Lions and Lambs

Normally, I keep out of the public forum when it comes to my personal politics. I don’t allow myself to get mixed up digitally with those who are unavailable to have a serious conversation about things which I place a significant amount of my energy into. Bluntly, I don’t trust easily. Until I see that a person is willing to and interested in a toothless conversation, I’m not even going to play. This is not a chess match for me. There is no winner and no loser. My modus operandi is not normally to persuade anyone toward any goal; because I recognize that at its core, persuasion is nothing more than projection of personal ethos—propaganda, persuasion’s closest synonym speaks to this.

There are people who completely disagree with this last statement and that’s okay. Their inability to see the world as a giant conglomerate of neither right, nor wrong, but of a multitude of wholly autonomous human interaction is an obstacle I don’t find value in surmounting. On a more intimate level, though, I don’t normally seek to mold them to my will. Of course, I’m human. It would be a wonderful world if everyone could simply function as I do. The great truth is, however, that I’m one of seven billion bugs crawling on this rock who are all just trying to make their way along. To as close to one-hundred percent of that population you can mathematically get, I don’t matter squat; and that’s just fine with me.

You see, the country I live in was founded with an understanding that human beings are nearly identical in a chemical sense; but that we are each in possession of a limitless mind which is beyond the scope of science or human understanding. It’s this limitlessness of human imagination that makes it impossible to have any two humans, no matter how immense the population of humanity may grow to be, who are really all that similar within the sphere of their own personal conscience. They were genesis of a new society. In place of egomaniacal, brutish assertion of power they turned their minds to the great societies of ages past. There, they found great numbers of failed governments and social structure which they unwaveringly sifted through to find—not the best—but what they ethically decided to be the most functional structures and ideals which they then pressed together into our constitutional democracy.

This order assigned a value to every person within its reach a value, and allowed them to assign that value as they saw fit. When a specific majority was reached in support of any dictate (other than a specific few; such as the pursuit of life, liberty, and property, which they felt were rights which should be guaranteed to every citizen of a “free” state) it would be arranged. They then put into effect a provision which was designed to protect a person’s privilege to speak their thoughts concerning any which thing they had thoughts to speak. They then decided that it was important to allow a person to protect themselves against any force which attempted to separate them from these rights and privileges.

Using the established system, Americans were able to design their government according to their major (or widely agreed upon) ethics. Not the least of these major ethical moves was to modify the assigned values of certain individuals living within the scope of the government from zero, through three-fifths, and into equality for first imported Africans and then females. This was contrary to the initial design of the system; but, was inclusive from the outset for exactly this purpose.

Today, we have seen and are continuing to see these majorities raise their collective voice in the pursuit of modification of our designer political system. Tragically, most of our citizens use their voice in every which place save the established avenue for change, electoral poll booths and the inboxes of their respective representatives. Moreover, their voices are directed in bigotry and anger to those who don’t share their political positions. Our contemporary society is faced with a rising of the banners for recognition of homosexual relationships as valid and valuable, and to have the system recognize and support these ideals. The great tragedy is found on both sides of the line with those opposed to the movement labeling their counterparts as “evil” and dysfunctional and those in support attacking the religious organizations and conservative field in a narrow, stereotyping manor; cursing their gods and ethics.

This call to speak out on the definition of human relationships is one of those autonomous human interactions alluded to in my introduction which is neither good, nor evil; but completely neutral. It’s not a question of logic, or rational though; but of personal ethics; which are provided and protected under the power of our nation’s constitution. In contrast to my earlier statement that personal politics is not a contest; public politics is exactly that. It’s a game. The problem is, we’ve got a serious lack of sportsmanship among the players. Instead of focused determination during and passionate acceptance after each of these contests, we have whining; back-biting; name calling; and venom filled bitterness. In place of handshakes and congratulations on games well played, we villainize and victimize, complain about the rules of the game only when we lose, and do our best to draw fouls. It’s pathetic. It is behavior we find offensive in those who don’t know better; but celebrate in ourselves, in our main-stream sports, and in our politics. It’s a paradigm model of the ridiculous moniker “do as I say, not as I do.” It’s a contradiction we put forth considerable effort to hide; but the fact remains, the majority of us tell our children—teaching would be something altogether different wherein our children would grow into adults who did not exhibit this behavior—is wrong and then demonstrate to them is the way to get along as an adult.

