Thursday, October 31, 2024

Sandy Hook five years later: Can Christians find common ground on guns?

December 15, 2017 by  
Filed under Choosing Lingerie

Comments Off


Handguns on display at ABQ Guns in Albuquerque in September 2016. (Sergio Flores/Bloomberg News)

Editor’s note: It’s been five years since the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn. — one of the deadliest shootings in U.S. history, made even more tragic by the 20 young students among the victims.

The 2012 incident launched a national conversation on preventing gun violence, which has become more familiar with each deadly attack since. Last month’s church shooting in Sutherland Springs, Tex., renewed the gun debate among American evangelicals, who are less likely than other faith groups to support stricter gun laws.

Christian authors Jen Hatmaker and Karen Swallow Prior recently collaborated to consider how believers on both sides of the debate might agree on “common-sense” measures to curb future gun violence.

Here are five points that emerged from their dialogue.

1. American evangelicals have a unique relationship with guns.

Hatmaker: Gun rights have become an entrenched talking point inside white evangelical politics. White evangelicals own more guns than any other religious group, are the least likely to support stricter laws, and over half believe the National Rifle Association has “the right amount of influence.” There is an obvious tension between the “me and mine” ideology of civic or religious freedom many evangelicals subscribe to and the necessary commitment to the common good required to see through meaningful gun reform. It appears to be an impasse that not even mass shootings in elementary schools can affect.

Prior: Exactly. In some ways, this tension we see in the gun debate between individualism and community is reflective of the same tension that exists on a larger scale within evangelicalism itself. Both America and evangelicalism from their very beginnings are rooted in modern individualism, which is both a strength and a weakness. But the conversation over guns has become so politicized and polarized that a lot of reasonable compromise and solid common ground is missed because we can’t get past the talking points. Our perspectives are also severely limited by our own experiences, media stereotypes and bumper sticker slogans. Many gun owners think of all attempts to regulate weapons as automatically stripping them of their Second Amendment rights, and on the other hand, for some people, it’s hard to imagine a lifestyle dependent upon guns that is wholesome and good.

2. NRA rhetoric that demonizes proponents of gun regulations hurts both sides.

Hatmaker: I am a living middle ground. As a daughter, wife and mother of hunters, I have lived for years with guns (securely locked) in my home, yet I am also unequivocally on the side of gun reform and could be considered left. Yet NRA leadership characterizes people like me, who favor reform, as their opponents. “The left’s message is absolutely clear. They want revenge. You have to be punished. They say you are what is wrong with America. And now, you have to be purged,” NRA executive vice president Wayne LaPierre warned at the Conservative Political Action Conference in February. “Make no mistake, if the violent left brings their terror to our communities, our neighborhoods or into our homes, they will be met with the resolve, and the strength, and the full force of American freedom in the hands of the American people and we will win because we are the majority in this country.” This level of propaganda drives a wedge between reasonable people and the possibility of effective legislation, and perhaps Christians across the spectrum will be the ones to fight for dialogue amidst this promulgation.

Prior: This kind of rhetoric creates far more problems, even, ironically, for gun owners. It’s important to note that while a recent study from the Pew Research Center found that 2 out of 5 self-identified white evangelicals own a gun, which is higher than any other religious group, only a quarter of white evangelical gun owners are NRA members, and even more want U.S. gun laws to be stricter. There are many responsible gun owners who favor reasonable regulations, but their voices are often overshadowed by the more sensational ones.

3. The solutions are more complicated than we often assume.

Prior: Those who don’t like or understand guns need to be willing to listen and learn. I often hear people throw around the terms like “assault rifle,” “automatic” and “semiautomatic,” and it’s clear they don’t know a pistol from a hand grenade. To have effective conversations about gun regulation, we need to know what regulations already exist, when and why they are not effectively enforced, and whether empirical data offers direction on further regulations. Reporter Leah Libresco, who once advocated more gun control, found that most broad policies proposed by politicians would make little or no difference in the U.S. context, though smaller, specifically tailored measures could be very effective.

