Five Years Later: A Search for Common Ground on Gun Violence

Paul Black
Send Email
2/8/2013

DECATUR – For IGRC retired pastor Miley Palmer, the December 2012 shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School causes he and his family to relive a five-year-old nightmare all over again.

It was on Feb. 14, 2008, that a shooter entered a lecture hall of 160 students in Cole Hall on the campus of Northern Illinois University, killing five students, including 19-year-old Ryanne Mace. Mace was the granddaughter of Palmer and his wife Janet, as well as the granddaughter of fellow retired IGRC pastor Gene Mace and his wife Sally.
 
“It has changed everything,” Palmer said, reflecting on the proliferation of gun violence in schools. “Every shooting hits us all over again and strengthen our sense of commitment to keep things from staying the same.”
 
Palmer’s daughter and Ryanne’s mother, Mary Kay Mace, echoes her father’s concern. “What infuriates me is that it keeps happening,” she said. “My daughter’s gone; that is over. But each shooting brings it up again and there is no place where you are immuned to it.”
 
Mace was invited this week by the organization, Mayors Against Gun Violence, to testify before a Congressional committee considering legislation aimed at providing some regulation to firearms through the use of background checks. She has also been invited by the syndicated Ricki Lake talk show to fly to California for a taping on a program dealing with the issue.
 
Ryanne's father, Eric Mace, will join family members of the other victims Feb. 14 at Northern Illinois University, where a fifth anniversary service of remembrance will be held.
 
Palmer joined with retired IGRC pastor Howard Daughenbaugh recently in penning a pastoral letter seeking to address the issue of gun violence. While addressing some of the familiar issues associated with firearms, regulations and restrictions, the letter also called upon the church to play a role in helping to provide places of conversation among the faith community, including dialogues about the violence-obsessed culture in our nation, gun safety, violence prevention. The letter was co-signed by Gene and Sally Mace. The letter has drawn both praise and criticism.
 
The letter also urges pastors to take leadership in their teaching role to help congregations and community dialogue around widely-held beliefs such as that “guns keep us safe,” “What makes us great is God, Guts and Guns,” and the “only answer for a bad man with a gun is a good man with a gun.” It urged looking to the United Methodist Book of Resolutions and examples of Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Jr., and Reinhold Niebuhr, as well as the Friends (Quaker), Mennonite and Brethren traditions for other models.
 
“Because the issue itself is so complex, it takes more than dealing with gun control,” Palmer said. “We have cut off services to those with mental and emotional illnesses. And we need to deal with a culture that is centered on violence. Many of the new television programs this season deal with serial killers.”
 
Palmer points to the statistics that 30,000 Americans are killed each year by gun violence. “If someone outside the United States did this to our country, we would be mobilizing for action, but we’re not.”
 
While not acquainted with the death of a family member, Daughenbaugh said he does have some personal experience in dealing with mental health issues with family members.
 
“There was a time in the 1970’s and 1980’s when Illinois had one of the finest mental health systems in the nation and then it began to be dismantled,” Daughenbaugh said. “In this country, Illinois was a model then and today we are at the bottom of the heap. The issue is becoming more and more a mirror of insecurity, fear and despair and it reflects who we are becoming.”
 
Palmer acknowledges that mobilizing the church for conversation will also be a formidable task. “The tone of anger from some within the church regarding Second Amendment rights and the whole notion of the government trying to destroy our country is poisoning the conversation,” he said. “And I have had to say to some, ‘Friend, I don’t want to argue. Pastorally, I do have to tell you that the level of your anger causes me to be concerned for your soul because anger will eventually destroy you.’”
 
Daughenbaugh says some parties are emboldened by the 2008 Supreme Court decision, District of Columbia v. Heller, in which the Court, on a 5-4 decision, held that the District of Columbia’s strict gun control measures were unconstitutional.
 
“The perception by some is that you cannot regulate firearms at all,” he said. “And yet, Justice Antonin Scalia, one of the justices who voted with the majority, in responding to those with that view has said, ‘That is not what we said in the 2008 decision.’”
 
When looking at places to find common ground, Daughenbaugh believes the issues of licensing, background checks and issues surrounding mental health may be the most fruitful.
 
