The angel when giving the rules of monasticism to St. Pachomius said to him: "... He laid down that in the course of the day they should make twelve prayers, and at the lamp-lighting time twelve, and in the nightly vigils twelve, and at the ninth hour three. When the multitude goes to eat, he laid down that a psalm should be sung before each prayer. As Pachomius objected to the angel that the prayer were too few..."
This is the kind of thing that I always question posting...I know that I am angry. I know that I need to pray. I know that my wisdom is insufficient. And yet...We need to be gentle with one another.We need to grieve and pray for the shattered families...including that of the gunman. The authorities had a hard time identifying him because his self-inflicted wound ruined his face. We should weep. This is, as my father said, unspeakable. We should turn to the example of our Amish brothers and sisters from almost a year ago.
My timing sucks. I am sure. But Trish and I were speaking this morning about the tragedy. She is a graduate of Tech. She was describing the distances, the security in the dorms. There is nothing that the authorities at Virginia Tech could have done to protect the students than they already do. I know this may sound absurd to many. But there you go. Twenty-six thousand students, an open campus...This is a small city, not a one room school house. There is no way to control a campus like this and assure the absolute safety of the students. It's impossible. I hope that no one loses their job over this. Truly.
What I will say, however scandalous it may be to say it, is that we need to wake up. As a nation, we need to wake up. We have established a system in which our children are sacrificed for our right to own a firearm...our supposed right to protect ourselves. We are willing, intentionally or not, to allow people to go to K-Mart or Dick's sporting goods and purchase handguns just like the ones that Cho Seung-Hui possessed. We are willing to make room for such atrocities in our country in the name of a "right." This is human sacrifice. If we are so evolved as a species or as a culture, you would think that we would see this. If God has asked us to stop sacrificing our children to assure our salvation (see: Abraham), you would think that we would put a stop to this outrageous "right." It is not worth it. I cannot see how it is worth it.
When we were a small nation...and we needed to protect ourselves from super powers like France, Spain and England, from wild beasts, from the Native Americans (That was the thinking.), then it made some sense. I'm a pacifist, you know, so I have trouble with this idea as a whole, but I understand the logic. Our country (the space, size of it) was virtually impossible to protect from invasion. Now, what are we protecting ourselves from?
One another. You. Me. Our neighbor.
We want to own guns so that our neighbor will not kill us. We want to own guns because we fear our neighbor! This is insane. And our legal punishments do not hold gun crime at bay. They do not protect us at all. They happen after our children die. It is too late. No one is saved by the legislation. No one is helped by the legislation. All we do is remind people where the line is...and they will continue to step over it. Why? Because they can. There is no way to protect ourselves.
Perhaps, perhaps it is too late. Logistically it may simply be impossible now to undo what is done. That may be true. I don't know that people would be willing to hand in their guns. I don't think that they would. And the gun manufacturers make too much money...and they give people jobs. It is a tangled mess.
But we have to admit that we have allowed ourselves room for such tragedies to occur. We have crafted a culture that says, believe it or not, I am willing to suffer such a tragedy so that I can keep a 9 mm. gun by my bedside. That is what we have agreed to.
Lord, God, forgive me. Protect me from myself...and may those who read this blog forgive my frustration and outrage...But I am completely beside myself in this. I want us to give up this "right." It does not save us. It cannot protect us. It has simply created a culture where we sacrifice one another to one another in the name of safety...an idol.
*updated* related links:
Episcopal Diocese of California
American Baptist Press
Washington Post
CNN
Kantinho Do Rev
The Pope
*Falsani
As a gun owner (albeit they are 200 miles south of Chicago), I am torn re: the 2nd amendment.
"Amendment II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
The way I see the 2nd amendment, is that it is a provisional right, not an inaliable right (life, liberty, persuit of happiniess, speech, freedom from selfincrimination, etc). The provision is that we have a well regulated militia (i.e. the national guard), and members of that milita have the right to have guns. (Amendement 3 is also a provisional right)
However, what about my father-in-law who is a hunter? The deer he kills provides food through the winter.
It is a catch 22.
Education may be a solution. Teach people to respect the power of the weapon, and that it is a weapon, not a toy.
Make them difficult to get. Tax the right to own them. We pay taxes on our cars, and phones, and internet, why not guns.
An outright ban will not make us any safer, either. There are just too many out there. Pot is banned, yet, i bet most of us could get some if we wanted it. Guns on the blackmartek are there already, and, i think, a ban would only increase that market.
What do we do? I have no idea.
Me neither. But this post did lead me to think of the quote, "Every tool is a weapon if you hold it right."
So, banning guns will not solve the problem of human violence. Nor would banning knives, or chains, or really big sticks.
And re: not trusting our neighbors -- from my point of view, trust should be earned. My neighbor needs to demonstrate that he or she is not going to jump me and rob me, or rape me, etc., before they merit my trust.
Posted by: Megan at April 17, 2007 11:51 AMCathleen Falsani invokes Elie Wiesel
http://falsani.blogspot.com/2007/04/words-are-totally-inadequate.html
Posted by: justin at April 17, 2007 11:52 AMI don't think the people should lose their jobs, but I do think that everyone should learn from this.
I definitely think that after the 1st two shootings, they should have combed the campus for the gunman. I mean really combed the campus. Definitely not just assume the
killer had left campus. Not smart.
Does 30 people have to be killed before it is considered serious? 10? 20?
At VCU in Richmond, we had campus police phones everywhere.
I had an incident while attending VCU where I was physically attacked. I escaped. However, I knew who the person was. The VCU music department set me up with the campus police.
The lieutenant from the campus police was GREAT!
