Guns in America: Facts vs. Fiction

       Newtown, Columbine, Aurora, UC-Santa Barbara... There are some crazy people in this world.  It breaks my heart to see people lose their lives because of a deranged maniac who has somehow managed to get his or her hands on a gun.  With that being said, I sincerely believe that we as a society should do all that we can to make sure that murders such as these never take place again.

       How do we do that?  Is it really possible to pass laws that will protect us as a society?  What I do know is that increasing gun control has not been the answer, historically.  If you look at Washington D.C. and Chicago, the statistics show that gun crime has increased when strict gun laws have been put in place.

       On the other side of the spectrum, in some areas, such as Kennesaw, Georgia, more guns have drastically decreased gun crime.  In 1982, the Georgia city imposed a law that mandated households to have a gun inside the home.  Crime plummeted 72% during the time that law was in effect.

       If you have listened to President Obama, the Democrats, and a large portion of the media, you would think that a mass shooting is literally happening every week, that it is an all out war in the streets with big, scary, AR-15s that are powered solely by the tears of children.  That is the picture that they are painting, that guns are scary, that people should be limiting in their purchases of them, that guns and only guns are the problem with homicides in this country.

       That sure makes for a fine media narrative, doesn't it? They provide some shock value to viewers, entertain animated guests, sparking an extremely divisive culture between gun rights activists, the NRA, and gun control activists.  Shouldn't concrete, unbiased statistics be the standard on which we view this debate?  I think so, and if you disagree, then I would question your ability to use common logic. 
________________________________________________________________________
Per Huffington Post:

"A study released Tuesday by the government's Bureau of Justice Statistics found that gun-related homicides dropped from 18,253 in 1993 to 11,101 in 2011. That's a 39 percent reduction.

Another report by the private Pew Research Center found a similar decline by looking at the rate of gun homicides, which compares the number of killings to the size of the country's growing population. It found that the number of gun homicides per 100,000 people fell from 7 in 1993 to 3.6 in 2010, a drop of 49 percent.

Both reports also found that non-fatal crimes involving guns were down by roughly 70 percent over that period. The Justice report said the number of such crimes diminished from 1.5 million in 1993 to 467,300 in 2011."

It is also worth noting that the Center for Disease Control conducted a study related to gun control and gun crime, finding that there was no empirical evidence that shows that stricter laws on guns produced lesser crime/homicides.

________________________________________________________________________

       I'm not a scientist.  I'm not a journalist.  I'm just an aspiring lawyer who feels the need to educate people on important issues with concrete facts.  Each of those studies done are by unbiased institutions, finding empirical data.  That data shows that gun crime/death in America is dropping, while increased gun control does NOT help curb gun crime.  So why is this such a prevailing narrative within the Democratic Party and the media?  I can't say for sure, but I'm sure it has something to do with emotional, knee-jerk reaction responses to chaotic events like Newtown.  Something bad happens and everyone wants to introduce strict proposals that, as the studies show, will in the end, do nothing for curbing gun crime!  They just want to be the party of "action" regardless of whether that so-called "action" does anything at all.  

       The conversation has turned to outlawing the semi-automatic "assault weapons" with high capacity magazines.  "Assault Weapon" has been the Democrats'/Liberals' favorite way of describing a rifle which fires every time you pull the trigger that can hold around 30 rounds of bullets.  They would have you believe that the guns they are wanting to ban are military 50-caliber automatic weapons that can spray round after round after round with one pull of the trigger. Semi-automatic rifles have been around a long time, available for sport shooting, hunting, and self-defense, but "assault weapon" just sounds scary, huh?  For the uneducated, maybe.

      Again, maybe the statistics will tell us that it's the "assault weapons" that is doing most of the killing. Via FBI Statistics, 6,009 people were killed in 2010 by handguns, but 358 with a rifle.  You could almost take their argument seriously if they wanted to ban handguns because they kill an extreme amount more than rifles, and yes that includes "assault rifles".  This interview with conservative journalist Ben Shapiro and gun control-pushing Piers Morgan is a fine example of how it looks when facts and logic collide with emotional pulls and smoke and mirrors. 

