Settling Our Differences

I have always been a supporter of non-violent techniques as a way to solve crises. This philosophy applies not only to national situations but to personal situations as well. Due to a family situation within the past week, I find myself asking the question, "Is non-violence always the choice when a loved one is being threatened?"

Supporters of Second Amendment rights continually draw the argument that individuals must be able to protect their families when danger comes. As we know, this amendment guarantees American citizens the right to carry and possess firearms in case of confrontation.

This political issue is one that has been close to my heart for years since my father was a victim of gun violence in the mid-1970's. As a result, for years I have felt a moral obligation to believe crises cannot be solved with further violence. I have now changed my mind.

Within the past few days, I have instructed my husband to load a small pistol that I bought years ago as a single woman living downtown in a major American city, and yes, the gun was registered and legally bought. I hope never to have to use it, but I have to say that, knowing I have it, provides some comfort during stressful events. Perhaps it is the maternal instinct always for a mother to protect her loved ones at whatever personal cost to herself. Ultimately, I believe we can still settle the vast majority of our differences without violence. We need continually to remind ourselves that violence as a way to solve problems is still unacceptable--against wives, against children, against each other: period.