Looking at Illinois, Mace points out organizations such as the National Rifle Association has supported instant background checks. However, the National Criminal Background Check System, or NICS, is missing millions of records, including 120,000 records that would be excluded purchasers.
 
“I agree with the NRA – we need to enforce the laws, but let’s make sure the system is current,” Mace said. “In Illinois, currently 99 of the 102 counties are not reporting persons to the database, and out of 130,000 clinicians, only 83 of them make reports to the database.”
 
Daughenbaugh agrees. “We need to find a balance between confidentiality of the individual and protecting society as a whole. If we can get folks talking and discussing, then there is hope.”
 
“The church can provide an important counter-balance,” Mace said. “No one has problem with non-felonious individuals having guns. But the notion that guns are very effective for self-defense is debatable if they are to be locked, unloaded and secured in the home.”

Palmer said he hopes that the church can be a place where fruitful discussion can take place. “If it can provide a place in a non-threatening situation where people can honestly look at the issue without advocacy of a political agenda, then we may move forward on the issue so that other families will not have to face what we have these past five years.”

Read: NIU: Five Years Later

Comments

1. Bishop Melvin Talbert wrote on 2/15/2013 12:27:45 PM
It's time for pastors and members in our churches to let their voices be heard. Gun violence is evil and should be addressed. Quoting the philosopher Edmund Burke, the late Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. often said, "All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men (people) to do nothing." Speak up UMC people!
2. bill woods wrote on 2/15/2013 7:09:09 PM
Being a career police officer for over thirty years, I can tell you that handguns are VERY effective at deterring crime if properly maintained and deployed. Criminals are predators who prey on perceived weakness. The 2nd amendment is as vital to this country as the 1st and 4th amendments, or any other civil right and I view those who seek to take away that right to bear arms in the same light I view those who tried to stop the young black children from attending Central High School in Little Rock.
3. Rev. Scott Baird wrote on 2/15/2013 8:12:10 PM
I have been appalled at the violence we have been seeing in our schools and in our communities. I am ex-Army and a hunter and believe that trying to change or overturn our 2nd amendment rights is not the answer. I am all for background checks and waiting periods when purchasing a firearm, and I applaud The state of Illinois for already having this enacted. Just like anything else, there is probably some room for improvement but we are trying to get it right. However, according to the 2012 FBI report there were more people killed in 2012 by hammers and clubs then with firearms. Lower morality, violent games, the destruction of the family unit has played a much larger roll in the violence we are seeing today. I am excited that people are seeing the need for the proper care of the mentally disabled, because I have witnesses the institutions that helped educate and enrich the lives of the less fortunate closed one by one, and many of those who were displaced landed in our prison system instead of a place where they could be helped. If we want to be responsible Christians then let us begin helping the mentally handicapped and the hurting. We can stop living as if we are the most important person in our world and be more aware of those who are hurting around us. Let's never be so blind that all we do is medicate the symptoms and leave the real problems to ravage our society.
4. Paul Jeffrey wrote on 2/16/2013 12:03:03 AM
The Rev. Scott Baird is not telling the truth. The number of people killed in the US by firearms is far greater than those killed by hammers and clubs. For example, see this chart on the FBI's website: http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8
5. William Woods wrote on 2/17/2013 9:04:58 AM
I have to agree with Scott. According to FBI UCR statistics, the violent crime rate has actually been DECREASING since 2004 and 165,000 fewer violent crimes are committed annually than in 2004 when the "assault weapons/magazine restrictions" expired. Our homicide rate is actually declining at a faster rate than Canada's. The exceptions are Detroit, Chicago and Washington, DC. where draconian firearms ownership laws have rendered the populace largely defenseless. I honestly do not know how the political or church leaders of these cities can stand in front of a camera and demand more gun control legislation with any degree of honesty. These leaders have men with guns around them for protection, but deny the same right to the average citizen. In supporting restrictive firearms laws,we become accomplices to criminal homicide and suppression of already defenseless people. Mexico is a prime example of this where restrictive firearms laws have led to the rise of the cartels and now private Mexican citizens have begun to form themselves into militias with whatever poor weapons they can collect.
6. Mark West wrote on 2/17/2013 12:50:09 PM
