American Scenario: Guns, Fear & Hysteria?
Fear and hysteria are the two words often mentioned in the wake of 9/11. To this I would add ‘insecurity’.
The comments that followed the two TMV posts on the gun issue bring to light the hidden fears. That it may not be the ‘terrorist’ alone, but also the state that may take away individual liberty by intruding/impacting into one’s personal/private life.
Guns, it seems from these arguments, would provide ‘security’ and ‘peace of mind’ (as opposed to fear) in all circumstances – a panacea for all fears/threats/insecurity.
In human history, ownership of guns/arms were traditionally associated with honour and valour. However, in the comments in the TMV posts on guns, it appears that a majority of American readers own a gun out of fear and insecurity.
One can understand these arguments in the American context where an individual continues to rotate/operate fiercely on his or her own axis, and finds it difficult to merge a significant portion of this high individualism in the societal framework within a nation.
This may be because America’s relatively isolated geographical/political position until two or three deacdes ago. Also, its history, in not too distant past, of being a nation of forcible settlers in an alien land, and then forced to protect one’s turf many a times on an individual basis.
The US government understood this psyche of the people and was liberal in allowing the use of arms/guns at an individual level. Even in recent times the gun ownership has been supported by Presidents Reagan, Clinton and Bush.
That this fear/insecurity psychosis continues to haunt the Americans even after two centuries of freedom and peaceful existence, is a matter of concern. Probably this has something to do with the violent/barbaric manner in which the native tribes were subdued by the new settlers.
Do these memories of blood and gore still haunt the subconscious mind? Is it the fear that what the settlers did once to the natives could be done to them by some others?
The 9/11 episode brought to the surface the latent fears/insecurities of an avarage American. Now everything appears threatening. In this scenario the US administration has also done its bit by its thoughtless actions, and helped fan the fires of insecurity among its populace.
Agreed that these are much more trying times for the Americans than for rest of the people elsewhere in the world. But to say that we have nothing to depend on but our guns, appears to me a a rather simplistic solution in the present day complex world.
The US administration’s response to the highly complex international developments can be seen as an action at the macro level corresponding to the average thinking of the vocal Americans at the micro level. And it has all got to do with arms/guns/soldiers/tanks/fighter planes/enemy and so on.
A vital tool in international affairs called DIPLOMACY rarely figures in the lexicon of the present US administration in the context of resolution of conflicts. In a highly complex world there are bound to be conflicts. But what is needed is unlimited patience and astute diplomacy to avoid further complicating the issue and prevent unnecessary human suffering.
There is another dimension to this gun issue. The metaphor of gun/arms is not limited to ‘fear and insecurity’ but also for conquering and sustaining an unsustainable lifestyle. With the limited resources at hand one is tempted to reach out to other countries (even forcibly by using guns) to ensure smooth supply of resources.
In other Western countries an average citizen has learnt over the centuries to merge their high individualism with the societal demands/mores/needs without fear of losing one’s distinct identity/freedom.
Maybe the United States is a young nation and may take many more years to fall in line with the thinking of the European nations (or maybe not).
Here are some intresting quotes on the subject:
“A man with a gun is a citizen, a man without a gun is a subject. Our forefathers knew this to be true….. Why do so many of us question their wisdom?”—D. Michael Wiechman, May 14, 1996
“No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.”—Thomas Jefferson, Proposed Virginia Constitution, 1776, Jefferson Papers 344
“Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.”…Dwight David Eisenhower(1890-1969), 34th President of the United States.
“The end move in politics is always to pick up a gun.”— Richard Buckminster Fuller (1895–1983)
“There are some circles in America where it seems to be more socially acceptable to carry a hand-gun than a packet of cigarettes.“— Katharine Whitehorn quotes
“Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.”—Mao Tse-Tung (or Mao Zedong)—1893-1976
“A Canadian is sort of like an American, but without the gun.”—Unknown?
“A lot of children know absolutely nothing about guns other than what they see on T.V., and those are the wrong things.”—Marion Hammer
48 Responses to “American Scenario: Guns, Fear & Hysteria?”
Great amateur phycology. The misguided assumptions are legion in this post.
First you have concluded that that the responses you received to your posts here are representative of all US gun owners. Then you focused on a limited number of those responses, ignoring the ones that didn’t fit your criteria, and formed your theory that you then imply is the reason for gun ownership in the US. This of course ignores that the posts you refer to are very much the minority response to the two posts.
