Opinion
Wednesday, May 4,1994
The Clackamas Print Pg. 4
Crime is not a gun-control problem
by Russ Jones
The Print Staff
“Clinton pushes gun con
trol campaign”. “Weapon-ban
campaign steps up rhetoric”.
Headlines such as these have been
the order of the day from Capitol
Hillover the lastfew weeks. Presi
dent Clinton, with impassioned
rhetoric,, presses for a ban on 19
specific ‘assault’ weapons, con
tending that this legislation will
help bring order to our streets and
purpose to the war against crime.
Once again, the policy-makers, in
their isolation andinsulation,com
pletely miss the point
President Clinton is urg
ing hunters to help outlaw fire-
arms“designed for the battlefield”.
If he truly objects to these weapons
on this basis, why doesn ’ t he dedi
cate more energy to outlawing
battlefields? Remember, this is
the man who advocates arming
the Muslims in Bosnia so they can
defend themselves, yet seeks to
deny law-abiding Americans the
same basic right. Take a good
look at Bosnia, my friends, for that
inexcusable tragedy is taking
place, in large part, because the
weapons of government were
turned against an unarmed popu
lace.
President Clinton states
that he “..knows the difference
between a firearm used for hunt
ing and target-shooting, and a
weapon designed to kill people”.
This remark indicates either the
depths of his ignorance regarding
the subject, or his complete dis
dain for the innate intelligence of
the American people.
Hunting weapons are
designed to kill, target weapons
are designed to develop your abil
ity to hit what you’re aiming at.
There is no distinction based upon
what a weapon is ‘designed’ to do
and what it is actually capable of
doing in any given person’s hands.
Any weapon can kill any person if
that is the intent of the user, and
any knowledgeable person knows
that one well placed shot is worth
four magazines worth of spray.
So what’s going on here,
and what does it have to do with
you? There are some thingswhich
must be faced here, and some of
the answers are stuck right in the
center of the founding of this great
nation.
Our country was bom out
of a struggle against tyranny and
theusurpationofbasicrights. Our
founding fathers knew well the
inherent dangers of government
and, in their struggle to safeguard
our freedoms, instituted the Sec
ond Amendment. The rhetoric of
today would have you believe that
gun ownership and gun rights is a
question of hunting and defend
ing your home and person from
‘criminals’. This is surely a com
ponent of the debate, yet the guid-
ing concept was toprovideameans
by which the citizenry could de
fend themselves from their own
government.
All citizens, gun-nuts or
not, should be concerned when
the government institutes a policy
designed to leave the general pub
lic defenseless. On the one hand,
we are told that today’s criminals,
in many instances, out-gun the
police. On the other hand, we are
told that we need more police of
ficers because law enforcement
cannot keep up with the increase
inviolentcrime. Considering these,
two realities, why is it that the
governmental solution is to dis
arm those of us who are the vic
tims of criminal behavior? It is
obvious to most people, except the
politicians, that laws have no
deterrent effect on criminal be
havior. I, personally, have no
great longing to live in a country
where only the criminals, police
and military are allowed to pos
sess weapons. I can assure you
that when that day comes, you
won’tbe able to tell the difference.
There is a premise ex
pounded in criminal law relating
to the use of force, in which the
victim is generally justified in us
ing comparable force in the de
fense of life and property. No
government or society should fear
the ability of law-abiding citizens
to exercise this basic right.
The threat posed by the
President’s list of 19 specific ‘as
sault’ weapons is no greater or less
than the threat posed by all weap
ons in general. Firearms are sim
ply tools, and have no sense of
purpose, design, intent or destiny.
This cannot be said, however, of
the people who would have you
believe otherwise.
The problem of crime is
not a gun-control issue; it is a
crime control issue which will
only be exacerbated by limiting
the legitimate right of responsible
citizens to defend their homes and
families.
Religious claims shouldn't be viewed as historical facts
■ Faculty comment: Campus Crusade for Christ advertisement misleading
Ft»* example, Mark states
that the women were commanded
to tell the disciples of the resurrec
tion but that they were frightened
and said nothing to anyone. Mat
thew, on the other hand, states
that the women responded to the
command with great joy and im
mediately ran to tell the disciples.
These reports cannot bothbe true.
