An apology, of sorts. I didn’t intend to read your piece; I was trying to scroll past it on my phone, and clicked instead. I don’t, in general, read pro- or anti- gun pieces. I don’t like to be a part of “my rights vs. your rights” debates. There’s already enough wrong to go around without me adding to it.

Once I read it, and the comments, and your responses to them, I wanted to say a couple things, too. Again, I apologize. It’s a side issue, not what you discussed. (Thank you for the informative article. Many bits of the “military weapons” discussion were neatly tied up and clarified. It appealed to me as a technical dork in other magisteria.)

The problem? Values.

Our actions always show our values.

We preserve what we value. As long as we value the weight of our fear, or the weight of our power, more than the weight of our love, we will act to preserve our fears and our dominion, over our love.

Weapons validate our fears, protect our dominion. They don’t protect or validate our love. Love does that without help. Your article did not address this. Assault and defense are fear- and domination- based ideas. That’s why the same weapon works for both. Seems best, to me, for us non-military folks to avoid practicing with these tools, because then we get good at using them, as you noted.

Note well, also: This is not a “love over all, love everyone because love conquers all,” commentary. I don’t know that to be true. I do know that the weight of love (the love of our partners, our children, our parents, our friends — those closest to us) is more valuable to me than any amount of fear or dominance. Love who you can, is my advice, and value the weight, the feeling of that love. Practice weighing it, holding it, feeling its gravity and joy and pain. Our actions always show our values.