Control

Before I begin sharing my thoughts on Gun Control, I want to clarify a few things. First off, I feel that reasonable people can reasonably disagree on important topics without the need to descend into personal invective or recriminating slander. Perhaps my biggest beef with the current gun control debate is it's hyper-polarization. While I realize that this has become somewhat of the norm, I cant help but ask myself, "What's a moderate supposed to do here?"
I have done my best to listen to both sides of this argument, and I think that there are thoughtful, moral, intelligent people on both sides of the line. Like most other issues, the matter of gun control is complex, and deserves genuine discussion. Finally, before you huff and puff away, please read the whole thing. Then lets talk about it.

Lets start off with me venting a little bit:

Gun Control Advocates:

I am not sure how many of them have fired a gun or owned one themselves, but I would be willing to say that most of them haven't. If they have, I would hazard the guess that they didn't enjoy themselves. The simple fact is that tens of millions of Americans derive a fair amount of enjoyment from shooting firearms. It is often a family activity that has special significance as a strong tradition. In my own home we fire "Granddaddy's Old .22" with special love and pride. I believe that it is nearly 100 years old, and it is usually the first weapon that kids in my family fire. For those of us who grew up in rural parts of the country, "going out shooting" is a cornerstone activity. One of my first dates was to take out a girl with a group of friends out into the hills shooting. Her daddy required someone to take personal responsibility for her safety and it scared the snot out of me. Hunting is not only a powerful tradition, it is an important conservation method. State game and fish departments carefully structure hunting in order to cultivate healthy populations of wildlife. The funds from hunters buying tags are one of the most powerful and direct means of protecting the natural environment. Nobody likes to be treated like a hick, or talked to like an idiot. I detest listening to the condescending tone assumed by an awful lot of gun control advocates. Its not only usually unjustified, but even more damning, it is counterproductive.

Guns are not just for hunting and recreation. They are a legitimate means of self defense. There are plenty of cases where responsible citizens have used firearms to protect themselves, their families, and innocent bystanders in the face of a determined and violent criminal. Gun control advocates often paint a picture of guns being the sure mark of a paranoid fanatic. This is simply not true. There are circumstances when the use of lethal force is not only justified, it is necessary to protect the innocent.

Gun Rights Activists:

I appreciated the NRA until I started to pay attention to politics. When I was growing up I thought that they were all that stood between my family and the ravenous liberals who wanted to turn our country into England. I don't see them that way anymore. Most of the time I see them as an embarrassment. You would swear that the Bill of Rights had only one amendment with these folks. I know a whole bunch of people who are memebers of the NRA, who support them financially. I don't want anyone to think that I am embarrassed by them. I am just saying that I don't think that they want to be political participants, they want to be political enforcers. They have put many a moderate republican into a tailspin during primaries because they were willing to TALK about gun regulation. They are part of our country's problem of brinkmanship. If you cant keep the NRA happy during your primary then you never even get a chance on the general ticket. We don't get very many middle of the road guys that way.

I was severely disappointed by the NRA's public comments following sandy hook. I had high hopes, since they elected to hold their comments until the funerals were complete I thought that they were developing a new sense of sensitivity. Boy was I wrong. Armed gaurds at every school? Are you kidding me? And who is going to pay for that? These people make no sense to me. They are the same guys who scream for smaller government. They had a great opportunity to contribute to a discussion. To provide a reasonable perspective. Instead they sounded like fanatics, they made every gun owner look like a fanatic.

And then there is Alex Jones and his insanity on Piers Morgan. I'm not 100% sure that this guy isn't a closet gun control advocate who is playing the role of the perfectly ignorant conspiracy theorist. He sounded downright dangerous. I couldn't believe how crazy this guy was! He was sure not only that the UN was planning to take our guns, but that elements of the Bush administration orchestrated 9/11/2001. That is right up there with the government of Iran guys. I mean seriously. They say the same dang things.

First: Who in the UN is going to come and take America's guns, against its will. WE have been the biggest contributor of military resources to the UN since its inception. Besides, if the UN wont go in and disarm a dictator that has killed 60,000 people over the last year and a half what makes anyone think that they will get the gumption to try and insert themselves into our domestic policy. The conspiracy theories here simply boggle me. Just about anyone who sits down and thinks about it objectively comes to realize that it is a bunch of hokum.

