Gun Control?

As I sit here reading articles in the news about the aftermath of the latest mass shooting, about the tragedy, about the shooter's motives, about our politicians coming to our rescue to make this stop happening,  I can help but wonder where we all have gone so wrong.

One article tells about how we are going to solve this problem by passing new laws to control who has guns.  The next story tells of a boy who takes a gun to school because he is afraid he would be shot.  In one rampage the shooter is confronted by unarmed individuals who sacrifice themselves to save others.  In another the gunman is stopped short by an armed man, who doesn't shoot him, but forces him away from the people he is attacking so that no one else will get hurt.

As a nation, as a society, it is time that we admit to ourselves that we are broken.  New gun laws are only a band aid on bullet wound.  They might help on the surface, but the actual wound goes much deeper.

In the 1950s in our nation the top two complaints of teachers in our schools were students talking in class and students chewing gum.  What has gone wrong in the last sixty years to our world?

Over the past six decades in America, in the name of freedom, we fill our children's minds with progressively more violent movies and more violent video games and then act surprised when our children act violently. We fill their eyes with bedroom comedy and bathroom humor and act surprised at the teen pregnancy rate. We strive to provide our children a "better life" but abdicate our social responsibilities in the name of freedom and individual rights.

We need to step up and make ourselves, every one of us, better.  Not richer.  Not stronger.  Better.   Better at making choices that are not harmful to our life or to others.  Better at caring what goes into ours and our child's mind.  Better at taking responsibility for the outcome of our lives and the lives of those whom we can influence.

The wounds of our society are not born from the lack of law, or from the lack of enforcement by the authorities.  It is born from the individual.  Born from a society of individuals that see no value in working toward a common good with common values that benefit us all.  Born from our belief that even if we just do all the right things and take care of ourselves, that allowing others to govern themselves in the way they see fit will somehow not touch us.

The issue at hand, my friends, has very little to do with guns, or knives, or rocks, or clubs.  It goes much deeper than that.

One Man, One Woman

The debate rages on in our society today: should we declare, once and for all, that we as a people recognize marriage as a union only between one man and one woman. Many arguments have been laid out by both side. Love and marriage are emotional things. Emotional things lead to emotional debates. At the core of the entire issue lies the question that I have yet to hear anyone on either side answer - What exactly is "marriage". To answer this question is to answer the debate.

From the beginning of time, no matter how you measure it, man and woman have been getting together for the purpose of the advancement of the species - so to speak. No matter how science today intervenes, no matter what they do with invetro or surrogates or anything else, without the contributions somewhere in the process of one man and one woman you and I would not be here today. So is that "marriage". In centuries past in many societies would say yes. Many other societies would say no. Here again the debate rages on. For centuries it was deemed the realm of the privileged to maintain a devoted relationship. It was one of the things that separated mankind from the beasts. (actually there are quite a number of species out there that mate for life) Something in our mind that required resources and dedication not available to those less fortunate beings. As our affluence has grown and persisted this pendulum has sometimes swung in the other direction. Some in society would argue that it is the privilege of the affluent to do as they wish with no attachments or obligations to any commitment whatsoever. But that is a debate for a different blog.

So marriage requires dedication. That seems to be a common thread on all sides. But one man and one woman? In centuries past, family units included multiple marriage relationships. Heck even Solomon had seven hundred wives. [ Yet he was unhappy (can we all pause here and say "Duh!")] Today, our society has decided that this type of thing is not something that we support. Polygamy - one man with more than one wife, or one woman with more than one husband - is not something that we practice today. So what changed? Have we become more "advanced"? Have we become wiser through the ages? Possibly a little of both. It may be an oversimplified view, but still has some truth to it to say that polygamy existed centuries ago as a form of natural survival. Fact is that in a hunter / gatherer society men, doing their manly thing, got killed more often than women did. Here is where the economist steps in and explain the laws of supply and demand. As our society has become more "civilized" this necessity has waned. Some have attempted at times to declare this lifestyle a right of the privileged but, for the most part, they have been rejected. The fundamental foundational need no longer supports their desire. But is this marriage? Advancement of the species is happening all around us today without the foundation of a man and a woman dedicated to each other in marriage. Of course that is another debate for another blog once again.

So what then really is marriage? Is it something that has its foundation in our society's history? Something that cannot be changed? Is it something that is fluid and decided upon by each generation of our human race?  Until we decide to decide what this thing is that we call marriage, our debate over what form marriage should take and who it should be granted to shall continue to be just emotional voices tossed against each other in the wind.