       The United States has a long traditional history of hunting, sport shooting, and gun ownership.  We would not have succeeded in the American Revolution without a well-armed citizenry.  Guns were an integral part of the founding of this nation, and our Founders took gun ownership seriously. 

"A free people ought to be armed."
- George Washington

"To disarm the people is the most effectual way to enslave them."
- George Mason

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country."
- James Madison

"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."
- Samuel Adams

"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
- Thomas Jefferson

       As you can see, your right to own a gun isn't mostly for hunting or sport.  The right of the people to own a gun is integral to the freedom of a society, a society where ultimate authority rests in the people, and not in a government that controls them.  For this administration to downplay our traditions, Constitution, and blatant facts when it comes to guns is offensive to our Founders and offensive to common logic.  Don't let emotional pulls and smoke and mirrors rhetoric distort truth.  Know the facts, understand our traditions, and then we can have a much more productive conversation in this country about guns. 

5 Things to Keep in Mind on Memorial Day

Memorial Day 2014 is coming to an end, and I hope everyone had a great holiday with family and friends.  Many people celebrate with parades, BBQ's or a number of other events, but I hope everyone took the time to think about what Memorial Day really means.  I would venture to say that a good percentage of Americans don't even know what it means, much less be able to differentiate it from Veteran's Day.  If you happen to not know, Memorial Day is in recognition of those who have died in military service while Veteran's Day is a celebration of all veterans.

With that being said, I've compiled five things that I hope all Americans can take away from this Memorial Day:

1. How far we have come:

It is impossible to think about how far we have come as a nation without remembering the men and women who have fought and died in the name of freedom and liberty.  From the Revolution to the War on Terror, countless men and women have given their lives.  Where would we be without those who are willing to give it all, to risk their lives so that the freedom and principles that are maintained in our Constitution would continue to stand?  We definitely would not be where we are now.  

2. Where we are going:

If men and women are dying for our freedoms, shouldn't we make sure that we elect leaders that serve our nation in such a way that honors We the People, our Constitution?  It is our duty as Americans to make sure that if men and women are willing to go overseas into the middle of hostile territory, we better make damn sure we are honoring the very principals which they are dying to protect.  Stay informed.  Partake in discussions. Read the news.  Elect competent leaders who love this country and want to see it succeed.  This is all to ensure that those who are fighting can rest assured that their sacrifice is not in vain.  

3. Leave Politics Out of Support

Maybe you're anti-war.  If so, GREAT!  One would have to be mentally imbalanced if they consider themselves pro-war.  We have to understand that a competent and lethal military is vital to the survival of this country and we should always do what is necessary to protect it.  Keep in mind that the people who are fighting and dying aren't fighting due to their politics, so nothing offends me more than someone saying they don't support the troops because they're anti-war or they don't agree with our military conflicts.  Personally, I don't agree with the fact that we are still fighting in Afghanistan and meddling around in virtually the entire Middle East.  However, the people who are fighting have no choice on where they serve.  They serve because they love this country and want to protect it.  If you don't want war, fine.  Vote for candidates who are less likely to take us into war or write your Congressman.  Nothing could be more unpatriotic than not supporting those who put their life on the line for us regardless of where they are sent to fight. 

4. Understand Foreign Policy

With chaos in the Middle East and tensions surround Ukraine, foreign policy is at the forefront of national concerns.  Think about how our military should be used.  Should we have troops in over 100 countries?  Should we continue in a perpetual state of war on the idea of terror?  I believe that we should do all that we can to protect this country, to guard it from enemies and to secure our borders.  However, I don't believe that it is our call to be a world police.  Lives are VALUABLE.  A politician should never be willing to send a man or woman off to war if he would not feel comfortable sending his or her own son or daughter.  War is hell.  Anyone who has fought will tell you that.  Many people serve overseas and come back with terrible mental and physical problems, and many never make it home.  War should be an absolute last resort, and the way that we send a message to Washington to make sure they are responsible in where our troops are sent is to be informed about world events so that our military will be used in such a way that is Consistent with the Constitution and our nation's absolute best interests. 