Next, we hear about modern psychiatric medications as the root of all evil. If we didn't have so many people on the meds, then we wouldn't have this problem, right? Well, kinda. If we didn't have so many people receiving inadequate care and supervision, we would have much less of a problem. However, nothing is solved by trying to get between a doctor and their patients. Problems like this are solved by giving the doctors and patients more resources. More case workers, more follow up, more treatment facilities, more legal support, more everything. And yes, that is all expensive. Welcome to healthcare. Sure we can be careful stewards, but screaming at pharmaceutical companies wont fix this problem. Pills have side effects, not even big pharm can change that. They would love to, because it would mean fewer lawsuits. There are no silver bullets. Sometimes mental health is long hard work.

So, what is my point? What is my proposed solution? Do I really think an assault weapons ban (that didn't work that well back in the day) is really the answer? Am I siding with the godless liberal horde? Do I need to reread the bill of rights?

Lets look at that last question first. As it so happens, I know the bill of rights fairly well. The second amendment reads: 

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.

How about that first phrase, "A well regulated Militia." What do you know! The word REGULATED right there in the constitution. We are, after all, a government of the people, by the people, for the people. Order is a critical element of providing security to a free state. We prevent people from buying explosives, radioactive material, and dangerous chemicals. Those are all elements of modern warfare that are excluded from the public domain.

Next, lets consider the question of God. Most of the people who will read this are Mormon, or they know a bunch of Mormons. Like many religious people, we believe that there will eventually come a time when the world will be consumed in wickedness and war. A time of great trial and tribulation. We believe that when the time is right, Jesus Christ will return to the Earth in power and glory. He shall usher in a time of peace and hope and the end of the world.

To our friends who do not share our faith, or have different opinions on how everything will happen this eschatological fascination can be difficult to understand. I am convinced that many of the people who buy modern sporting rifles and high capacity magazines do so out of a genuine desire to be able to protect their families in any circumstance. They further see any sign that the government would want to limit their access to these kinds of weapons as a sign of the corruption that could produce a biblical apocalypse.

I believe that the most meaningful way to prepare for the future is to look forward with faith. The prophet has never told us to buy guns, he has asked us to grow gardens. He has never told us to build arsenals, but encouraged us to reach out and build up our communities. Christ's gospel is not one of conquest, or of violence. Yes, he wants us to stand up for the right, and war is sometimes necessary. What I am saying is that I will not accept religious justifications for armament until I am given that council from my religious leaders. We have much bigger fish to fry at the moment. We should be more worried about the things that they do talk to us about.

As for strict constitutionalism, Mormons should be more understanding than any other religious group to the need for ongoing revelation. Yes, I said revelation. Several prophets have talked about how the constitution was an inspired document, and that the founding fathers where inspired men. Well guess what!  Joseph Smith taught that good governance is based on principles adapted to circumstance.  I believe that the CURRENT leaders of our government are just as entitled to revelation as where our founding fathers. They weren't exactly angels themselves you know. The founding fathers also didn't think women should vote, blacks were really people, or that the federal government ought to collect income taxes. I don't personally feel that liming access to very dangerous weapons constitutes a betrayal of the second amendment. One disturbed person ought not to be able to do that much damage.

So finally we are down to it. What is my proposed solution?

I don't think that a weapons ban will work. The wrong people will still have access to guns. Crazy people will still be crazy, and then we wont be able to have a real conversation about this for another 20 years. Straight up prohibition is nearly unenforceable. Only law abiding people will abide the law.

My solution is to tax the living tar out of the stuff.

Remember, I'm a public health guy. There are plenty of things that we wish we could outlaw, like tobacco. But another amendment (the 18th) taught us that it is basically impossible to force people into doing what is good for them. So instead of outlawing cigarettes, we tax them until it hurts. In fact I wish that we taxed them even more, and that we put strict rules in place for how that money is spent. Healthcare and Public Health programs don't see nearly as many of those dollars that they should.

Modern Sporting Rifles, high capacity clips, and other such things represent a public liability. If responsible people want to use and enjoy them I think that they ought to shoulder a portion of that liability. The money should be set aside for gun safety, education, LOTS of mental health resources, and in some high risk environments to supplement police dollars for things like guards.