She made sure that the attacker and the attacker's friends knew that the Campus police knew who they were and where they were and if they even looked at me the wrong way, they were going down.
It scared the heck out of them. I had no worries. Neither my family or friends.
The incident was horrible and I was very scared.
But having the police really watch out for me, made me feel much better.
My attacker should have been scared! In Virginia,
what had been done to be was considered a felony, not a misdemeanor.
I wasn't even shot or killed and yet the campus police went that far.
The lieutenant gave me her direct phone line and told me to keep it on me and use it if necessary.
The Va Tech campus police "let it lie" as they say. No good. They should have been all over that campus right after the first 2 murders.
Murders. Not attacks. Trying to find the gunman.
I understand that they couldn't get the word out to everyone -- but they can hunt the guy down.
One of my previous employers had a sign over the door where we entered work:
Assume anything and you make an ass of you and me.
Very wise.
http://www.longislandpress.com/?cp=53&show=article&a_id=11653
The serial numbers were filed off the weapons the gunman used. He acquired them illegally. Taking guns away from all law-abiding people would not have stopped him, and in fact helped him to carry out his atrocity the way he did.
His guns were 9mm and possibly .22-caliber pistols. You have to use such small weapons at close range to be effective. If one person had been armed on campus, this story might have ended very differently.
There is no more attractive environment to a person bent on violence than one in which he can be assured of no resistance. Making it a violation to carry a weapon on school grounds ensured an easy killing field for the gunman.
The gun control debate is an old one, Tripp, but making it so that only lawbreakers have or can acquire firearms... Folly.
Posted by: Rich at April 17, 2007 02:44 PMRich,
There were armed police on campus...They outnumbered the lone gunman.
The legality issue is a frustrating one. Justin made the same point. And I struggle with it. Make the guns illegal, people who want to hurt us will find a way to get at them. True enough. I will not dispute it.
But I say that the logic of my theology still holds true. And, as far as I know, inner city Chicago where everyone is armed is simply that much more dangerous. The police will not patrol certain areas of teh city because it is too dangerous for them. A college campus full of students with weapons is likely a bad idea. Someone, namely law enforcement, has to have the upper hand in power. And this is the issue.
We all want power. We want to claim it. So, we have this "right." It is a theological falsehood.
Posted by: Tripp at April 17, 2007 05:54 PMRefreshing to see someone finally name the true evil - our penchant for arming ourselves, thinking that we somehow have the "right" to kill. The tired old arguments that say, in essence, "Guns don't kill people, People kill people" simply don't hold up. The thing is, people WITH GUNS kill people, and people with easy-to-obtain automatic (or semi-automatic)weapons can kill so much faster and more effectively. Face it, if he had been wielding a knife (or even a six-shooter, for that matter), very few people, would have died.
And our response to increased threats of gun violence? Better shields of sorts - or more guns. We try to find ways to stop the bullets from reaching us while fiercely defending other's rights to send them flying. Better shields simply invite "better" guns. Have we learned nothing from the Cold War's "Mutually Assured Destruction?" Do we have to go that far as individuals as well?
I share your frustration, Tripp, our society is so polluted with guns, we cannot eliminate them. On the other hand, if we can bring a dead, polluted lake back to life, perhaps we can contain and neutralize this pollutant as well, allowing life to flourish. God help us all.
Posted by: MotherMacK at April 17, 2007 07:33 PMMegan, is it possible in your thinking on this to love someone and not trust them? I am thinking of the Great Commandment (Love the LORD your God...and love your neighbor as yourself.). We have talked about this bit of scripture before. Where does this kind of love begin and end for you?
Posted by: Tripp at April 18, 2007 06:04 AMMotherMacK:
I would say the true evils here are the actions of the SHOOTER, and the ethic that the best way to keep people safe is to render them defenseless. No one has the right to kill, but we all have the right to defend ourselves, and sometimes the defense is hard on or lethal for the original attacker.
People with rocks, clubs, knives, ice picks, hammers, axes, arrows, swords, guns, and atom bombs (not a comprehensive list) have killed people since the beginning of history. The only difference is efficiency; the murderous urge is the problem. Implements will always present themselves to the murder-minded.
In this case, the shooter reloaded several times, because the weapons he carried didn't have the bullet capacity for the work he was doing without reloading. A six-shooter would have made very little difference.
My brother for a time lived in Kennesaw, Georgia, where it's mandatory for all landowners to own firearms (they check, and fine you if you desist). It and another place with similar laws have some of the lowest murder (and general crime) rates in the country. Seems like all those people WITH GUNS are preventing a lot more killing than they're doing.
Oh, and a correction to my previous post, it seems as though the shooter did acquire his weapons legally (no previous criminal record--no legal reason to prevent the purchase), and then file off the serial numbers. Still not a person who would likely have been prevented by stricter laws, since he obviously intended to violate the laws with them anyway.
And as for the armed-police argument, fat lot of good they did after the fact. I still maintain that even one armed student or teacher--or even the knowledge that there could have been armed people present--could have changed matters for the better, or prevented the carnage altogether.
Posted by: Rich at April 18, 2007 08:22 AMTripp, I can love the sh*t out of you without letting you get close enough to hurt me.
Posted by: Megan at April 18, 2007 11:45 AMMegan, okay...That clears that up. Thanks. Just looking for how you made that connection.
Posted by: Tripp at April 18, 2007 11:58 AMNaturally, the price of loving like that is that by keeping the beloved at sufficient arm's distance to prevent them harming me, I also impose the distance that keeps them from truly helping me. One always has to make decisions about that opportunity cost.
Posted by: Megan at April 18, 2007 12:15 PM