Gun Ownership is a Moral Issue

6 Comments

Gun ownership is a choice and a moral decision that has a significant consequence to the entire community. I can choose to own a gun or I can make the moral decision to decline the right to bear arms. This is not to say that all people have a choice to make. Some, by virtue of their professions, must own or carry a gun – police and military. Others may need one for a legitimate reason – ranchers. However, most of us do have a choice. Choosing not to bear arms does not impact anyone else’s Second Amendment right.

Can you remember the last time we have had a day without reading about gun violence or even a few days without hearing about a mass shooting? We average over 9 deaths a day from guns and a mass shooting almost every day. We ask ourselves what is the cause and we hear guns, mental illness, inadequate laws, immigration, gangs, terrorism, and a culture addicted to violence. We look at other similar countries and ask why they don’t have the same problem and the only differences are easy to access guns and/or culture.

In our culture we let fear overrule reason. The argument that the Second Amendment is without limit is not true and is usually followed by the statement that “guns don’t kill people, people kill people.” It is reposted without adequate consideration to what this actually means.  In fact, people who own guns are more likely to kill people either accidentally or intentionally. People with guns do kill people and are more successful at doing so from a distance than by any other means.

This year alone the Gun Violence Archive has documented 52,436 incidents, 13,164 deaths, and 307 mass shootings. This doesn’t even begin to address the actual impact of wives that lost husbands, parents that lost children, children that lost parents, and the countless friends and neighbors that feel the loss.

 

gun violence

Make a Moral Decision

The Second Amendment is our Constitutional right, but it does not mean that one should own a gun.  I have the right to own a gun and choose not to because I believe they are implements of violence and are designed to take life and only bread evil in one’s soul. Yet this isn’t the only right we have that we can and should decline. Let us decline the right all actions that take a life – abortion, the death penalty, and war. If we value life then sometimes we make decisions not because it is our legal right, but because it is a moral obligation.

“Those that proclaim themselves to be the sole measure of realities and of truth cannot live peacefully in society with their fellow [wo]men and cooperate with them.” –Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church

I frequently wonder if we give enough thought to what it means to make a moral decision. I worry that we are so stuck in ideology and bound with fear that keeps us from a rational contemplation of the very serious issue of gun violence and violence in our culture. I am certainly not the sole arbiter of truth, but I have an opinion I hope you will hear and consider

Six-Steps in Considering the Morality of Gun Ownership

  1. Gather the information on injuries and deaths related to firearms.

People will give various reasons for wanting a gun. They list the least benign as a desire to kill Bambi or Thumper. Some genuinely believe they need to defend self or family and a gun is the only mechanism. Others have a false belief that a rifle will protect from an abusive government that has nuclear bombs, tanks, and other massive munitions. Whatever the stated reason one must consider whether the purchase of the gun to achieve the end is morally right? Do the circumstances (living in a dangerous neighborhood, traveling alone in an unsafe neighborhood, going to school) affect the action? Do the risks outweigh the danger of a gun in the home? This year alone defensive use is barely higher than unintentional shootings. In other words for every person that uses a gun in self-defense, another is accidentally shot.

The more I deliberated the more I reflected on Matthew 5:21-26:

21 “You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘You shall not murder,[a] and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’ 22 But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to a brother or sister, ‘Raca, is answerable to the court. And anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell.

I came to the conclusion that I could not live with a primal instinct to defend my home or self by the use of lethal force over a possession. Nor could I live with accidentally harming another.

  1. I identified the ethical problem. The ethical dilemma was between the individual rights or good versus that of the rights and the good of the community.

It is certainly true that guns are sometimes used for self-defense. This year there have been 1,724 times guns have been used for defensive purposes. Of course, that pales when compared to 54,436 gun incidents in the same time period of which 1,699 were accidental shootings. Is the fear one person has for his or her safety more important than the safety of those around who are by all evidence at greater risk due to the presence of the gun? We are one of the nations with the greatest number of guns per capita and we are one of the nations with the greatest gun violence. People can cite urban vs. rural, and this city or that, but in the end, we are one nation with one shared problem that is violence committed using a gun.

  1. What approaches can I use to analyze the problem?

I first approached the problem from a veil of ignorance, which is to say if I were the person who was the least powerful and the most vulnerable what would I want? I concluded that while I wanted to live and be safe, but for that to happen it would be best for no one to have a gun. I also wanted all those around me to live and be safe. The risk to others from a gun in the house was greater than the risk to others and me without one.