Except when it’s not; because sometimes it’s bad.

Somehow, our society has grown into one where all of this poor sportsmanship is not only tolerated; but publically supported in rallies and demonstrations so long as it’s not the official or intended aim of the presenters. If a demonstrator at my event holds a sign that says something incredibly offensive to the majority, it’s either vehemently denied or casually dismissed depending upon the reaction of the majority. Even more strange is that the opinion of the majority is grossly skewed toward the radical or anti-traditional. This speaks volumes; but first, it shows that my reaction as a presenter isn’t proactively decided based upon the severity of the offense; but reactively associated with the response the offense draws in the media. What that should do is unmask the character and show that the true intention behind the reaction isn’t resolution; but an effort to veil or screen the parts of my campaign which draw attention to the uglier side of the coin I’m holding. I may either agree or disagree with the offensive message and it may or may not speak directly to what I’m campaigning for. What’s important is that the majority be placated and that if they won’t be, at the least they won’t be able to pin the message to my campaign board with any confidence.

The one thing that seems to be generally intolerable, though, is direct physical confrontation; especially from anyone of the traditional opinion. Again, this is especially important when the media or majority is in observation. When done in private, such as swatting a child on the buttocks for misbehavior; or slapping a reaching hand away from a private possession it’s less of an interruption because not as many criticizing eyes have access to it. In the media, however, once someone resorts to physical resistance, they’ve more often than not “lost control” and therefore credibility.

A group of teenagers could very conceivably be praised and rewarded, socially, for staging a sit-in which either impeded, or even blocked completely, positive capital interaction between a financially successful enterprise and its customers. Even if that corporate financial loss was, in reality, shared by all of those individuals who depended upon that enterprise for their livelihood and the livelihood of those who depended on them; such as their spouses, children, and associates, it could still be an inspiring and generally celebrated event. However, if this group of teenagers systematically targeted, assaulted, and robbed those people, it would be a terrible crime and an injustice. In effect, are the two not equal? Do they not share the same ends? The difference then is in the means, and if so, our society has effectively reversed the koine from the ends justifying the means, to now the means justify the ends. Whatever the result will most likely be acceptable as long as the right people bring them about in the right—or politically correct (which is a very bigoted viewpoint, if you actually put thought to it)—way.

The inspiration for this breaking of my silence is an event that occurred last night in the west-central state of Colorado. A very broken young human being decided that, for whatever reason, he would attend a midnight premier of The Dark Knight Rises and wage a personal war on the innocent people in attendance. Twelve people lost their lives and a total of seventy-one were injured; the youngest of those being only four months old. I’m not sure why this particular massacre has embedded itself in my consciousness; but I can’t escape it. I have been alive through countless acts of senseless violence in this world and some more memorable ones stand out to me as I write this: firstly, the Columbine high school shooting, the Trolley Square mall shooting, and the Norway Island massacre. Each of these was tragic and dredged up emotions in me; but none of them brought with them the level of epiphany of the Batman massacre.

Maybe it’s because as I write this, I am looking out over my two children as they innocently play with their neighborhood friends. Maybe it’s because I’m missing my wife who’s been away at camp during the past week as she carries our third child yet unborn. Maybe it’s because there was a masked man in my neighborhood last week attempting to gain entry into houses by claiming he needed to use the phone. Maybe it’s just the fact that I’ve lived long enough to see one too many acts of predation in which I am heartsick that none of the victims were able to successfully put a stop to the terror.

There are only two ways to look at gun violence: either we work to remove guns from our lives, or we do more to ensure that our citizens are well-armed.

Although average response time to Priority 1 emergency calls in the United States is right around nine minutes, police were able to respond to the Columbine shootings in fewer than five minutes and the Batman massacre in around ninety seconds. In Norway, it took police around an hour and a half to respond to the island. The normal range for semi-automatic rate of fire for today’s sophisticated weapons is forty-five to sixty rounds per minute though if a person is firing more than twenty or so rounds, the accuracy of those shots drops dramatically. Should I even do the math? If every round were to strike a critical target, it is possible that a lone gunman could kill one person per second in a massacre which could be expected to last around nine minutes.