Hatmaker: Libresco’s research is interesting and worth noting. She reminds us that the majority of gun deaths are not mass-shooting-related but suicides and that over 1,700 women are killed every year by men with histories of violence. But it is like bringing a shovel to an avalanche. As New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof pointed out, America’s high rate of gun violence is directly linked to our high rate of gun ownership, at 88.8 guns per 100 people. And Vox noted that states with more guns have more gun deaths, while those with tighter gun laws have fewer. It is difficult to have a productive discussion about reducing gun deaths without talking about the sheer quantity of guns in circulation, a much more complicated conundrum. “Gun control” talking points can make things worse since they have the unintended effect of raising gun sales by inciting fear in gun owners. Kristof recommends framing the conversation as “gun safety,” including initiatives like protection orders for violent men, safe storage, ammunition checks, a ban on bump stocks and more robust gun-safety classes.

4. Legislation can make a difference.

Prior: There are now more guns than people in the United States, and we can’t just wish them away. These guns exist, and the worst thing that could happen is for them to be in the wrong hands. The phrase “gun control” is counterproductive, especially for those of us concerned about government overreach and constitutional liberties. It would be far more productive to talk in terms of gun safety and regulation. Common-sense measures are in everyone’s interest, especially gun owners and enthusiasts. (It’s the dealers and manufacturers who have the most to gain by fighting regulations, not the everyday owners.) Gun rights advocates usually support better enforcement of existing laws and tougher sentences for those convicted of gun-related crimes. These may be NRA talking points, but they still warrant a central place in any discussion about gun control. We also need to address the need for increased prevention, support and intervention in mental health crises.

Hatmaker: We are in a gun violence crisis, unprecedented in the developed world, so pitting enforcement and sentencing against reduction and regulations is a straw man. The NRA stranglehold on Republican members of the House and Senate appears to be a wholesale purchase of their votes and silence. This virtually carte blanche opposition to gun reform by the GOP stands in stark contrast to the will of the public: 93 percent of Americans favor universal background checks for gun purchases. Gun owners and non-owners share similar levels of support for measures such as banning the mentally ill from purchasing guns, background checks for private sales at gun shows, and barring gun purchases by people on no-fly or watch lists, restrictions being relaxed and repealed under President Trump. If partisan opposition to gun reform or even gun safety remains rigid with no deference to public will, then pointed change is just a talking point among citizens, not a genuine possibility.

5. America’s problem with gun violence goes far beyond mass shootings.

Prior: I recently learned that there were over 33,000 gun-related deaths in the United States in 2013. Honestly, that astonishes me. We really do have a gun-safety problem that goes far, far beyond the matter of these tragic mass shootings. As Kristof wrote, at one time cars caused more fatalities than guns, but federal regulations have drastically reduced the number of automobile accident deaths through education, enforcement and innovative safety features. America’s entrepreneurial spirit can help solve the gun problem without curtailing an important constitutional right.

Hatmaker: Agreed. Back to the common good, I am hard-pressed to think of a constitutional right I enjoy that I wouldn’t submit for examination if it was related to 33,000 deaths a year. As with virtually every partisan ideology, much of the debate in the public square is unreasonable, an imaginary defense of extreme overreach or underreach, when in fact, right down the middle are initiatives that could decrease violence and death without infringing on the rights of law-abiding citizens.

Jen Hatmaker is a best-selling author and speaker. Her books include “Of Mess and Moxie: Wrangling Delight Out of This Wild and Glorious Life,” “For the Love: Fighting for Grace in a World of Impossible Standards” and “7: An Experimental Mutiny Against Excess.”

Karen Swallow Prior is a professor of English at Liberty University and a research fellow with the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention. Her books include “Booked: Literature in the Soul of Me” and “Fierce Convictions: The Extraordinary Life of Hannah More.”

Share and Enjoy

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Delicious
  • LinkedIn
  • StumbleUpon
  • Add to favorites
  • Email
  • RSS

Disney Makes Deal for 21st Century Fox, Reshaping Entertainment Landscape

December 15, 2017 by  
Filed under Choosing Lingerie

Comments Off

To complete the integration, a legacy-defining task, Robert A. Iger, Disney’s chairman and chief executive, agreed to renew his contract for a fourth time, delaying retirement from July 2019 to the end of 2021. Mr. Murdoch asked Mr. Iger to stay as a condition of the deal, which was valued at $66.1 billion including debt.

“We’re honored and grateful that Rupert Murdoch has entrusted us with the future of businesses he spent a lifetime building,” Mr. Iger said in a statement.

Not included in the acquisition: Fox News, the Fox broadcast network and the FS1 sports cable channel. Mr. Murdoch said he would spin those businesses and a handful of other properties, including the 20th Century Fox lot in Hollywood, which Disney is not buying, into a newly listed company.