I then used a disaster framework to consider what actions I could take to avoid risks that didn’t involve owning a gun. When considered within a framework it is easier to see that there are actions that can be taken, provided the public or individual has the will to do so, to keep oneself safer. For example, self-defense class, active shooter training, non-lethal force, security systems, and even owning a dog.

  1. After gathering the information, determining the moral dilemma, and using a framework to logically examine the problem it was time to make a judgment to determine which means are best under the current circumstances.

There really are only a few practical alternatives: 1) accept the status quo, 2) actively advocate for a rational change in gun laws, and 3) decline the right to bear arms and encourage others to do the same. I do not see repealing the Second Amendment as a practical alternative and thus it is not included. There are those that disagree with me including the editors of America Magazine. The Second Amendment is too ingrained in the culture, has too big of a lobby supporting it, and would not be supported by the majority.

  1. Act

Once I made the decision to decline the right to bear arms it was time to act. A moral decision occurs when the intellect and the will come together, but without action serves little purpose. First, I am acting for myself in pledging never to own a gun. I decline the right to bear arms. Second, like many other pledges, people may take I encourage others to also take the pledge and to share that they have. Third, I will never be silent.

  1. Evaluate the process and outcomes

The final step is always to determine if the choice and the action was effective. Only time will tell.

I pledge that I will never own a firearm of any kind. My heart will be guided by love and there will be no door opened for fear. When that door of fear is cracked it lets in evil and blots out reason. Not just the reason that comes from a well-developed human conscience, but the reason imparted through faith. When fear enters evil works to darken our souls to the inherent value of all life. That evil convinces us that property is of such great value that we can ignore the commandment not to kill and choose things over people. Fear causes us to listen to evil telling us that there are good guys with guns and that no harm will come from this instrument of death. Arm yourself with reason and faith and there will be no need for a gun.

“The dignity of the human person is the foundation of a moral vision for society” (USCCB). The sanctity of human life and the inherent dignity of the human person cannot merely be about abortion or assisted suicide, but must include protecting all life and that means stopping gun violence and all violence.  Don’t let the lust for an instrument of evil that has taken so many lives and caused so much pain replace reason and compassion. Don’t let your fear win. Decline the Right.

 

Love Your Brother, Decline the Right

Leave a comment

The better the society the less law ther will be. In Heaven, there will be no law, and the lion will lie down with the lamb. In Hell, there will be nothing but law, and due process will be meticulously observe. – Grant Gilmore

On September 30, 2002, each year I still mourn the loss of my twin brother who was shot four times (two in the chest, one in the side, and one in the back) and fell at my mother’s feet where he died. The bloodstain on the carpet is forever etched into my memory, maybe on my soul. I confess I knew my brothers and their faults. I worry about what I failed to do.

My brother was not killed by an intruder, but rather in an argument with our brother. It is hard to believe it has been fifteen years since. From then until now there have been 177,311 additional homicides. There are 177,311 families that have felt the same pain. Yet, we do nothing to address gun safety. The lack of action by Congress is shocking not just because of the alarming number of homicides, but also suicides and accidental deaths. While the majority of American believe there should be sensible gun safety law the militant minority has managed to intimidate our elected officials or bribe them through campaign contributions.

The militant minority that says it takes a person to pull the trigger misses the fact that it is much harder to kill without a gun. People do kill people, but people with guns are more likely to do so either intentionally or accidentally.  The technology exists to reduce the risk of accidental death and even someone using a gun that doesn’t belong to them and yet these technologies are too rarely used and in some places not even available. The law could require greater gun safety.

Christianity teaches that human life is sacred and “the dignity of the human person is the foundation of a moral vision for society” (USCCB).  I often what moral vision one finds in a gun. The sanctity of human life and the inherent dignity of the human person cannot just be about abortion or assisted suicide, but must include protecting all life and that means stopping gun violence and all violence.  My wish is for a day that in acting on our own judgment we make use of responsible freedom.  I hope for a day that no American is driven by coercion, but rather through a sense of duty declines the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms.