In the distance, I can hear the roaring lions and the hoofbeats of the lambs.

The vocal media seems to rally behind the first option each time there’s a tragedy involving firearms; but we have a provision in our government which protects our ability to possess and bear arms that many of our more conservative citizens cling to. This binary in our political process has created a great forum in which the poorest of sportsman have risen up and taken command. The resistance has begun their protest anew this morning. The Twitter hashtag #nomoreguns is trending and a poorly timed tweet has led to the removal of a pro-gun personality on the popular forum. Facebook is alive with posts like, “this is what guns do” and “to all of you pro-gun nuts.” There’s a slightly more intelligent movement in the media as journalists bombard the authorities with questions of the legality of the gunman’s possession of the four firearms he possessed at the time of the movie theater shooting; but to what end? Is the tragedy somehow less or more depressing depending on the answer to that question? No, it’s the sneaky veiling and screening maneuver I alluded to earlier in this essay. It’s an attempt to use a means to justify an end; but what that end is, I’m not going to assert. Wait until you hear the answer to that question, and you’ll see what their true purpose was for asking it.

If guns kill people, then cars drive drunk.

A gun is a tool; no more, and no less. The tool itself doesn’t bring about a manifestation of its purpose; it’s the focused employ of the tool by a cognizant, thinking being. Of course, there are accidents. There are incidents where a tool unintentionally brought about that manifestation of their purpose; but keep in mind that none of these ever happened without some kind of intelligent action upon the tool. I say this because there are some people in this country that really believe that an unloaded weapon can randomly fire and that a round can unload itself in the absence of a gun. This is obviously not the case; but again, it’s not necessary to have this be truthful, as long as the concept is allowed to flow throughout the mass of anti-gun protesters.

To follow this line of thinking to any certain conclusion, we must rid ourselves of tools that could be used to encroach upon those privileges outlined in the founding documents our nation was designed from. It’s important to remember that guns haven’t always existed. Before the invention of gun powder, the world saw some of the most horrific periods of genocide in its history. The monsters behind these great engines of murder used other projectiles, blades, blunt force-weapons, and even stones weapons which they derived from tools originally designed to aid humans in the ability to provide themselves with the necessities of life. In truth, though, these tools are more effective when employed in the service of intelligent men who realize they can prey upon other humans. We don’t have impenetrably thick skin to protect us. Nor do we have frighteningly large, sharp teeth and claws. We’re basically weaponless and defenseless animals until we realize that instead of these natural tools and defenses, we have a limitless mind. From our minds can spring thick steel and concrete skin that can protect us from any natural threat and blades capable of rending any material we’ve ever encountered. This gyre of weapons vs. armor has been going on since the earliest of humans began to create tools, and will not likely end at any time before extinction.

But these other tools weren’t used in that theater last night. An assault-rifle, a shotgun, and a handgun were. The fact is that guns exist. They’ll never be locked back in Pandora’s Box until every human with a memory is eradicated. Even a child with a knowledge of the concept of firing a projectile to take a life could re-introduce our world to the necessity of responsible tool handling. As long as this is the case, we must either become bulletproof creatures, or raise ourselves up and prepare ourselves to counter the threat.

In the nineties, a Canadian band called The Arrogant Worms released a song called “Let There Be Guns” in which they use satire in their lyrics and mock redneck word pronunciation to foil the extremist attitude that every person should be in possession of a firearm. Cleverly worded jabs trouble the (ill)logic that crime would disappear and we would all feel safe if everybody had a gun. There’s a merry celebration of the ability to “go out and shoot things” before the critical flaw of the argument clearly shows the intent and purpose of the song. The last of the list of benefits to everyone having a gun is the incorrect idea that “everyone’d be equal, ‘cause everybody’d have a gun” and two of the three rednecks attempt to resume their merriment when the third interrupts and says, “not me! I got me a rifle!” The other characters begin to realize that simply having a gun isn’t sufficient in the light of the variety of weapons available.