If we're going to talk about Mexico, let's be honest. A 2012 report from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives showed that more than 68,160 of the approximately 99,700 weapons recovered in Mexico and submitted for tracing from 2007 to 2011 had originated in the United States. Many of these were bought in the U.S. under the gun show loophole and trafficked to Mexico. And many of the Chinese and Russian AK-47s preferred by the Zetas were originally bought with US tax dollars for the Salvadoran and Guatemalan militaries and the Nicaraguan contras. I know those facts are inconvenient for those who prefer the second amendment to the second commandment, but while you are entitled to your opinion, the facts are not your personal property to manipulate. Scientific studies do not collaborate your assertions. For example, the Harvard Injury Control Research Center assessed the literature on guns and homicide and found sustantial evidence that indicates more guns means more murders. This holds true whether you’re looking at different countries or different states. Furthermore, states with stricter gun control laws have fewer deaths from gun-related violence. If you look at economist Richard Florida's studies, you'll see that banning assault weapons, requiring trigger locks, and mandating safe storage requirements all correlate with reduced violence.
7. bill woods wrote on 2/17/2013 4:08:41 PM
Mark, in your assertions regarding origin of weapons seized in Mexico, I noted the conditional phrase "submitted for tracing" ; are all weapons captured submitted for tracing or only the ones know or suspected to be of US origin? Regarding states with "fewer deaths from gun violence" I suspect you are conflating suicide by firearm with person-to-person homicide by firearm? Since you cite Florida you must note that his study also seemed to deal with firearms only and not overall homicide rates, for which there are various external variables. (please look at violent crimes in the UK since that country enacted draconian gun control)As an example, he noted that Cambodia and Austin, TX had approximately the same firearms homicide rate. But Austinites enjoy easy and relatively unimpeded access to firearms while Cambodia is ranked at 109th out of 179 countries for actual private citizen rate of gun ownership (http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/cambodia). As for my "preference" for the 2nd Amendment, I simply see it as an enumerated right in our constitution. By contrast, your citation of the 2nd commandment seems to be an emotional response to a point of view which you may loathe, but I find it absolutely necessary to a free people and to limit tyrannical government. We currently have a government which is free to kill or detain American citizens with little legal recourse (NDAA) and it is quite logical that (thinking) citizens would be upset with this since constitutional rights were won with blood and codified into law.
8. Mark West wrote on 2/18/2013 12:21:25 AM
I think the studies I cited withstand your suspicions quite well. Yet your dismissal of the relevance of the second commandment as "an emotional response" to this issue gets to the core of this issue, and amply illustrates what Palmer characterizes above as a poisoning of the conversation. Just to talk about things like universal background checks or closing the gun show loophole, which are supported by an overwhelming majority of both gun owners and the entire population, nonetheless evokes in some a knee-jerk resort to talking about black helicopters while ignoring the vital questions of faith he's trying to raise. It is a spiritual issue, and no matter how Baird and you wish to misdirect the discussion (Baird by blatantly misrepresenting FBI statistics or you by stating the half truth that violent crime has been declining since 2004--when in fact it's been declining since the early 90s), it remains an essential pastoral task that the church confront the idolatry of trusting in horses and chariots rather than in the Lord of life.
9. Rev. Lanny J Garner wrote on 2/18/2013 8:58:57 AM
We in the Christian community should realize that murder first starts in the heart of fallen man. What has happened to fearing a holy and just God who will one day judge the actions of every man and woman. Those who take the lives of others and even their own lives will stand before God and be held accountable for their actions. The punishment handed down by God will be far worse than anything we will ever suffer in this life. However, this holy and just God loves us and has provided a way to be redeemed from our fallenness, broken, murderous human nature and escape His wrath.... the substitutionary death of his Son Jesus Christ who died a very violent death for us by the hands of the very ones He came to save. For those who truly receive Him by faith will receive forgiveness of all of their sins and new life and the promised Holy Spirit who Christ said... Nevertheless I tell you the truth. It is to your advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you; but if I depart, I will send Him to you. And when He has come, He will convict the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment: of sin, because they do not believe in Me; of righteousness, because I go to My Father and you see Me no more; of judgment, because the ruler of this world is judged. (Joh 16:7-11) In Christ, Lanny Garner
