far as to say that there is no better defense of PC in the New Testament than the epistle of 1 Corinthians. Credocommunionist logic is pretty straightforward.  1 Corinthians 11:28 says, "Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup."  If, they argue, one is unable to fulfill the exhortation to examine himself, then he may not eat of the bread and drink of the cup.  This is a pretty logical deduction, right? Credobaptists would adamantly agree.  Acts 2:38 says, "Repe...
Post a Comment
Read more

The Real Presence & Paedocommunion: A Deeper Rift Between Reformed Churches

You're going back to Rome! Theological disagreements within the Reformed world, especially those of the last half century, often devolve into these sorts of accusations.  As controversialists like Doug Wilson and Peter Leithart began to break away from the larger conservative Presbyterian and Reformed denominations, it became clear that the rift was deeper than semantics and systematic minutiae.  Much like the Reformation four centuries before, the Table was a primary point of conflict.   What does it mean?  Who may partake?  What do we call it?    These questions, along with a few more, divided Reformed brethren as the physical elements of our religion reflected deeper conflicts.  Good men began to understand that the problem wasn't just in our logos, but in our pathos and ethos, as well. Paedocommunion (hereafter PC) has been one of the hottest points of contention.  PC has always been normal to me as I grew up with it.  I underst...
Post a Comment
Read more