G.K.
Chesterton once remarked that the expression “birth control” was something of a
misnomer since those who used the expression typically favored neither birth
nor control. The dangers of discussing
gun control are not precisely the same, but the expression is sufficiently
vague to require clarification if we are going to use it. It might mean simply owning a gun
responsibly, using it carefully, and keeping it locked when not in use. Today, though, when people speak of gun
control, they mean efforts to restrict or ban the ownership and use of guns in
society at large. I want to consider to
what extent Christianity allows or mandates such “gun control.” To what extent is “gun control” part of
creating a culture of life?
First,
what I will not discuss. I am not
interested in what the second amendment of the
U.S. constitution says or means.
That deals with the legality
of gun control, I am interested in its morality. The lawyers and Supreme Court may argue
questions of legality, but legality does not imply morality. Everything Hitler did in Nazi Germany was
legal. Nor am I much concerned with
arguing whether or not a magazine holding 20 bullets is moral and one holding
25 immoral. Such a question may be worth
asking and answering, but I do not offer such an answer here.
I
begin by assuming that a Christian is not obligated to pacifism. The words of Jesus Christ to “turn the other
cheek” are most typically cited by those who think a Christian should be a pacifist.
Such an interpretation of His words ignores a certain incident where He
armed himself with a belt of cords and proceeded to defend His Father’s house,
violently driving out those who had no right to be there. When soldiers asked John the Baptist what they
should do to be saved, he told them to stop extorting money and to be content
with their wages, but never suggesting they give up soldiering (Luke
3:14).
On
the contrary, it is plausible that forcible defense, of self or others, might
not only be a right, but a duty in certain situations. That Catechism of the Catholic Church, for
instance, calls self defense “not only a right but a grave duty for one who is
responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires
that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm” (2265). Surely this is much more plausible than
not. If a man is walking down the street
with his wife and three men attack them and try to force the man’s wife into a
car, presumably he has not only the right, but the duty to defend her. If an intruder armed with a knife or gun
breaks into a man’s house and heads for his child’s room, presumably we would
think less of a man who did not defend his child than one who did.
Active
defense, then, of self or others, may not only be a legal right, but even a
moral duty. This leads to the next
point. If a man has the right or duty to
defend himself or others, then it follows that he has the right to tools that
will be adequate to the task. It is vain
to claim that a man has the right to life, but not to eat. It may be that in some cases ownership and
use of a gun is necessary for effective self-defense. Indeed, it would border on folly to argue
that a man could effectively defend himself against two men (or even one) armed
with knives with anything less than a gun.
Or suppose a weaker man of slight
build without great physical strength, or an older man, or a 100 pound
woman. Such people have no less a right
or duty to defend himself or their families than those of greater physical
strength.
Banning
guns would not necessarily create a “culture of life,” it might just as easily
lead to a society where the physically weaker members are at the mercy of the physically
stronger. It could lead to a world where
a father is unable to effectively defend his children against an armed invader
or a 65 year old husband is unable to defend his wife and home against a
younger invader. Surely in at least some
cases, the man (or woman) who picks up a gun to defend self or others is doing
far more to create a culture of life than he would be if he ignored his duty to
active defense.
This,
of course, says nothing about which type of gun should be owned or banned or
not. On this, I am open to
speculation. For many, a shotgun may
suffice, but for some women or weaker men (the present author perhaps), a
shotgun may be difficult to use effectively and an AR-15 more practical. Second, a shotgun is less easy to carry about
and since one’s duty to defense of self or others does not end when one leaves
his house, I would be skeptical of attempts to ban or overly restrict handguns. Such points may be debatable. If I have shown, however, that in principle it is plausible that a man
may have the moral right and perhaps even duty to own and be able to use a gun,
I am satisfied.