10. bill woods wrote on 2/18/2013 12:04:03 PM
Lanny has it right, I believe. It is murder in the hearts of men in our fallen world is the relevant issue. In your area, inner-city Chicago and Detroit are prime examples of both murder in the hearts of men and stringent gun control combining to produce anarchic tyranny because local government will not prosecute gun crime as it is codified into law to take dangerous people off the streets. Instead, the focus is on the instrumentality of homicide---the gun. Mark, I seriously urge you to examine the NDAA and its provisions before you dismiss it out of hand and I found it instructive to read Thomas Jefferson.
11. Marv Gordner wrote on 2/18/2013 8:44:56 PM
As a hunter, veteran, Christian, and active member of a UMC Church, I support the 2nd Ammendment of our Constitution--the Right to Keep and Bear Arms shall not be infringed... We have the right to responsibly maintain weapons and I do. Honestly, I wish our denomination would stay out of most of these divisive issues. It is bad business and creates hard feelings. That said, I do appreciate the civil tone of the comments above.
12. Mark West wrote on 2/19/2013 10:15:42 AM
Tell it to Reeva Steenkamp.
13. Robert Morwell wrote on 2/20/2013 7:28:19 PM
The "draconian" gun control measures which have allegedly failed in Chicago, need to be put into a larger context. The murder rate in that city was twice as high twenty years ago. And, in NYC which has gun control laws every bit as strict as Chicago, the murder rate has plummeted, and it is much lower, in relation to population than the murder rate in San Antonio, which it is safe to say, has much laxer laws, and many more people "packing heat."
14. bill woods wrote on 2/21/2013 7:48:18 PM
Good point, and as the nation's homicide rate falls, it is to be expected, perhaps. As for San Antonio, it has always had a relatively high homicide rate because of distinctive socio-economic factors and recall it is close to the border and catching some spillover of inter-cartel battles. The cartels in turn hire local street gangs for distribution and enforcement. If you want to look at state with a high % of gun owners, why not look at Utah, Montana or Idaho? Lots of "assault weapons" in those states. "Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest." ---Ghandi
15. Robert Morwell wrote on 2/22/2013 9:15:03 AM
Context is everything. Simply attributing Chicago's woes to a lack of guns in civilian hands, ignores a wide variety of factors, just as simply comparing NYC's murder rate with that of San Antonio's does...which was actually my point. Context is also important for the Gandhi quote. "Arms" in this context were military arms not the personal weapons of private individuals. The context of "depriving of the whole nation of arms" was the refusal of the British to conscript Indians into the British Army during the First World War. Gandhi was an extreme anti-militarist. The statement is odd coming out of him, but he used the circumstance for political purposes to advance the cause of Home Rule and Independence. Gandhi certainly didn't advocate the use of arms for social change, vigilantism, and didn't use them for self-defense. But, someone else did use one to assassinate him.
16. bill woods wrote on 2/23/2013 4:23:15 PM
I agree Robert, that it is a strange quote coming from Gandhi, but he was influenced by a wide variety of factors, some of which had to emanate from his experience with the settler state of South Africa. On the flip side,leading up to and during the American Revolutionary War, the British referred to American clergy as a "regiment in black" because they advocated so vociferously for American independence, including advocacy for the use of arms to achieve independence. So our historical precedent for the use of arms to achieve a critical issue of social justice is a strong one. Similarly, Lincoln was impressed to write about the vast numbers of Methodists who fought during the Civil War. Finally, let us not forget today is the anniversary of the beginning of the siege of the Alamo. Numbers and statistics are abstract when it comes to judging the efficacy of privately held weapons, but history is strongly on the side of those who hold weapons coupled with ethical timbre from the New Testament in achieving the most positive outcomes for their societies. Those who attempt to take privately held weapons through governments coercion join the ranks of Stalin, Hitler, the apartheid regimes of South Africa, the racist KKK and its attempts to deprive African Americans of self-defense weapons in the south and many other despotic regimes so afraid of their citizens.
17. Robert Morwell wrote on 2/24/2013 7:41:53 PM
While many Methodists did take up arms in the Civil War, the sad fact is that many of them took up arms to fight in favor of secession and slavery. As Lincoln noted in his Second Inaugural, both sides called upon God and both claimed divine favor. The arms borne by Federal troops were largely provided by the military, while many CSA soldiers used their personal weapons in the service of their insurrection. One can hope that armed civilians will act with moral fiber, but that is not a safe assumption. They may fight for justice, or they may become a vengeful mob or the tools of a demagogue.
News