Violence and Firearms

A statistic led me to this point.  In reporting on the NRA's response to the Newtown tragedy, the networks reported that the organization has 4 million members.  I was struck by the small number and how disproportionate was their influence.

In a nation of 300 million people, how does 1.3% of that population get to control the debate on the regulation of firearms manufacture, sales and ownership?

Some background on my perspective: I have owned several firearms--as many as three shotguns, two rifles, two handguns and an air rifle at one time.  I enjoy hunting, target shooting and taking care of the weapons.  I do not own or possess any firearms currently.  In the interests of full disclosure, I should also say that I have been a member of the NRA.

Now that those cards are on the table, my opinion of the NRA is that it is an extremist organization.  When I was a member, I was sent messages and asked to pass them along to my elected representatives and/or network media figures.  The language in these messages was, to my mind, extreme and I could not, in good conscience, do as requested by Wayne Lapierre or Charlton Heston.

So how does the NRA wield so much influence?  It's mainly because their voice is the well-orchestrated one.  A voice for something always drowns out the voice against.  They have consistently made the issue about the Constitution and for a right cited in the Second Amendment.  The opposition, such as the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, is portrayed as being against the "right" cited in the Second Amendment.

This much is obvious, right?  It's also obvious that the voice that is heard is easily interpreted as the majority.  The NRA is very good at whipping up a frenzy of fearful indignation amongst the membership.  They can generate 4 million (I don't imagine there were too many others like me) emails, letters and phone calls, frequently to multiple targets.  The Brady Campaign can't do this nearly as well.

As we saw in Mr. Lapierre's most recent statements, it is easy to sow seeds of confusion and generate several tangential debates while all the while adamantly holding the flag of the Second Amendment high and calling on loyal Americans to rally to its defense.

In fact, there is no justification for high-capacity magazines and high rate-of-fire except as a thrill for certain kinds of enthusiasts.  (There must be another term for an enthusiastic extremist--or maybe enthusiastic is redundant.)  You can get quite a thrill from cocaine or meth, too, but those thrills are illegal.  I have been in the woods during deer season and heard a single weapon discharge 10,15,or more rounds in the space of a few seconds.  It made me profoundly uneasy as I sat there with my single-shot rifle.  Thrills for a few are not sufficient justification for the level of danger presented.

The Second Amendment could be satisfied with a muzzle loading black powder weapon.  Let's shrug off the "right to keep and bear arms" as the central issue and stay focused on issues more central to the public welfare.

Grace

Grace is the slender but unbreakable thread upon which we are all suspended.  If you happen to be a Christian (as I am) you should know this already.  Other faiths may share this dependence in some way.  Buddhists, for example practice to become at one with life, accepting everything as part of the journey, believing that it is possible to transcend the journey.

I'm sure that Buddhists would express this differently and I won't even attempt a similar expression for Islam or the other religions.

In my mind the most elegant expression of grace is the story (in John chapter 8) of the woman who was apprehended in adultery and brought to Jesus as a test.  Jesus had given the religious Jews the idea that he might not support the ancient Law.  They asked Jesus to condemn the woman according to the Law.  As you will recall, he agreed that she had violated the Law and suggested that whoever among them had not violated the Law should be the one to throw the first stone.

One by one they were shamed by this until none were left.  At this point Jesus asked the woman who was condemning her.  When she answered that there was no one, he said, "Neither do I condemn you."

That's grace.  He then sent her on her way, suggesting that she give up her life of sin.  It would be startling to find out that she had been stoned the very next week after being caught in adultery again.  I put myself in the shoes of this woman and think that if I had been required to confess in order to escape punishment, I would certainly have done so.  Then I would have begun resenting that coercion immediately.  That resentment would certainly have led me back to the sinful life.

It is critical to the concept of Grace that Jesus never asked the woman for anything.  No seed of resentment was planted.  I could walk away completely free and begin at that moment a new kind of life. 

If you believe that confession is a prerequisite to forgiveness, you're probably not a parent.  As a parent, I know that I can demand a confession and apology and I will probably get them.  I also know that an assurance of love and forgiveness will elicit truly sincere remorse including repentance.  Repentance in avoidance of punishment is cheap and unreliable.  Repentance in response to forgiveness (grace) can last the rest of one's life.

You are loved and your are forgiven.  Let your life be a response to that.

The Origin of Species (When is a theory not a theory?)

There are just a couple of things that continue to bother me when discussion turns to evolution. 

First, we're told that this theory explains how higher organisms (like us) gradually developed from much simpler organisms.  This is based on observations of certain small birds which are identical to other small birds except that their beaks are longer (or shaped differently).  We're told that the difference happened by accident (a mutation) and that this accident allowed the mutant bird to survive in a changing environment.  We're told that the mutation was passed on to offspring and that, over time, the birds showed a mating preference for others with the same beak so that after many generations, all descendants of the original mutant possessed the new beak.

This part is believable, though improbable.  The likelihood of a stable mutation that can be genetically transmitted to offspring is small.  The likelihood of the original mutant surviving to produce offspring is small.  The likelihood of the mutant successfully mating, given that differences are generally not accepted by prospective mates, is quite small.  The likelihood of sufficient mutants reaching adulthood and mating with one another to produce a stable breeding population is very small.  Entire breeding populations (known as flocks or herds or packs...are often wiped out completely by sickness, fire, storm, famine or any of a host of devices that nature keeps for such purposes.

As you may know, the probability of a series of things happening together is the product of their individual probabilities.  For example, let's say that the probability of a successful/useful mutation is one in a hundred (1%).  For many species in the wild, the probability of surviving to breeding age is one in three (33%).  Let's imagine that the probability of attracting a mate given that you are visibly different is one in five (20%).  Let's further assume that the probability of any specific individual becoming the basis of a stable breeding population is one in 100 (1%).  The actual probabilities may be much lower but these will do for this illustration.  There are many other conditions, each with it's own probability that might also come onto play but with only these few variables we calculate the probability of success at .01 x .33 x .20 x .01 = .0000066 or less than one in one hundred thousand.

By the way, at this point we have only succeeded in producing a new sub-species because we have assumed that the mutants have bred with non-mutants within the species.  One of the defining characteristics of a species is that interbreeding with another species is not possible or at least highly improbable.

Evolutionists deal with improbability through the use of time.  If enough time goes by, they say, virtually anything is likely to happen, regardless of its probability.   That's hard to argue with.  Hard to argue isn't quite the same as persuasive, though.

The point that is most difficult to accept is the mutation that produced sexual reproduction.  We go from a time in which all reproduction (in single-cell organisms) is via mitosis.  The cells simply split and become two identical cells.  Suddenly, everything changes.  We now need another individual in order to procreate.  This is not a mutation.  The difference can't be explained by evolutionary (meaning incrementally small changes over a long period of time) change.  It seems we are left with only a handful of choices.

• We need more complexity in the origins.  At least we need both sexual and asexual reproduction to be represented in the universe.
• If we insist on a single original lifeform, we need to change the basic building block of evolution from mutation to something else.
• We have to relegate evolution to a much smaller role.

Of course there are many other theories out there to explain the breadth and depth of the diversity of lifeforms on our planet.  They aren't getting enough attention because only one theory, evolution, has been granted the "scientific" seal.

It's not important to me to explain how we became what we are because the the real value comes in understanding how we will become what we should be.  It just raises my hackles when someone says that they have an explanation for Homo sapiens and it is evolution.