Some people will think that this is unfair, but I think that it is very very fair. The people who insist that we ought to be able to buy these things should be the first to shoulder up to the consequences of having guns on the street.

Long live the second amendment. But may we all remember the first thing that we were taught when we first shot a gun. Handling a firearm is a serious responsibility. If you cant be serious, then you shouldn't be around guns.

Young Love

1. I work as a stage manager at BYU; and therefore have been somewhat involved in the preparations for the upcoming production of the Phantom of the Opera. Most of what I have helped with has had more to do with orchestra chairs and hanging curtains, but I have been in the space while the cast and crew have worked through flight rehearsals and so forth. Suffice it to say that it has been in my peripheral for the last month and a half or so.

2. Zeffirelli's 1968 "Romeo & Juliet" is on Netflix. It's actually quite well done. (FYI although it says PG, there is a brief moment of nudity. I still think it is worth watching.) I'm a hopeless Shakespeare fanboy, so even though it is Romeo and Juliet I was pretty excited to watch it. It makes the 1998 version everyone watched in High School look overdone and kitschy (not that it needed any help.)

Two very popular love stories. In fact they are so popular that the hipster bibliophile in me doesn't want to like them. They both showcase highly malleable female characters and relatively weak plot lines. They also sell out theaters time and time and time again. BYU has poured enough time and money into Phantom to do at least two Shakespeare plays at a very high level. (Not that we don't do Shakespeare, I absolutely loved Stephanie Brinholt's adaptation and directing of last season's "Love's Labors Lost") What is the magic of these works? Phantom is a deeply experiential work, lots of rich visuals and vocals. In a way it somehow manages to encapsulate and replicate the deeply moving experience of love. Romeo and Juliet is all about the conflict of love. Conflicting identities, conflicting obligations, conflicting emotions, and at the very last the conviction of love and the converting power of love.

Now don't get me wrong, there are PLENTY of other plays/operas/stories out there that hit these same concepts. In fact there are many that do a better job of it. But I think that is why these stories are told time and time again. Why we want to hear them time and time again.

For the first time in my life I am both young, and in love. I've been infatuated before, but I always knew that it was infatuation. There are other works that cover that ground (Midsummer Night's dream anyone?) In a way that I never fully realized, these stories tell some pretty timeless truth. Love is deeply experiential and sensational. A quiet moment together with that special someone can really be like listening to a symphony. (The experience is made manifold when you happen to be listening to a symphony together, but I digress.) Your heart sings songs that only the angels can hear. Love becomes the Phantom and the Opera.

And yet there is terrible conflict. Talk about an identity shift for everyone. In my case I don't have to worry about my girlfriend's family wanting to kill me (at least I hope not) but I have to worry about my own sensibilities driving me away from faith in the future and into fear of the unknown. There are days that my logical self drives my amorous self away to Mantua. But there is also conviction in old Will's story. Courage to face whatever odds because of how you feel. Is there any scene more courageous than Juliet facing the Friars tincture in the name of love? I can't think of one. Eventually love has the power to heal old divisions, and redefine us.

BUT WAAAAIIIIT! You mean to tell me that your fine with all of the silly plot problems? The teenagers who kill themselves, the girl who is in love with one guy when he is with her and the other guy when she is around him? You mean to tell me that Romeo and Juliet were really in "love" after 2 minutes?

No, I didn't say that. I think that people looking at these sorts of things microscopically are bound to find lots of problems. I usually find myself in this pickle. I almost can't help but snicker at the rather large leaps that authors and directors and actors make in these stories.

What I am saying is that when you look at these things macroscopically and conceptually, some powerful things show up. Powerful things that help to justify the masses and the theaters that give them what they want so that they can afford other projects throughout the year.

Young love is powerful, and it doesn't always make sense and we don't really care. It embodies some of the things that we most seek after as humans. We want for someone to love us as deeply as did Romeo and Juliet love eachother. We want love to make us sing like Raul and Christine (even if the song is only in our hearts). We want to be young at heart, and full of life and strength. We want to remember that when love and her courage are lined up toe to toe with circumstance and all its fears, in the end love wins.

So even though part of me would prefer to have BYU pull off "A Doll's House" by Ibsen.
Which is story about love from a whole different side of things, but a powerful one nonetheless, I am excited for Phantom.