You are concerned that there has been to much blood and violence in our history? Coming from your family background that you posted this seems strange. You seem to have created the answer you want and were searching for some way to fill in the blanks to get there. Give me a break!!
9/11 didn’t make most Americans afraid, we are way to cocky and arrogant for that (ask anyone), it made us angry. How that was not readily apparent I don’t know. And that these are much more trying time for us? Why? Frances race problems are much greater than ours, even Britain is seeing more problems than we are. The people in Iraq are quite abit passed our level of “trying”. The situation between pakistan and India and terrorism in both countries seems to earn comment. I could go on and on.
Diplomacy seems to be more and more the US paying people off to get something done. That is what it boils down to most often. That the price got to high doesn’t mean that it’s a failure by the US. Diplomacy doesn’t mean that you have to take crap off of everyone because they think you should.
Then there is the call to surrender ourselves to the society for the greater good. Individualism is bad!!! That’s a political thought for you.
Oh and the quote by Mao, yeah that’s real indicative of American thinking………(is there even a need for me to say anything?)
I am more convinced by those who argue that guns should remain legal because there are so many out there already that illegalizing them would only serve the criminals than by those who advocate keeping they’re guns to be “free”.
Newsflash: Almost the entire rest of the civilized, free world does not allow gun ownership like the US, and we are at least as free.
If guns in the hands of civilians are always neccesary for safety and freedom, why is it that in western europe we aren’t all being killed because we have no guns? Why is it that people don’t feel particularly opressed or threatened by their governments? Is there any reason for gun ownership that isn’t directly connected to the fact that, thanks to the second ammendment, the US is already saturated with guns? I’m not saying those aren’t valid reasons, but otherwise I sea nothing else.
Diplomacy seems to be more and more the US paying people off to get something done.
I don’t think Webster would say this. Maybe we should include paraniod to the mix.
“A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”
Probably the most mis-quoted and misunderstood amendment to the Constitution. I don’t own a gun, and I probably never will. I just don’t see the point. If someone attacks me for my wallet, I’m giving him my wallet. I’d rather be out $20 and spend a couple hours getting new credit cards and a driver’s license than risk getting shot or accidentally shotting someone else if I start a confrontation. I also don’t see the point in owning a gun for the purpose of defending yourself against the government. Unless you have some pretty heavy artillery and 100,000 like-minded and well-trained friends with guns, you don’t stand a snowballs chance in Hell of defeating the US military.
At the same time, I can completely understand why others choose to carry a gun for protection. A good friend of mine lives in Baltimore City and often works late – she has a small handgun that she keeps in her purse just in case. But she also had professional training to use the gun (her Dad’s a retired cop so he got one of his buddies to teach her). I think people should be allowed to own guns with a few regulations. Convicted felons should not be allowed to buy weapons. There should be background checks to buy a gun and anyone who does purchase a gun should be required to take a course in the proper handling of the weapon.
wow talk about a string of bad, ill-informed articles.
{sarcasm}
Yeah that’s it – exactly.
{/sarcasm}
Lynx – can you explain Switzerland?
This is hands down the worst article I’ve seen on Moderate Voice. And the picture at the end was unneeded.
Swaraaj Chauhan, that’s a very cute spanking of American’s who exercise their rights under their Constitution. Just remember that Europe’s enlightenment on this subject may not be the end-all. How long did Hitler take to conquer Holland? Three days, wasn’t it? If the Dutch had had weapons, it may not have been so easy.
Try to remember that that right was granted by our founders for a reason. One was protection from tyrannical government, from within or without. The other was to supply a wide-spread militia.
I lived in a commercial fishing town where many of the fishermen did some smuggling now and then. But we all agreed on one thing. Anyone who tried to invade the U.S. would discover that every boat would become a gun-ship, every bulldozer would become a tank and every gun would become a weapon of war. That is a power that any potential invader needs to be aware of. It’s not born of fear but prudence.
Much the same argument applies to prevention of tyranny. The unconstitutional acts of our present administration raise the suspicion of a move toward tyranny from within. In that event, “every boat … That is a power that any [tyrant] needs to be aware of.” It’s not born of fear but prudence as demonstrated by it’s inclusion in our Constitution 230 years ago.
“And the picture at the end was unneeded.”
Are those even American children?
Yes, the article was incredibly stupid.
Case in point: The quote on Canada. Canadians own (tens of?) millions of guns, in some territories at a higher per capita rate than America, and they don’t have nearly as many murders as the U.S.
