Editorial: Gun violence: More robust response, less blame shifting

We usually publish obituaries of “seasoned saints.” This week, we published an obituary of a 10-year-old. Most of the people appearing in our obituaries died of natural causes. This week, we honored a child killed by a mass shooter.

She is not the only person killed in a mass shooting this year. The Gun Violence Archive reports 231 mass shootings in the United States as of May 31, 2022.

The site defines a mass shooting as having “a minimum of four victims shot, either injured or killed, not including any shooter who may also have been killed or injured in the incident.” The full list of 2022 mass shootings is available here.

We’ve had too much experience with gun violence. It’s as American as apple pie. In fact, two of my predecessors in this role—J.B. Cranfill and J. Frank Norris—were involved in incidents involving guns, though they weren’t mass shootings.

We need to gain more experience in limiting, if not stopping, gun violence. This especially is true for those of us who claim to be pro-life and committed to the sanctity of life. All too often, though, some of us play into the blame-shifting game.

The person or the gun?

The finger-pointing started soon after news broke of the Uvalde shooting. Some blamed the gun; some blamed the shooter.

Gun rights advocates frequently respond to these events with: “Guns don’t kill people. People kill people.”

“People kill people” may be pithy, but it doesn’t tell the whole story. The whole story is guns can be deadly, and we need to do a better job caring for people.

Unfortunately, the gambit works, because it names a reality far worse than an AR-15: Some people kill people. It’s true, and they don’t need guns to do it.

A social media meme reads: “Cain killed Abel with a rock, [sic] The Lord didn’t get rid of all rocks. He blamed Cain, not the rock. We have a sin problem, not a gun problem.”

As true as the meme may be, there are a couple of problems with the logic. One, it assumes gun regulation advocates don’t want to hold people accountable for their actions; they do. Two, rocks are not designed to kill; guns are.

We need to pull the wedge out of the debate and start working on solutions that address the whole story.

For the sake of this editorial, let’s agree on two things: (1) A gun can kill you, sometimes without someone pulling the trigger. (2) Some people really do kill other people.

We have plenty of evidence of both dangers. What we need now is a more robust response than blame shifting.

Deadly force

While our focus is diverted to whether people kill people, the fact remains a gun can kill you. Another fact: Some guns—by design—can kill a lot of people, and some of those guns—by design—can kill a lot of people quickly.

If those guns—the ones that can kill a lot of people and the ones that can kill a lot of people quickly—were ice cream or produce contaminated with listeria, they would be recalled, even though it’s not the food’s fault.

But this analogy between guns and food breaks down at a crucial point. Food isn’t supposed to make you very sick, much less kill you. Recalls of tainted food make sense. A gun that fires one or more projectiles without injuring the person pulling the trigger is functioning as designed. No manufacturer recall will be issued.

But as gun rights groups have pointed out, guns aren’t the only things people use to kill other people. The truth in the meme about Cain and Abel, rocks and guns is Cain didn’t need a gun. If all gun regulations are passed, by some miracle, some people still will kill other people.

And this brings us back to the central problem—our bent toward sin. Any successful solution to gun violence of any scale must deal with the sin in us—all of us.

A robust solution

To be successful, a solution must be robust. To be robust, it must encompass legislation, mental and spiritual health care, and community involvement. We’re all affected; so, we all need to be part of the solution.

Some legislation is needed to address guns. Though the Second Amendment provides that “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed,” it does not preclude intelligent regulation of firearms.

Some will argue criminals don’t abide by regulations. True enough. However, as a Christian, we must ask if Jesus expects us to keep pace with criminals, making sure we have equal or greater firepower in arm’s reach.

Other legislation is needed to care for people. Though the Fourteenth Amendment provides that “No State … shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws,” it does not preclude intelligent legislation such as red flag laws, which the U.S. Senate is debating as I write.

Red flag laws need to be paired with fortifying mental health care. This will involve at least three things: (1) recognizing gun violence and mental health are not a direct correlation, (2) removing the stigma from mental health care, and (3) supporting financially and emotionally those who need or seek mental health care.

And, yes, sin must be addressed. This should involve Christians—individually and congregationally—acknowledging their own struggles with anger and hatred, which Jesus said is tantamount to murder (Matthew 5:21-22).

Addressing the spiritual aspect of gun violence also will involve Christians and churches building better and stronger relationships with people among and around them, shepherding and discipling relationships that emphasize the character of Jesus more than the culture of America.

Mass shootings are so frequent in the United States that we have become inured to the numbers. Four victims—the minimum to qualify as a mass shooting—hasn’t impressed us for a long time. Many want to know just how many must be shot and killed to move us out of our inertia regarding gun violence.

Can now finally be the time?

Eric Black is the executive director, publisher and editor of the Baptist Standard. He can be reached at eric.black@baptiststandard.com. The views expressed are those solely of the author.