I was intrigued by this recent debate between Piers Morgan and Alex Jones on CNN. And I have written my own comment and opinion. I've always sided with the Americans about many issues, but this one topic about gun control I think I agree with the British more than the Americans when it comes to preventing violence from ever happening. Comparing the statistics: only 12 people died in gun related violence in Britain compared to more than 11,000 in the U.S in 2012 alone. The guns that Americans have in their possession is suppose to stop crimes is actually multiplying the risk of more crimes. Watch this show on CNN: link
Piers Morgan a British citizen invited on his show Alex Jones who is very active in requesting the White House to deport Mr. Morgan just because he was just sharing his ideas on how Americans can enjoy a much lesser crime rates if there were less or no weapons whatsoever ever exist in the hands of ordinary American citizens. The argument is clear in that those who want to have as many guns as they like are acting uncivilized while those who have done away of gun ownership are the ones who are more civilized. Alex Jones (by the way I am not attacking him) I am just commenting on the way he acted and responded on the show that he displayed a lack of self control and be civilized to at least answer the questions Mr. Morgan was asking him in a calm manner. He keep deflecting his response into somewhere else and not confront directly the questions given to him. It was very obvious Mr. Morgan was persistent in being peaceful, calm and patient with Mr. Jones. While on the other hand Mr. Jones was completely out of control driven away by his own emotions. I don't know the religion or lack thereof of Mr. Morgan but comparing his behavior with that of Mr. Jones it seems Mr. Morgan is more civilized than Alex Jones. Piers came from a country Britain known amongst the Protestants world as a nation who have embraced "evolution" and have turn away from "creationism" and that they became (majority of them) as atheist. But comparing the behavior of them both, it seems to show to us who among them have a better understanding on what it means to be "peaceful" and not violent. I thought Christians (those creationist) are suppose to be more peace loving and less violent orientated people? Why is it that the statistic show that those who suppose to be believers in God and that they are Christians are more violent oriented in their approach in life? Could it be that their solutions in solving the problem is the root cause of all this?
Lets talk logical here, let us set aside the emotions and anger in favor of understanding whats better in how to solve the problems of gun violence not just in North America but also around the world as well. Now, this is where I think Piers Morgan shines through, his message and ideas in effect are just to point out that to have a peaceful world and or society is that all guns regardless if its automatic or not should be banned from the possession of every civilians. So, let me ask this question: Which is better Prevention or Cure? Comparing the cost of the method of finding cure and distribution of it is more expensive than completely preventing it from ever happening. In other words Prevention is cheaper and easier to execute than finding ways to heal and to actually cure diseases or problems. Which is better preventing a fire or stopping a fire? I think both of this have their own point and merits. But, prevention can be better logically than acting to stop it when its already in action. The people who supports to have the rights to have guns are actually likened to a cure (violent fight) as oppose to those who wanted prevention by not having guns.
Suppose, you give ten kids (age around 4 to 9) each of them having their own "lighter" the one people use to light a cigarette. And you leave this kids to allow them to play as they will inside a room full of papers, books, parquet floors on a wooden old house. You did not give them any rules at all and that they can use their lighters as often as they wish (reflects the excessive freedom ideology of their rights to have a lighter). In a matter of minutes one of the neighbor spotted a smoke starting to billow from the old house. But since you informed them that kids are there just to play and so the neighbor dismissed the event as though it was just nothing. There was no phone inside that room and they were locked inside. The fire started to grow and the kids inside were panicking. To make the long story short the neighbors did call for help. But they wished they acted earlier because the kids suffered severe trauma from the fire event and some of them sustained injury/wounds from the fire. Now, ask yourself which is better to have them all armed with lighters or completely removed them from their possessions? Is it better that firemen arrived earlier? Or can you completely trust the kids to put off the fire by themselves? Is that an effective solution and approach?