“I know a lot of people are wondering, ‘Why did the Murdochs come to such a momentous decision?’” Mr. Murdoch said on a conference call with investors. “Are we retreating? Absolutely not. We are pivoting at a pivotal moment.”

Mr. Murdoch’s eldest son, Lachlan, 21st Century Fox’s executive chairman, added that the move was “about returning to our roots as a lean, aggressive challenger brand” that would be “focused at the beginning on must-watch news and live sports.”

Photo

The deal is likely to result in the downsizing of 20th Century Fox, the iconic Hollywood studio behind hits that include “Avatar” (2009).

Credit
Weta Digital, via 20th Century Fox

There has been speculation in Hollywood that Mr. Murdoch’s other son, James, who is chief executive of 21st Century Fox, would join Disney in a senior role. Mr. Iger told investors on a conference call that has not yet been decided. “He will be integral to helping us integrate these companies over the next number of months,” Mr. Iger said. “Over that time, he and I will continue to discuss whether there is a role for him here or not.”

The Murdochs declined an interview request.

Disney, which owns ABC and ESPN, hopes 21st Century will supercharge its plans to introduce two Netflix-style streaming services. The company’s first major streaming effort, ESPN Plus, will arrive in the spring. A second and still unnamed offering, built around the company’s Disney, Marvel, Lucasfilm and Pixar brands, will roll out late next year. Rounding out its streaming portfolio will be Hulu, the already established service that focuses on older viewers with programming that includes ABC shows.

Newsletter Sign Up

Continue reading the main story

Mr. Iger is buying 21st Century Fox’s minority stake in Hulu, resulting in majority control of the streaming service by Disney, which previously owned 30 percent. Comcast and Time Warner also have stakes in Hulu.

Advertisement

Continue reading the main story

“We’re going to launch big, and we’re going to launch hot,” Mr. Iger said in September when announcing Disney’s streaming strategy. At the time, it could have been viewed as old-fashioned exaggeration.

Not anymore.

Disney is purchasing the Fox television studio, which has 36 series in production, including “The Simpsons,” “Homeland,” “This Is Us” and “Modern Family.” Disney’s significantly smaller TV factory, ABC Studios, has delivered series of inconsistent quality and lost its biggest hitmaker in August when the “Grey’s Anatomy” producer Shonda Rhimes decamped for Netflix.

To augment ESPN Plus, Disney is adding 21st Century Fox’s chain of 22 regional cable networks dedicated to sports, including the YES Network, which carries New York Yankees games.

As part of the deal, Disney will also get the FX and National Geographic cable networks, and stakes in two behemoth overseas television-service providers, Sky of Britain and Star of India. That component of the deal would seem to contradict Disney’s push to lessen its reliance on traditional television, a business built on third-party cable subscriptions that is now in decline as people turn to streaming services for home entertainment.

But those assets serve another one of Mr. Iger’s strategic goals: making Disney more of an international player. Disney has major operations in Europe, Japan and China, where it opened Shanghai Disneyland last year. But most of Disney’s profit still comes from the United States, where ESPN dominates, despite recent struggles, and annual attendance at Walt Disney World in Florida and the Disneyland Resort in California totals 162 million people.

Since taking over as Disney’s chief executive in 2005, Mr. Iger has greatly expanded Disney’s theme park operations, opening in Shanghai against all odds and nearly tripling the size of Disney Cruise Line. Walt Disney Studios, bolstered by Mr. Iger’s acquisitions of Pixar, Lucasfilm and Marvel, has become Hollywood’s runaway leader.

But pulling off the acquisition of 21st Century Fox dwarfs those deals and will create complex integration challenges. Some executives who work at Fox’s studio offices in Los Angeles have been complaining bitterly about the prospect of Disney cost-cutting.

The Disney-Fox merger also comes as the Justice Department fights ATT’s $85.4 billion acquisition of Time Warner in court. Mr. Iger acknowledged that antitrust regulators will heavily scrutinize Disney’s purchase but expressed confidence about winning their approval.

“If they look at it from a consumer point of view they should quickly conclude that the aim of this combination is to create more high-quality product for consumers around the world and to deliver it in more innovative, more compelling ways,” Mr. Iger said.

Follow Brooks Barnes on Twitter: @brooksbarnesNYT.

Michael J. de la Merced contributed reporting from London.


Continue reading the main story

Share and Enjoy

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Delicious
  • LinkedIn
  • StumbleUpon
  • Add to favorites
  • Email
  • RSS