I have long admired the foreign policy of Rand and Ron Paul: 

5. Be Thankful

This goes without saying.  Thousands and thousands have fought and died to preserve this country and its freedoms.  There are families right now who are struggling because they lost a father or a brother, sister or mother in the line of duty.  This is going on right as we speak.  Understand that everything that we value as a country comes directly from those who were willing to fight and die for it.  Memorial Day is great to raise awareness of all of these issues, but we must all dwell on this more than once a year.  Be thankful in heart.  Be thankful in mind, and do all you can to support the greatest country on earth and those who are willing to die for it. 

Christian Colleges: Legalism vs. Spiritual Guidance

     My senior year of high school, there was but one deciding factor on where I would attend college, and that was a chance to play baseball at the next level.  I was a decent player from a rural South Carolina high school, a place where one had to be an incredible standout to really garner big-time scout attention.  After taking it upon myself to attend some individual workouts, I wound up going to and playing baseball at two different  conservative Christian colleges at the division II level.

     While attending and graduating from a Christian college, I was able to learn more about the Bible and theology than I ever could have imagined.  I can give you the ins and outs of Calvinism, Arminianism, postmodernism, and basically any other "ism" that applies to religion and philosophy.  I'm eternally grateful that I was able to expand my religious knowledge in such a profound way as it greatly contributed to my own personal faith. There are many things that one can witness while going to a Christian college that you probably will not be able to witness anywhere else.  I've seen people get saved, belt out worship music in the dorms, hold prayer meetings, and also shield their eyes at a nudity scene while watching a movie.

     Some of these things are incredible.  Witnessing a spiritual conversion, on a college campus of all places is something to celebrate.  And yes, watching people get in an uproar over a PG-13 movie is just plain funny, I don't care who you are.  However, there are some things that I saw during my days in a Christian college that I believe are a little more disturbing.  I've seen people kicked out of school for alleged, unproved acts with hardly a chance to defend themselves.  I've seen an entire group of people kicked out of school because they toasted champagne at a wedding.  I've even heard people doubt other's faith because of a curse word that person used.  The first school I attended went so far as to kick someone out, even for stepping inside a girls' dorm to receive a paper that his friend printed for him. 

     The purpose of this post isn't to make a blanket sweeping judgment of Christian institutions, only to raise certain issues that I believe need to be addressed.  Allow me to first say that a private institution can make just about any rule that they wish as long as it is within legal bounds.  In other words, a private college has a ton of leeway as far as promoting religion goes because they are not state funded, therefore not a branch of the government as opposed to state colleges and universities.  I could analyze the intricacies all day long as far as rules go, but I will focus on a couple that are most controversial, yet provide insight to legalism as a whole.  Both schools I attended had a zero tolerance alcohol policy as well as strict separation of men and women dorms.  No matter what your age, you cannot so much as take a sip of alcohol on or off campus, nor can you step foot in the opposite sex's dorm room unless there is some type of open dorm event going on which may take place twice a year.  

     The purpose of these rules are not far fetched.  College kids can be quite reckless when you mix in alcohol.  Also, two 18 year olds in the same room together by themselves can also produce situations that some of their classmates may shield their eyes at the sight of.  With that being said, I do believe that each of the rules put in place by school officials come from a place of concern and good intention.  However, when you take a step back and look at the rules as they apply to spiritual growth, do they really serve the purpose in which they are intended or do they just push people away from what the focus should be? That purpose is a personal relationship with God, right?  I say that because even within a community of people who share roughly the same religious views, each person struggles with different things and sets certain boundaries for themselves relating to their own personal journey. Should the school go one step further and set sweeping boundaries across the board for those thousands of people with thousands of different journeys?  

     My own personal view of this concept as a whole is that you cannot regulate one's spirituality.  A person's spiritual growth is between a man or woman and his or her Creator.  A school can equip someone with the knowledge and guidance to grow, but I feel as though strict, no tolerance rules placed on a person prohibits them from experiencing freedom in their personal spiritual walk.  If the concept of free will is central to Christian doctrine, as to say that we are to choose to follow Christ or not, then why would an institution require one to choose an extra cautious path lest they be removed from that institution?  Jesus himself denounced the religious Pharisees of his time for creating a code of incredibly strict rules that were designed to make it even harder to sin against God.  Jesus rebuked them as following "human" rules, not a creed given by God.  I am not calling the administration of these institutions Pharisees, not by any means.  However, they do set forth human rules that are designed as safeguards against actual sin.  What makes this regulation much different?