The 2nd Amendment is our Constitutional right, but it does not mean that most people should avail themselves of the right.  I have the right to own a gun and choose not to because I believe they are implements of violence and are designed to take life. I have the right to have an abortion, but would not have one.  Some states still have a death penalty despite the growing evidence that we frequently convict the innocent and are more likely to do so based on race and social status.  If we value life then sometimes we make decisions not because it is our legal right, but because it is morally right.

Micah 6:8 He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the LORD require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God.

Screen Shot 2017-09-30 at 8.54.12 PM

Gun Violence by the Numbers from https://everytownresearch.org/gun-violence-by-the-numbers/#DailyDeaths

 

Civil Unrest in Saint Louis

Leave a comment

As a resident of Saint Louis, I have been shocked and appalled by the level of racism I’ve seen in this region. From people referring to “those people” talking about Jews to fear about traveling to perfectly safe areas of the city. The fear expressed by people of going into the city and interacting with African Americans was something I haven’t experienced in my lifetime even though I grew up in the rural South. This doesn’t even touch on the highly-segregated neighborhoods and churches.

Saint Louis has the potential to be one of the best cities in the country in which to live. It has nationally recognized universities, state of the art healthcare facilities, good transportation, excellent food, museums, parks, and affordable entertainment. Yet, we are rapidly being known for civil unrest rather than what should be the focus, civil rights, equality, and a new approach to law enforcement.

How we define civil unrest, how we define law enforcement, and how we define our personal roles and responsibilities impacts how we prepare and the seriousness with which we prepare. Civil unrest is “disharmony, expressive dissatisfaction and/or disagreement between members of a community, which leads to a situation of competitive aggression that may find expression as disruption of organization, conflicts, damage to property and injuries” (Kelen, Catlett, Kubit, & Hsieh, 2012). I must ask myself

  • What have I done to create a more harmonious environment?
  • What have I done to de-escalate potentially violent situations?
  • What have I done to recognize and confront racism?

The level of civil unrest in the United States had been relatively consistent until the 1960s when there was a significant increase with the onset of the Vietnam War. After the end of the war, the civil unrest declined but has been steadily increasing since 1980 (see Table 1).

Civil Unrest in the United States

Screen Shot 2017-09-15 at 3.18.15 PM

Adapted from Armstrong Economics and Wikipedia Contributors.

In the last few years, almost all the civil unrest in the United States has been related to police shootings of black males. I will never know what it feels like to be a black man that fears the police or a police officer that fears black men. I have never felt called to be a police officer, but respect those that are and can only pray that they exercise good judgment, self-restraint, and patience during times of civil unrest. It is not disloyal for an officer to recognize when a fellow officer failed the badge. I wonder what would happen if rather than standing in riot gear you all joined hands in prayer with the protestors and acknowledged their pain.

I am called to be a nurse and as such, I want all nurses to be prepared during times of civil unrest. I want you to also show good judgment, self-restraint, and compassion when discussing these issues at work. Many of those you work with have different experiences and may live in areas that are impacted. Be their strength. Be the kindness they need. Listen with their ears.

Please take the time to read Nurse Leaders’ Response to Civil Unrest in the Urban Core and let’s do all we can for our city and its citizens.

Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called children of God. Mt 5:9

Civil Unrest and the Role of Nursing

Leave a comment

The health care system must be aware of the impact civil unrest can have on the mission of providing care. We have watched, some with alarm and others with a sense of civic involvement, the incidents of civil unrest that have occurred in communities across the United States since 2014. As health care providers and administrators, we must be prepared to keep our doors open and we must know how to keep our facilities safe.

Please take the time to read

Nurse Leaders’ Response to Civil Unrest in the Urban Core

Inequalities in society, culture, and finance have resulted in civil unrest, rioting, and intentional violence throughout our history. Nowhere is this currently more apparent than in the cities of Ferguson and Baltimore. It is not the civil unrest itself, but the resulting rioting and intentional violence that can create a disaster situation. This increases the care burden of health care providers during times when the governmental structure may be overwhelmed or functioning in a less than optimal manner. Beginning with the death of Michael Brown, civil unrest over the last 2 years has necessitated a closer examination of the role nurse leaders play in preparing their staff and facilities for potential results of this civil unrest. The similarities between the results of rioting and violence and natural disaster are obvious, but the differences are significant. Without adequate preparation, providers may not offer the appropriate response. Attention to the 10 “musts” for preparedness for civil unrest will facilitate a planning process and provide for a better response and recovery when communities face these issues.

