Strong character and leadership are in that category of things that are difficult to define but you know it when you see it. And you know it when you don't see it. I don't see it around the subject of guns in America.
There are certain moral imperatives anyone claiming good character and the role of positive leadership must acknowledge. A test for this is whether your decisions are for the good of the majority of people or only for a powerful minority. As the philosopher Kant's second imperative states: "Act so that you treat humanity, whether in your person or that of another, always as an end and never as a means only." Kidder and Born identify ends-based thinking for resolving ethical issues with the question, "How many people will benefit from this decision compared with other options?".
The international relationships of the United States have suffered because of distrust arising from a dichotomy: we preach the sanctity of human life but as a nation we take lives at a great pace. We say 'Do as I say, not as I do'. The lesson we teach is those with power are entitled to set the bar for morality, an oxymoron if ever there was one. The proliferation of weapons in this country and employed by this country grows even as we sanctimoniously proclaim to root out inhumanity around the world. We are posers.
That a restriction of guns in the United States would save thousands of lives annually is not a debate; it is fact. That lawmakers should accept the moral responsibility to limit gun sales in this country is not a question; it is an imperative. That the presidential candidates should take a stand against gun proliferation is not a random idea; it is a moral obligation.
Consider this question with ends-based thinking: a.) Thousand of lives will be saved each year if the number of guns in America is decreased. b.) If guns become inaccessible to the majority of Americans they will experience no discernible harm as a result. The choice, it seems to me, is clear.
Guns are designed to take a life, no more, no less. The purpose of this machine is intrinsically harmful, there is no benign construction that can be attributed to it. The purpose of a gun is to kill. It is People attempt to defend their homes, but it is the guns that kill. People go to war, but it is the guns that kill. People are often careless, but it is the guns that kill them. People become anxious or depressed or frustrated or psychotic., but it is the guns that kill others. That's what they do.
Times have changed and we need to change with them. The second amendment was written in a climate of real threats to individuals and to our young nation. Then there was a frontier full of dangers, hunting was a necessity, not a sport. States still regarded themselves as independent colonies potentially under threat not only from foreign nations but from their own newly formed central government as well as .
No more. Today, the proliferation of guns has created dangers, not alleviated them. And guns have evolved too. They are more efficient, more deadly.
I write this not to engage in debate nor to present facts and figures that will prove this or that; such articles have been written many times. The issue of guns won't be swayed by statistics, it won't be determined by persuasive language. There are those who will always cling to their guns as long as law permits. And there are those who will die from them.
This piece is about clarity. It is about putting form to what, in our hearts, we already know. To take a life is wrong. Guns take lives. Thats what they do.
* * *
I am re-posting this piece originally published in my blog "Thoughts from Under the Palm" in awareness of the tragic and deadly school shooting today in Newtown, CT. Its time for leaders to stand up.