     I believe that this type of regulation is dangerous because it can unintentionally instill a since of erred judgment in those who have yet to experience the "real" world.  For instance, many of the people who attend very conservative religious colleges have grown up in a strict environment, and that's okay.  There's nothing wrong with teaching your children yourself, and prohibiting them from certain activities as a parent.  The problem can arise though, when one goes from their parents' house to an institution who also punishes those who partake in certain activities such as going to a bar, a club, or occasionally enjoying alcohol.  That person can easily take those experiences and go their whole life casting judgment on those who may drink from time to time if that's the only rule they've ever known about alcohol.  However, if you read the Bible, regardless of what your spiritual adviser or church may say, the Bible does not prohibit alcohol, only the abuse thereof.  Does that mean that everyone should drink? Absolutely not.  There is a plethora of reasons not to. However, can one enjoy a reasonable amount without abusing it? Jesus himself enjoyed wine on occasion so that question is easily answered in the affirmative.  By the way, you could say that he only drank grape juice, but you would be wrong, historically and Biblically. 

     Just because a substance or an act can be abused, does that mean it should be prohibited?  Alcohol is easy to single out, but what about food?  The Bible refers to gluttony as a deadly sin, yet those with a cafeteria meal plan can eat 10,000 calories in one sitting if they please.  That may sound facetious, but it does makes logical sense.  Is it worse to abuse food than to abuse alcohol? Many more people die from abusing food annually than they do from alcoholism, so that question is also easily answered. As far as opposite sex involvement goes, it is clear to see that officials flat out don't want sex on campus.  Sexual purity is taught at these institutions, and that is understandable as it is consistent with Christian doctrine.  However, how far should that regulation go? Should it deprive valuable social contact, hinder free will, and take responsibility out of the student's hands?  It also begs the question of whether something can be abused, should it be prohibited?  

     I also feel like many of these institutions have created a false sense of labeling things as "christian".  What I mean by that is a person goes four years within a bubble of "christian" music, clothes, places, views, speech, and activities and are expected to graduate and delve into a world of a myriad of diverging views.  Call me crazy, but I don't think there is a such thing as a "christian" song, "christian" clothes, or even "christian" rules. There are only people with souls who have made a decision to follow Jesus.  Music and other things can be used as a tool to further the faith, but when a person's entire world for 4 or more years of some of the most influential times of their life is full of "christian" labels inside of a "christian" bubble, it may be hard to operate in a world where the labels fade and what is in the heart is the only thing that counts. 

     Am I suggesting that every conservative religious school go back and change all their rules? No, not at all.  Am I suggesting that people should not consider attending these schools?  Once again, not at all.  For every "con" in attending a conservative Christian college, there are many "pros".   Some people do thrive in a very structured environment and have no problem with strict rules to follow.  On the other end of the spectrum, there are many devout Christians who would not be a good fit for a conservative religious school due to the regulations.  In this day and age, I applaud institutions of higher learning for wanting to promote a set of values that can serve to strengthen one's relationship with Almighty God.  What I am suggesting is awareness and hopefully a new found focus on the things that not only guide someone spiritually, but prepares them for post-graduate life in which they can distinguish right and wrong in such a way that honors God, not a board of human administrators. 

Twitter: @Derekbrown4real

 www.Facebook.com/DerekBrown4real

Michael Sam, Gay Rights, and the Conservative Right

  

     If you're a football fan, or basically anyone who watches television or reads the news, you are probably aware of the the fact that Michael Sam is set to become to first openly gay NFL player.  This historical first has set the media on fire, especially after ESPN gave substantial air-time to the kiss displayed between Michael Sam and his partner after Sam received notice of his draft status, being picked by the St. Louis Rams in the 7th round.