I Decline the Right to Bear Arms: I Will Not Fear

Leave a comment

“For God has not given us a spirit of fear, but of power and of love and of a sound mind.” 2 Timothy 1:7

I can’t remember the last time I have gone a day without reading about the tragedy that is gun violence or a month without hearing of a mass shooting. Each time social media is filled with hateful people that cannot, or will not, have a civil conversation about a serious topic. Respectful disagreements can help move people to common ground, but what is most often reflected in society is matched in Congress and the result is more dead bodies and more grieving families. The policy changes that are needed will not be easy, but they are doable without changing the 2nd Amendment. More importantly, we are capable as individuals of changing our neighborhoods and ourselves. We cannot let fear be the enemy of reason.freed-heart-understanding-mind.jpg

For those of us that have lost someone we love to senseless gun violence each new incident is a reminder that brings the pain rushing back. If you love your guns and the 2nd Amendment more than your neighbors then it will be impossible for you to understand my pain and the pain of every other person who has ever been impacted by a gun violence. Each year on September 30 I remember my twin brother who was shot four times (two in the chest, one in the side, and one in the back) and died on my parent’s living room floor.  The bloodstain on the carpet is forever etched into my memory. He was not killed by an intruder, but rather in an argument with our brother. They had fought many times before resulting in typical injuries from fistfights. The problem was that a gun was lying on the table.  Without the gun he would probably be alive. The police called it a “family matter” and did nothing. In fact, because my other brother was never charged with a crime he legally purchased many more guns.

The argument that the 2nd Amendment is without limit is not true and is usually followed by the statement that “guns don’t kill people, people kill people.” It is reposted without adequate consideration to what this actually means.  In fact, people who own guns are more likely to kill people either accidentally or intentionally. Not all gun deaths come from People with guns do kill people.

This year alone there have been:

  • 40,476 incidents
  • 10,209 deaths
  • 20,731 injuries
  • Of those, 560 were children and 2,209 were adolescents (http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/)
  • And how many thousands of grieving families, lost incomes, children with parents, wives without husbands, and parents without children?

Additionally,

In the civilian population deaths from firearms are believed to be a good indicator of firearms violence. The rate of nonfatal gunshot wounds is estimated to be 2.6 times the rate of fatal gunshot wounds. You can find the death rates from firearms by state at http://www.statehealthfacts.org/comparemaptable.jsp?ind=113&cat=2.

The 2nd Amendment is our Constitutional right, but it does not mean that one should own a gun.  I have the right to own a gun and choose not to because I believe they are implements of violence and are designed to take life and only bread evil in one’s soul. Yet this isn’t the only right we have that we can and should decline. Let us decline the right all actions that take a life – abortion, the death penalty, and war. If we value life then sometimes we make decisions not because it is our legal right, but because it is morally obligation.

It is true that it takes a person to pull the trigger, but without a gun it is much harder to kill. People do kill people, but people with guns are more likely to do so either intentionally or accidentally. “The dignity of the human person is the foundation of a moral vision for society” (USCCB). The sanctity of human life and the inherent dignity of the human person cannot merely be about abortion or assisted suicide, but must include protecting all life and that means stopping gun violence and all violence.  My wish is for a day that no American chooses to avail him or herself of the 2nd Amendment right. Peace is an amazing feeling and it begins in our own homes and hearts. Put fear aside, love your neighbor, and choose life. Don’t let the lust for an instrument of evil that has taken so many lives and caused so much pain replace reason and compassion. Don’t let your fear win.

Faith Meets the 2nd Amendment

Leave a comment

“Non-violence is not a garment to be put on and off at will. Its seat is in the heart, and it must be an inseparable part of our being.”  Mahatma Gandhi.

Mask by B. Brecht

Do you hear the screams of the 16,000 murder victims each year?  Do you hear the crying of the 1.8 million assault victims?  Do you see the bloodstain on the carpet when you close your eyes?  Are you still traumatized by the one you lost?  Are you still blaming Cain for the violence or do you have the ability to look inward at your own violence and your own fears and see that violence and fear as part of our culture.