So, no. No it would not be great if everybody had a gun.

However, getting back to the reason I mentioned homosexual human relationships, our country is a place where the rules of the game apply to everyone equally; not just to a select few. It sounds good when the government has power to regulate arms; but take it a few steps further down the line. What if instead of guns, it was a question of cars? The government tells you that only military personnel are able to own cars and now you must get in yours and drive it to your local collection center and relinquish it to Uncle Sam. How long is your walk home? How long does your child suffer with fever or injury while you wait for the doctor to make his way to your house to treat them? Or, are we telling the government and each other that there is no equality? Do we abandon that ideal as well, or do we simply pull the curtain just far enough that equality covers everything else, and so remitting ourselves to the great lie of our time?

So, sure, let’s say that only some people can have guns. Let’s even go so far as to say that only the national defense branches can have guns. What happens now when a midnight flight out of Izhevsk delivers a seemingly unlimited supply of weapons capable of hitting targets at over eight hundred yards with a bolt-action feed and a surplus of ammo from the last one-hundred fifty years production? Lions will prey on lambs. How long, then, will it take the Marines to organize and deploy counter-terrorism teams to meet the threat of a gunman in a school, church, mall, movie theater, or some clandestine hill above a major metropolitan area? I’m not a military strategist; but I’ll say right now it won’t happen in five minutes.

As I said earlier, I don’t want to live in a world where everyone I pass on the freeway is an armed man. However, I don’t want to live in a world where my government has the ability to tell me who can and cannot possess property. I have an unrealistic ideal as well and it’s that every armed citizen would be a responsible adult impervious to the sways of ethos and united in their cause to defend the weak. It’d be a twenty-first century Knight’s Code that no man would ever have any thought of breaking. Again, I realize this is also a daydream. It is my ideal, and I want everyone to adhere to it; but to dredge up another koine, I’m S.O.L. That dream is never going to happen; so I need to wake up, put on my big boy pants, and step with both feet into the cold pool of reality.

I’ve told my wife several times that as a gun-owning father, I’m not in the business of kid-proofing my guns; it’s my intention to gun-proof my kids. Sure, I take the precaution to keep my guns trigger-locked, up high, and locked separate from the ammo. I’m not reckless. However, my strategy for safe keeping of firearms doesn’t rest in the cold steel of a Master combination lock. As I’ve stated again and again, our minds are limitless in their capabilities. And as a red-blooded American adult, I expect my children to be just as capable, if not more so, than myself and any adult I know. If they can be more self-controlled and determined in an interactive competition with a schoolmate than most adults I know, why should they not be so in a single sided logical contest with a five digit code on a lockbox? I don’t know; but, I’m not about to take the gamble and find out. No, my kids know exactly what’s in dad’s pistol box. There is a two pound fire spitting Beretta, loaded with frangible rounds, and only ever one cycle of the slide away from being on the business end of firefight.

Yes, they know where the weapons are at. They know where the ammunition is at. They even know that you have to put the ammunition in the weapon before it has any chance of firing. They also know that if they ever want to see the weapons in action, all they have to do is ask me to take them down to the gun range and demonstrate the terrible force these weapons are when you point them downrange. All of my children will be raised to know that guns are no toy, nor are their threat to be underestimated. If a man ever steps into a room wielding any kind of weapon, they are to take the threat seriously and do everything they can to get to cover immediately. If they find a gun or even an unboxed round unattended, either in our home, or the home of their friends, they are to back away and notify the nearest adult of what they found. They are trained not to touch any weapon they don’t specifically know is a toy for them to play with, and even then, they are to treat it as if it were every bit as real as the ones locked up in my closet. There will come a day when each of them is educated on the proper handling and safe enjoyment of firearms and along with it will be the five numbers that will gain them access to the Beretta and location of the keys to the trigger locks.

In this world, you are either a lion, or you are a lamb.