Have we not realized HOW simple and easier to just approach it with a more sensible way of doing a prevention method than relying to fight and stop it with a cure? Stopping a fire can be likened to curing a disease. Its the only recourse and response once its already underway. Which is a logical way of doing it. And I'm not saying cure is not necessary at all. But if we are comparing between the two which is better I think its obvious that "prevention" is better than the cure itself. To those who have cancer you don't have to go through all those troubles of dealing with the consequences and process of therapy to combat that disease when it can be prevented from the very beginning. Cure can be very expensive and trauma inducing as you are trying to fight the disease and sometimes not effective; but prevention is inexpensive and effective.
While the idea of stopping a crime with the use of a weapon seems to be a viable option but people should be aware of a much better approach. That violent crimes with the use of guns could be prevented if there were really no guns in the possessions of ordinary people. People should realized that Sandy hook could have been prevented from happening if the people who perpetrated the crime did not have accessed with guns. If the kids did not have access to the lighters they will not have to play with fire and not have to suffer the unwanted consequences of being burned. Without the lighters, there is no fire to begin with. The same logic applies to the guns not just in one community but also applies to others as well. If those who did the crimes in Sandy hook did not have guns (because its not available anywhere) then the possibility of them thinking of starting a fire will not even enter their minds.
The era in which the amendment in the US Constitution that allows citizens to bear arms was made during such times were cure is more ideal than actual prevention. Because, it was in a time where law enforcement was not as effective compared to what it is today. Back then it was fashionable to act violently and to meet and confront violence with violence. To preserve this legacy is to not only promote the continuation of violence but also it reflects that that society hasn't outgrown the kind of habits they used to have in the past. In other words those who lean more to the idea of combating violence with fire have not matured enough after all these years, they are still living in the great Old Wild West and not yet have come to grips of the present reality and that the world has already move on from that era. While those who have outgrown this have become mature and resort to prevention as the way to completely prevent gun related violence from ever happening. The era of using fire with fire is over. Let us not use violence to combat violence because that is only for those who have not matured.
On the show, it was obvious that Mr. Jones was the one who is violent and out of control and have difficulty calming himself. While Mr. Morgan remained relax and peaceful. Who do you think is more mature between them? If Mr. Jones have his guns on that moment, he would have used it and fired recklessly everywhere without ever thinking of the consequences of the damage he would do to everyone around him including the show/program itself. Now, compared that to a much more sane of having everything under control by staying calm in which Mr. Morgan did in this debate with Mr. Jones. Clearly, answering violence with violence is not logical way to resolve that problem. Maybe we should listen to some of the wisdom given on the bible and live by the very ideals of what it means to be civilized as stated in the bible where it said; "soft answer turns AWAY wrath". In other words having all the guns in the world is sometimes not the best answer in promoting peace in a society. You may have all the guns but it will not guarantee peace instead it will perpetrate all kinds of violence. Arming the entire society to have absolute access to guns is like saying everybody can become an army in their own right, promoting their own brand of wars among their own community.
Perhaps, it is high time that we re-interpret the amendment in the US Constitution of the right to bear arms or weapons. It was written from a different time, with different objective from a different perspective and orientation. The day of the Hillbillies are gone, the Wild West with its glorious days of armed civilians are over. Either we moved on and grow mature that those ways of life are now just part of the history or we would drag the past to let it continue with the present even if its no longer necessary today? Aren't we going to grow up and leave the past behind? As the scripture says that soft answer turns away wrath. Fighting fire with fire is not always the best answer to solve violent crimes. For it is better to go to the root cause of the problem than just face it from the shallow surface of it. The root cause of all this is in the hearts and minds of every individual which eventually finds it expression by using guns. Our actions reflects what is inside of us. So, gun accessibility is not the solution but instead it perpetrates and multiplies the problem. For those of you in the pulpit and the government places, how can you say to your people have peace and safety when they the people are armed with weapons? Is it not better to address the issue of violence when were addressing the main cause to prevent them rather than a cosmetic patch to stop it? It all originates from the heart and mind. If we have outgrown the immaturity of the past of having violent answer for every violent action then we should promote peace and non-violent actions emanating and starting from our heart and mind. Then therefore the solution lies not in the further distribution of arms and weapons; it is in our self determination as well as collectively as people to say enough to violence and it should start from us - within.