The United States is suffering from a culture of violence.  We blame the victim, but not just the victim of violence.  We blame the poor person for being born into poverty and not pulling himself or herself up by the bootstraps.  We blame the mentally ill who are more often victims of violence than perpetrators of violence.  We blame the rape victim for not being cautious enough or not fighting back hard enough.   We blame the abused spouse for a poor choice or for not seeking a divorce.  It is so much easier to blame than it is to address the issues we have created as a culture.  Our culture of violence did not occur on its own.  It occurred because our hearts changed; and, as our hearts changed we changed laws and policies that allowed the wound of violence to fester and spread.

We have allowed our fear to control us and drive our policy and personal decisions.  Consider some of the recent issues we have faced.  We fear poverty and the mere appearance of poverty.  Consequently, we spend ourselves into debt on an individual and national level.  We purchase bigger homes, cars, and social programs.  We are willing to steal, sell drugs, and swindle others rather than appear to be poor.  We fear other nations and terrorism so we build a more powerful military and enough bombs to annihilate the world’s population.  We build interior security measures that significantly limit our freedoms and make travel unpleasant, even if safer.  We spend enough on defense to eliminate malnutrition.  We fear competition so we cheat on tests, undermine our colleagues, and pass tax codes to lure big business and while they get richer the people get poorer.  We fear the other political party being in power.  Rather than working together for a better society the political parties have become increasingly hostile to compromise and cooperation. We fear pregnancy (both being pregnant and not being able to be pregnant) so we make contraceptives free to delay birth and limit the number of children, promote abortion, use fertility specialist to have children later in life, or use in vitro fertilization when one has no partner at all or can’t conceive otherwise.  We fear death and spend endless amounts of money to delay it and consequently we live well beyond our intended age and grow ever more alarmed at what the end of life is like when it is no longer natural.  We fear people who murder so we murder them with a death penalty.  We fear violence and so we buy weapons of violence and put ourselves at ever-greater risk of dying a violent death.   What we seam to fear are the imperfections of life and suffering.

America Magazine published an article recommending the repeal of the 2nd amendment.  The editors showed courage in writing and publishing the article, but is it wise and is it practical?  When I teach health policy I tell students not to define the solution into the problem and always have clear criteria to evaluate a way forward.   The America Magazine editors define the problem not as violence, but as the inability to enact stricter gun laws.  They admit that this is not the sole solution, but it is the one they address.  To be clear they did not recommend an absolute ban on firearms.  As the editors pointed out, the repeal of the 2nd amendment will not repeal original sin, but it may make a safer world.

Setting clear criteria for evaluation of a policy is critical.  The criteria should be based on legality, political acceptability, respect for human dignity, and the ability to implement the policy.  Any graduate health policy student would tell you that the repeal of the 2nd amendment is not going to happen in the foreseeable future and the attempts to repeal it may derail the legitimate work that needs to be taking place.  As Senator Ted Kennedy learned when he rejected the health care plan President Nixon was willing to support it took 40 more years to negotiate his way back to less.  Let’s not make that mistake with the 2nd amendment.

First, any policy with a reasonable likelihood of success must not violate the constitution, statutory, or common law.  Challenges to the 2nd amendment have lost in the Supreme Court and there is ample case law to support the right to bear arms.  Second, the repeal of the 2nd amendment is not politically feasible at this time.  While the majority of Americans support closing the loopholes on background checks and taking large magazines and assault weapons off the street, they do not support the repeal of the 2nd amendment.  The political will is absent and there is not strong public support for such an action.  Third, would the repeal support human dignity?  That is harder to answer. Doing away with implements of violence clearly promotes human dignity provided they are taken away equally from all and do not leave some powerless.   Finally, is it implementable?  The answer is clearly no.  There are too many people that love their guns.  They clearly love them more than their children, more than their neighbors, and more than peace.  Their fear is so great that they are unwilling to trust that peaceful existence is possible without implements of violence.  Unfortunately, the same acts that the repeal is meant to eliminate are the acts that fuel the fear that will cause people to fight the repeal.  It is highly unlikely that any southern state would vote for the repeal and thus it would not pass.

We do need to explore the policy alternatives and address the culture of violence – the culture of death.  Yet, picking a battle that will only make people more resistant to any effort to make improvements is not necessarily prudent even though it is clearly the most morally responsible action.  If repeal of the 2nd Amendment would end our culture of violence I would support it immediately.