Today I decided definitively that I refuse to be a lamb. It’s not enough to have a weapon at home; I need to have a weapon ready and on my person at all times in order to meet the threats of life in the twenty-first century. My home state of Utah is a concealed carry state with a permit. A permit which to this point I’ve put off acquiring. I’ve been a lamb. The difference between the two is merely the presence of a fighting spirit and a determination to develop one’s own ability to preserve oneself. When a predator enters the territory of lambs, they huddle together and bleat loudly for the shepherd to come and rescue them. Lambs and men are no different. Last week, when two armed men burst into a room full of people in Florida and began making threats, a lion rose up among them and the .380 caliber in his hands roared to life and battered the two violent intruders. The entire ordeal lasted just eighteen seconds.

This is THE measure I’ve committed to take. I will climb down off from the fence and commit myself to preparing my mind, body, and skillset to becoming the most fearsome lion I can be. This is the ONLY measure I can take full command of to ensure my family and friends that we will not be preyed upon. I will not allow any threat to enter my pride and reduce our human value to anything less than equal to theirs. Today’s epiphany embedded within me the idea that any person who malevolently seeks to separate his fellows from their universal right to life has equally remitted himself of the right to his own. We are all equal. If you act based on a credo, you deserve to receive the justice of that same set of rules. If you’re going to play the game, you either win, or you lose; and the game of life is played for keeps.

However, this measure of self-preservation is not enough. There must be something done to prepare the citizens of the United States of America to respond to mortal danger when confronted. We need to teach our sheep to act in place of reaction. We should project the fact that the biggest, fiercest, and most reliable lions among us are sitting in every chair along every aisle of the movie theaters from the Atlantic to the Pacific. As congregated lambs, even when we are unarmed, we’re more powerful than any lion that may throw itself at us. It’s my belief that our uniting anti-violent principles should come with a set of troubleshooting instructions for equip us to deal with situations when those corrupted by power decide to prey upon us. We need to become strong. When we prepare ourselves in our communities to rise up and meet these predators with an inexorable self-preservation, we’ll become strong.

More than a bruise and a distraction, anything other than a perfectly placed round from my Beretta would have done nothing to the gunman in Colorado last night. He had prepared himself by wrapping his body in bulletproof skin and filtering the noxious clouds of gas he filled the room with out of the air he was breathing before his attack. The single greatest disadvantage he was in was the fact that he was alone. The thing is, a gun is only mortally threatening in one very specific arc from a relatively small point. If you are able to get out of that line of fire, there’s very little that gun can do to you. The trouble of body armor is a problem that human beings have been dealing with for centuries. Ancient warriors quickly realized that once disarmed by an armored opponent, traditional striking was ineffective and that they were in need of a form of combat which was effective in this unarmed situation. This turned into a system of grappling techniques which has since spread across the globe and diversified into a wide array of grappling arts. Compounded with this is the relative ease with which sharp metal objects, such as knives can penetrate bullet proof materials like Kevlar. These simple truths combined with an ability to make high stakes decisions are things that our community centers could provide to our citizens with a fraction of the expenditures used in our unfocused and sporadic attempts to contend with our public safety.

When lions fight, it’s the grass that suffers.

In Africa, it’s more common that fights between powerful lions are more demonstrative than physically damaging. It doesn’t take long for the weaker lion to realize he’s beaten and he quickly beats a trail into the bush. No sane lion is interested in mortal combat with a competitor; he only wants the spoils of victory. If they don’t come easily today, maybe he’ll have another chance tomorrow. The third and last step we should take as citizens is to protect ourselves from violence is the removal of that future possibility of assertion; and it’s already in place. Our police forces are extremely skilled hunters of dangerous fugitives. Once we run the attackers off, we can release our great hounds and bring the renegades to justice for their crimes. That’s the place of our law enforcement. Although powerful, they are few and distant. They can’t be expected to be present at every moment; but we can and by definition will be. 

As I am taking the time to be absolutely honest about my personal politics, please do me the favor of considering my entire composed argument; as its sum is greater than the total of its parts. Out of context, some of the above claims could be ill-received and used to turn the spirit of my argument on its head. This is in no way a celebration of violence; but an acceptance of the rules by which the game is played in the United States of America. 


If you have a response to this article, I'd love to hear it. Send me an email at makinglionsoutoflambs@gmail.com or post a comment to the comment section below. See you in the pridelands.