This, of course, was the point of Bowling for Columbine, which both the left and right overlook. It’s not the guns that lead to violence, but that the culture of violence (largely from the war on drugs) leads to violence.
Let me reiterate my point, Swaraaj.
“If we can blame guns for killing people, that means I can blame misspelled words on my pencil.” – Larry the Cable Guy.
I DARE you to find fault in that quote, which echoes my beliefs. I DARE you.
All right, point well taken. Let us take the discussion further. May I invite you to have a look at the article in the American Handgunner.
Meanwhile I have come across another interesting write-up on the subject. The article has been reproduced in full from a book published by Shepard Publications, Los Angeles, 2002…
“Mahatma Gandhi and His Myths: Civil Disobedience, Nonviolence, and Satyagraha in the Real World”…
by Mark Shepard.
would have to ask
what is with the European’s obsession with American gun rights?
LOL…good point. If I were inclined toward psychobabble, I’d almost have to see something Freudian in that.
Swaraaj,
I would recommend that you and the author of the article you cite, both read a bit more about Gandhi.
“I do believe, that where there is only a choice between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence.” -Mahatma Gandhi
C,
They’re just mad they can’t own guns and we can!
EF – Nice anedotal point, but the article had this.
LOL – A Floridian telling an Indian the essence of Gahdhi’s nonviolence.
I think the Gandhi article was excellent because it showed that his nonviolence was not weak, but a sign of strength. The difficult but true fact is that most positive change in the eternal struggle against oppression comes not from the strong side giving in, but from the oppressed side resisting in the way that Gandhi advocated. I think that, just as the article points out that Newton didn’t discover create gravity, he just put two and two together and began to understand this natural law, similarly Gandhi noted this truth of history and decided to promote it as a tool for positive change. Similarly, the Muslim world (and other populations who consider themselves oppressed) should have a Gandhi moment. If they would realize the change that needs to occur within their cultures, and embrace a nonviolent means of resisting the interference of powerful nations, they would find the remedy for their problems.
I add this bit about Gandhi: “However, Gandhi was aware that this level of nonviolence required incredible faith and courage, which he realized not everyone possessed. He therefore advised that everyone need not keep to nonviolence, especially if it was used as a cover for cowardice…
“Gandhi guarded against attracting to his satyagraha movement those who feared to take up arms or felt themselves incapable of resistance. ‘I do believe,’ he wrote, ‘that where there is only a choice between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence.’”
Rudi,
How does your comment invalidate the Gandhi quote I cited?
Which quote is incorrect? Why was an Indian not aware of the quote a Floridian found?
The Gandhi article, I cited earlier, also quoted him advising the Jews under Hitler to either submit to the Holocaust or “jump off a cliff.” In the context of this discussion, try telling an American that when he’s treatened and he’ll let you know very quickly whether or not he has a gun. If he doesn’t have a gun, you’ll have a bloody nose.
Swaraaj,
Glad you found the time to get the quote. Did I state his quote properly?
Are you trying to imply that American intentions to violently oppose tyranny or invasion is a sign of cowardice? Are you implying that submitting to the knife or “jumping off a cliff” is the higher moral ground?
If either or both those implications are your meaning, then yes I’ll take the low moral ground. Any attempt to enforce tyranny or invasion on U.S. soil will certainly discover just how fierce is our dedication to violence as self-protection. That, by itself is a deterrent. A declaration of acceptance of any invasion/tyranny just seems to encourage either or both.
I just wanted to respond to this. That has nothing to do with it. In fact, our army was doing quite a good job. We were causing the Germans quite some trouble.
Then… why did we surrender you ask? Because the Germans attacked Rotterdam and completely destroyed it. They also threatened to take out other cities like Amsterdam.
Then, the most terrible and cowardly decision in the history of my country was made: to surrender.
O I should have added: by airpower. There was no ground fighting involved regarding Rotterdam. They showed us that they could kill us anytime, they could destroy our entire country solely with their airpower.
I just want to say for the record, that I think in years to come, as the tidal wave of Islam and Third World criminality swallows Europe, many Europeans will regretting the fact that they didn’t better arm themselves. Especially as they watch their inept police try and fail to control crime just as the French police are trying and failing to do in so many areas now.
Europeans simply don’t understand why we wouldn’t trade a little freedom for the greater common good . That is simply a concept they fail to grasp . Let’s give it a try .First they come for your guns …
submit to the Holocaust or “jump off a cliff.”