Let’s begin by defining the problem and collecting evidence.  This requires that we come to some consensus on what the problem is and is not.  The laws blocking any collection of data on violence or gun violence must be eliminated.  The people that promote such laws should not fear the truth whatever it turns out to be.

Antonin Scalia, writing following the 2008 Supreme Court Decision striking down the DC gun law said “constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table.”  Therein lies the problem, and to address this problem it is either necessary to address the Constitution, address policy we can change, or address our culture.  Before we change the Constitution I would recommend that we look at the policy and the cultural issues that have resulted in the current culture of violence.  If, after we have researched the actual cause of our cultural shift we find that it is indeed due to guns, then we should explore a change to the Constitution and a revision of the 2nd Amendment.  I highly recommend reading the very thoughtful and well written article in America Magazine located at Repeal the Second Amendment.

Violence Should be Rare and Compassion the Norm

2 Comments

I have an almost complete disregard of precedent, and a faith in the possibility of something better. It irritates me to be told how things have always been done. I defy the tyranny of precedent. I go for anything new that might improve the past.”   –Clara Barton

I love teaching because it gives me the opportunity to form compassionate students.  After all, isn’t teaching about the hope that one of our students makes the world better?  Isn’t the goal of research to find something new that might improve the past? I suppose it is human nature to see oneself as in the mainstream of thought.  I have sometimes delighted in being outside the mainstream.  I enjoy thinking big thoughts and imagining something better, more compassionate, and less violent.  It is hard to imagine such a world when a child being held hostage after a shooting.

If we are going to change the way we approach violence it is not productive to say that a policy or law is ineffective when special interest managed to have enough holes in the policy or law that it looks like policy swiss cheese. The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 expired in 2004 and there is great disagreement as to whether it had any effect on gun violence.  One problem was that there were so many exceptions as to make the law ineffective.  It starts by stating, “It shall be unlawful for a person to manufacture, transfer, or possess a semiautomatic assault weapon.”  What follows is a full page of exceptions and then a description of what it takes to be considered an assault weapon.  It would be comical if it weren’t for the fact that this legislation was meant to save lives.  Is it any wonder that it is hard to show if it was effective?

Christopher Koper (2004) did a good assessment of the impact of the assault weapons ban.  He stated,

Because offenders can substitute non-banned guns and small magazines for banned AWs and LCMs, there is not a clear rationale for expecting the ban to reduce assaults and robberies with guns.96 But by forcing AW and LCM offenders to substitute non-AWs with small magazines, the ban might reduce the number of shots fired per gun attack, thereby reducing both victims shot per gunfire incident and gunshot victims sustaining multiple wounds. (p.81)

He makes one point on which everyone should be able to agree – there is no single factor that influences violence.  During much of the research that occurred while the ban was in effect there was a crack epidemic that influenced violent behavior.  It also occurred shortly after the deinstitutionalization of the mentally ill when funding for and availability of outpatient clinics was completely inadequate for the large number of people who were no longer hospitalized.  In 2004 the ban expired and there is clear evidence the number of mass shootings has increased, but why?

We must examine the culture of violence not as merely a gun issue, or a mental health issue, or a drug issue, or even a moral issue.  We must examine the culture of violence as a threat to safety, security, and well-being.  The politicians and lobbyist had their chance to address the issues and they clearly demonstrated they cared more about their own self-interest than safety, security, or well-being of the citizens of the United States.  What they did went beyond benign neglect.  It was at best apathy and at the worst a lack of respect for human dignity and life.

It is time for academia, health care, and the faith communities to take on the issues that have resulted in the culture of violence.  We need a fresh perspective that is rational, evidence based, and driven by concerned citizens.  It is time to take the box the lobbyists and politicians have put the issue of gun violence in and break it down and throw it in the recycling bin.  It is time to think outside the box.  The people who care about rationality, evidence, and human dignity and are not driven by personal financial gain or votes need to step forward.  It would be nice if our government could be trusted to prevent violence, protect human dignity, and support a culture of life.  I do not think they have the courage to do so.  While politicians continue to talk to the people that stood by an let a culture of violence go unchecked those who view life as sacred need to address the issues with open minds and open hearts.  Finding the root cause of gun violence requires that be willing to accept that life is sacred.  Guns are not.