     Regarding LGBT activism, this is not only a historical event, it is yet another "win", considering the progress of American society in terms of equality.  Seventeen states now recognize gay marriage, and it seems as though the fight for gay-rights has just begun.  Furthermore, most would agree that the NFL is one of the most masculine displays in society, a contest of both physical strength and testosterone.  If that pocket of society can accept homosexuality, who couldn't? Right?  It doesn't take an expert in sociological science to see this as a major victory for the LGBT community to see such a macho sport accept homosexuality with somewhat open arms.

      On the other side of the spectrum, not everyone is entirely happy about these recent events.  Many are taking to social media to express their outrage, some against homosexuality in general, and some argue that the media is making a point to "push" this story and homosexuality as a whole on people.  Since ESPN originally aired the homosexual kiss, not only has the sports network replayed it dozens of times, many other news outlets have picked up the story and continue to cover it.  I have even seen remarks regarding the situation, comparing Michael Sam to Tim Tebow and how Tebow was mocked for his faith while Michael Sam is praised for his homosexuality.

(The debate gets quite heated as you can see)

     Who exactly is right here?  Should the media latch onto this story like it has?  Are those on the religious/conservative right correct in saying that homosexuality shouldn't be glorified?  In my opinion, this story hasn't been handled correctly on either side of the spectrum.

     As for those who are completely against homosexuality and showing the kiss on ESPN, I understand the religious arguments as I grew up in church and even minored in theology in college.  However, we live in a multicultural, diverse society, not a solely Christian society.  It hurts some people to hear that, but it is the truth.  We (and I say "we" because I share a Christian belief system) cannot continue to publicly shame a lifestyle and expect to make our God look better in doing so.  Christians, for far too long have been too exclusive and appearing closed off from a world in which they do not feel comfortable.

     Do not confuse this as me saying that you absolutely have to agree with or endorse such lifestyle choices, but publicly shaming and or condemning those who you do not agree with is nothing but counterproductive.  Where are the protests against adultery?  Why do Christians not get into an uproar when a public figure lies?  Singling out one issue creates what looks to be a hate mob, and that's almost what it has become.

     It is also warranted to say this: We should celebrate the fact that we live in such a diverse society where all opinions are welcome.  This is the backbone of our American society and our own Constitution.  Where would we be if many of us got our own way?  Would you suppress free speech?  Make a law that says you can't show homosexual acts on television?  I would hope not.  A government/society that can suppress any speech or expressions that they do not favor is headed straight for authoritarianism.  Want to know what government looks like when the religious take over?  Check out the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, or modern day Iran. Voltaire once said, "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it."  These words hold true today and apply directly to our own rights of freedom of speech and freedom of expression. Everyone should take those words to heart.

     Allow me to also say that I believe that the media is wearing the story out, especially ESPN.  I've been tweeting about this lately, even before the Michael Sam story, that ESPN has literally become the MTV of sports.  It seems like they are no longer concerned with reporting actual sports scores and standings, only scandals and controversies.  Whether it's Donald Sterling, Michael Sam, Jason Collins, Johnny Manziel, they can't get enough of it and it's driving me crazy.  When I turn on ESPN, I want to see just a few things: Who played, who won, and who got traded, etc.  I don't watch ESPN to hear about LGBT news, race relations, cultural shifts, and so on.

     With that being said, I also disagree with the way some outlets are handling the story, as well as certain executives in the NFL.  We do live in a day where a traditional belief system is one to scoff at, as the common rhetoric is now along the lines of, "It's 2014.  We can no longer hold onto beliefs of the past.  We can't go back to the 50's.  This is the way things are, either you accept this, or be ostracized."  I point this out because there are many who point to social conservatives and label them as "hate groups" or being backwards.  The Dolphins even punished Don Jones, one of their defensive backs for anti-gay tweets by fining him and making him go through "sensitivity-training".  I find it ridiculous that someone can be reprimanded for an honest belief that is aligned with many belief systems.

     I say all of that to say this:  Tolerance works both ways.  I preach to fellow conservatives that you can preserve your values and be tolerant at the same time.  Those on the far left should do the same.  Yes, it is 2014, but there are people who hold their beliefs dearly and it's about time for everyone's opinions, beliefs, and values to be respected, no matter where in the spectrum they fall.



Twitter: @DerekBrown4real
Facebook.com/DerekBrown4real