If the entire community unanimously say in unison that they don't want violence anymore that all they have in their hearts and minds is peace and joy, trust and harmony, cooperation with everyone around them then violence will disappear in an instant. By allowing arms and weapons to proliferate and spread in the community is like saying that you don't care about others and that you don't trust any of them and that all you care about is your own safety and security. But if we manifest this care, concern for one another and that you don't want any violence anywhere from occurring then each and everyone of you should no longer bear arms of weapons because you decided to treat others as your self, to see others as someone you can trust and live harmoniously with peace and joy. All of you who wants this to happen should lay down your weapons and get rid of them.
Further than that; what if we treated animals as though they are also beings/creatures who DESERVE to live just like every human on Earth? How about we stop from treating them as targets and shooting them for fun and adventure? When are we going to notice and see our own reflection that deep inside of our hearts and mind that we are callous, insensitive and violent? We maybe wearing much better clothes and equipment than the barbarians people in the ancient times but we are not different with our inner motives. We focused too much on the outward appearance and care less to improve whats inside of us.
Maybe its time to convert the right to bear arms of weapons as the right to bear arms of peace and joy towards EVERY human being as well as to animals?. Let us embrace humanity with this arms of love, peace and care of outgoing concern for others and not the arms of weapons that only reflects distrust, hate and the love for violence instead of peace.
On the night that Jesus was betrayed, did Jesus (Sananda) said to Peter to go and get as many automatic rifles (whether AK 47 or Bushmaster) as they can get from a nearby gun shop and that they will confront the Romans? Instead, we find Jesus allowed the Romans and the Council to express whats in their hearts and minds. They acted violently and did all of those out of what's natural to them. At the time violence was in their nature as an automatic response. But the good news is those days are gone and over. Those people who have violent and evil motive, if they were able to come back to life today they know now that what they did was an act of "immaturity" and ignorance. And now that we know what is right from wrong it is time to do what is right and leave behind the acts of immaturity in the past.
We may not be able to stop all kinds of violence from ever happening everywhere but we can surely effectively prevent them from happening. If we ALL collectively decided to remove all kinds of arms in our world then the possibility of violence will diminish significantly. It may not happen over night or all at once but eventually it will take place and peace and harmony will prevail. I do believe there are many of us are already mature enough to shun violence by not having or not owning guns. But there are still some who are not yet mature who still harbor hatred and all kinds of evil motives. Perhaps, that's the area where the authorities can do their part that they should monitor these individuals, gangs as well as corporations whose intentions are still very much in the archaic stage of development. Whose activity can still be classified as "immature" who ignorantly still play fire with fire, who still enjoys arming themselves with various weapons. Whose mental framework are very much oriented with greed and selfishness and anti-community, who plan and execute all kinds of crimes worldwide (organized crime) and create a false scenario to put the blame to someone else. These are the people that should be monitored for their activities.
Overall, peace is achievable without the use of guns and weapons. All we need is for those who are kind and mature to step up to the plate and unite and leave behind those who are still in their ignorance, who haven't grew up even though they appear to have aged considerably and physically. Just like what Apostle Paul said in one of his letters to the southern people of Europe: "when I was a child I spake (acted) like a child. But now, I put those childish things behind". In the same way, I admonish each everyone who read this message to let us grow in knowledge and awareness that all kinds of violence does not do any kind of good results. All it does is bring misery and suffering to those involved. When one member of our community is grieving and hurting then it affects all the others as well. Peace is more certain and assured if there are no guns/weapons whatsoever within the society. Leave the weapons to the army and not with the ordinary citizens of the world.