HS #99 2023.10.12
Lesson from Far Side
My favorite Far Side comic (any reader who didn’t enjoy Far Side, Bloom County and Calvin & Hobbes during the Golden Days of newspaper comics has my condolences) is of two weather-beaten men lost at sea in an inflated life raft in the midst of ocean in all directions. Drifting towards them is a wooden crate marked, “Pins, Nails, Broken Glass.” As one of them reaches for the crate, he says to his companion, “Don’t know what use we have for pins, nails, and broken glass, but let’s bring it aboard.”
What’s the humor? Obviously, there would be little if any benefit from pins, nails and broken glass. On the other hand, the negative consequence of bringing those things aboard is obvious. Might even say inevitable. One doesn’t know which particular item will puncture the raft, but it’s just a matter of time before it happens.
A foolish decision. Agreed?
What’s the lesson? Put the right conditions together and tragic results are bound to happen. This was essentially the lesson in Shakespeare’s “Romeo and Juliet.” Given the bad blood between the families, it was inescapable that some event – it happened to be a mix up of communication – would lead to tragedy.
Conversely, by reducing the number of potentially dangerous factors, one can lessen the possibility of adverse consequences.
We apply the principle broadly. We know, for example, that mosquitoes have three stages of life: egg, larvae, adult. So by lowering the number of mosquitoes surviving each stage (minimizing standing water and spraying adults), we most effectively diminish the number of mosquito bites. Smart.
Similarly, we know that fire requires fuel, oxygen, and heat. Thus, whenever two are present, we carefully avoid the third. If all three are together, fire is likely. So when enriched oxygen is present, heat and combustibles are limited.
This thinking led to seatbelt laws. Unrestrained human bodies in cars caused tens of thousands of deaths from auto collisions. Requiring seatbelts and mandating airbags has dramatically reduced the number of deaths.
Such decisions depend upon and reveal the values of a given society. Seatbelts are annoying, but we have decided that saving lives outweighs the inconvenience, so we require them.
Unfortunately, because of the messed-up values of our society, this preemptive type of thinking doesn’t apply to deaths from firearms.
“Guns don’t kill people. People do.” Such is the silliness one often hears. Of course it’s false. The correct answer? People with guns kill people. Both ingredients are necessary.
If a second-grade teacher discovers that her students are using sharp scissors to jab each other, she addresses the behavior problem, but in the meantime, she takes away the scissors. If any student disputed, “I want my scissors – scissors don’t stab us, children do!” she’d have a good belly laugh. The prevalence of easily-used fire arms together with the number of stressed/disturbed people makes the continuing tragedy of numerous gun deaths as predictable as the fate of the hapless men on the raft.
Indeed, what’s easier to control, a person’s psyche or a piece of metal? If we valued human life more, we’d realize it’s ludicrous not to control both of the factors causing deaths from firearms. Stalin famously said, “The death of one man is a tragedy. The death of a million is a statistic.” He was right, and we are seeing the truth of it play out before us.
Yes, yes, yes, we have a Second Amendment. So let’s be faithful Constitutional originalists and allow muskets for security. Anything beyond that is more than the Founding Fathers had in mind, so other types of firearms must be justified for non-Constitutional reasons.
Interestingly, “standing on rights” is antithetical to Biblical teaching. Jesus didn’t talk about rights, but instead about love as a guiding principle for living one’s life. The Apostle Paul admonished the early church in Corinth not to claim their right to eat what they want, but instead to make choices that edified others. Even the Old Testament Yahweh was concerned about His people living in community rather than claiming their own rights and privileges.
How bizarre that so many are fascinated with carrying – concealed or openly – a weapon whose only purpose is to kill others. Ludicrously, our own county (Ottawa Impact) is promoting it. Other civilized countries look at us with incomprehension. Future generations of Americans will doubtless look back in wonder at our abject foolishness. But, for the present, we must live with our choices. Insanity. Truly.