Matthew’s story is espe
cially problematic. His is the only
account to include an earthquake,
an event worth noting in a narra
tive, if it did occur. In the other
three Gospels, the
tomb accounts, the New Testa
ment goes on to record mass sight
ings of Jesus as evidence for the
I would like to comment on
resurrection. However, sometimes
the ad paid for by the Campus
strange mass hallucinations oc
Crusade for Christ which appeared
cur. For example, relatively few
in The Clackamas Print of April
non-Catholics believe that Mary,
6,1994. This ad indicated that the
the mother of Jesus, actually ap
resurrection of Jesus is a histori
peared to the children at Fatima,
cally reliable fact, so well docu
Portugal, in the early part of this
mented that it “Makes you wonder
century,although thousands of wit
how anyone could not believe! ” It
nesses reported that they saw the
is this claim regarding evidence
sun “dance” in the sky. (Those not
and documentation that I am con
atFatimafailed to report anything
cerned about. A religious belief
strange about the sun.)
supported by an appeal to faith or
Many people have un
religious authority is nobody’s
usual, “spiritual” things happen
business but your own. How
to them and conclude on the basis
ever, it is another thing alto
of the experience that their reli
gether to say that a religious
gious beliefs must be true. Per
claim is a reliable historical
sonal experience is very compel
fact When such an assertion
ling to all of us, as fundamentally
is made, the claim moves from
we must rely on our own private
the realm of personally held
experience to make our per
religious belief into the realm
sonal decisions regarding
of research and science and be
what is true and what is not.
comes subject to critical evalua
However, the problem with
tion.
regarding one’s own per
The evidence for theres-
sonal experiences as evi
urrection which is available to
dence which should becon-
believer and skeptic alike is found
vincing to others is that
in the New Testament, which does
many religious groups, includ
not claim that any human wit
ing those which, have diametri
nessed the actual resurrection.
tombis al cally opposed belief systems, are
However, the Gospels, written
ready open when able to elicit these kinds of un
three to six debadcs after the cru
the women arrive; how usual experiences in their mem
cifixion of Jesus, do contain de ever, in Matthew the women and bersandpotentialconverts. Thus,
scriptions of events which pur- the guards are said to observe the while one’s own special experi
portedlyfollowed the resurrection. angel roll the stone away from the ences may be compelling for one
The relevant chapters are Mark tomb. (Reading on, the soldiers, self, they cannot function as evi
16, Matthew 28, Luke 24, and who were so frightened of the dence for everyone that a religious
John 20.
angel that they became like “dead belief is actually an objective fact
I invite the reader who is men,” then go on to behave in a
Let me reiterate that I am
interested to read these accounts. psychologically implausible way.) not attacking belief in the resur
While there are similarities and
In
John,
Mary rection as such. Rather I am criti
overlapping passages, there are Magdalene goes alone to the tomb, cizing tiie claim that the evidence
also differences involving who unaccompanied by the other for the historicity of the resurrec-
went to the tomb, whether one or women. She finds the body gone - tionis compelling. When a state
two angels or men appeared, the and believes that it was stolen. ment is made that the evidence is
role of Peter and the other dis Peter and the “otherdisciple” come so strong that it “Makes you won
ciples, whether Jesus himself ac and leave, Mary remains behind der how anyone could not believe,”
tually appeared at the tomb, etc. and sees two angels. She is then the next logical step is to answer
Eyewitness accounts of the same met by Jesus and mistakes him for that question, often with the con
event are usually not identical. a gardener who may know where clusion that those who are in
However, when major differences the body has been taken. As told formed about but who neverthe
occur,testimoniestendtolosetheir by the Gospel of John, the story is less reject such a belief must be
power to convince and begin to* quitedifferentfromtheotherthree evil, stupid, stiff-necked, etc. If
sound more like hear say and ru- Gospels.
the evidence for the resurrection
mor.
Following the empty were as strong as the ad suggested,
by Marlene Tufts
Social Science Department
most people of good will and rea
sonable intelligence, including
Jews, Unitarians (like me), Mos
lems, Hindus, atheists, etc., would
become believers. This process of
over-estimating the strength of evi
dence for a belief and, conse
quently, devaluing those who fail
to agree has often had destructive
consequences.
« While I am not denying
that the resurrection of Jesus may
have occurred as a real event in
space and time, it seems to me that
the available evidence for that po
sition is not compelling. Belief in
the resurrection remains a matter
of faith: that is, a matter of belief
that does not require objectiveevi-
dence. Itisnotareliable historical
fact which should be accepted by
all because of the evidence and
documentation, as the ad would
have us believe.
On April 26, the nation finally paid its last respects to a
«realmah/WilmissyouDfek.
\