EF _ I didn’t find this in the Wiki article. Please show the text as a cut and paste and refer to the Wiki article section. I did see MG was imprisoned, lost his wife and health during WWII, I didn’t find any implication of VichyGanhdi.
Michael,
I thought the Holland comment might bring you into the discussion. Given your statement:
I assume, then, you can understand the Gandhi quote, especially in the context added by Swaraaj,
My father-in-law hid from the nazis throughout the war (he was the right age for conscription). If Dutch citizens had already had weapons, isn’t it logical that the outcome of the nazi occupation may have been somewhat different? Clearly, the Dutch were outmanned and outgunned, but, wouldn’t you think there would have been more resistance and less hiding?
I must say, the European distaste of American gun rights irritates me. With our armed citizens:
- The, then, most powerful nation on earth, Great Britain, was kicked out of our land in the Revolutionary War.
- In WWI &WWII we geared up for war quickly enough to provide the required help to stop Germany, mostly because we already had the technology and could produce the goods. We already had that technology because our citizens were already arming themselves.
- I often wonder, if the U.S. pulled out of NATO, what would happen? Would a European militia, already armed at the citizen’s personal expense, look a bit more logical then?
Swaraaj’s references to Gandhi’s passivism are particularly irritating. If India is truly passive, maybe they should destroy their nuclear weapons and stand down their army. On the otherhand, if they are truly worried about Pakistan (or China) would an armed citizenry make them feel more comfortable? Or maybe not, if the existing government has something to hide from it’s newly armed citizens?
Rudi,
I’m running out to a meeting, but run a search in the article on “Jews Hitler” and you’ll find it.
You won’t find the word Holocaust, I used that as shorthand for the situation being referred to. You’ll find the meaning is not changed.
Sorry, if I made you read the entire article …. LOL
No. and why do you keep pounding about some imagined European obsession with your guns?
EF -
Are you refering to this part of the article:
The footnote refers to some BS at NRO used to justify Iraq. Bush/Sadam -> Ganhdi LOL
Now if Ganhdi could have enjoyed Pat Robertson’s protien shake then…..
One thing people overlook is the fact that the citizens of countries that don’t allow firearms generally (surprise!) can’t shoot very well. No wonder the Europeans are so squeamish about war. You cannot make up years of marksmanship practice in a few weeks of basic infantry training, I’m afraid.
In fact, marksmanship skills are relevant in areas you wouldn’t even expect. I remember hearing about a study that was done during either World War II or the Korean War (I can’t quite remember which one; I think it was Korea). They wanted to know which fighter pilots were getting the most kills and why. They discovered that 80% of kills were made by only 20% of all fighter pilots. Guess where those pilots came from? The rural areas of the country where people learn marksmanship and hunting skills at a young age, particularly from the South and the rural Midwest and West. Even though being a fighter pilot and a marksman with the rifle are two very different things, some of those skills translated over into being an effective fighter pilot.
Similarly, I can almost guarantee that if you look at elite marksmen, like snipers, you’ll find they come overwhelming from those same areas. You won’t run into a lot of snipers in the Army or Marines that were born and bred in New York City or Los Angeles.
A poorly armed population is a population that will shoot poorly during wars.
Rudi,
No, I’m talking about the section labelled “Nonviolence” where Gandhi said:
Fairly blunt and to the point, don’t you think?
Michael,
The reason I keep “pounding” about the European obsession with American’s civilian guns is that it appears to be what this whole series of articles has been about. That and the fact that, on my 7-8 trips to visit in-laws in The Netherlands, the subject never fails to arise. Are you saying there is no European fixation with American gun rights? Have I only been talking to a good cross-section of Dutch people who have this fixation?
That and many Europeans &Canadians give out the impression that they have some type of moral superiority over American’s on the issue.
Interested,
Good point.
For once, we Americans can accuse the Europeans (and some Canadians) of being arrogant.
That’s another accusation I hear about Americans each time I go to Holland. Of course ten minutes later, some Dutchman is telling me that “America should handle” thus-and-such world problem in some certain way. Each time that happens, I gently point out that Americans seem arrogant because Europeans seem to think we have an obligation to fix the problem.
This is why to some extent, I wonder if the U.S. should actually pull out of NATO.
Since the E.U. is now a major force in the world, maybe it’s time they paid for their own defense and the R&D necessary to remain a major force. Of course, the downside for the E.U. is that then, they have the opportunity to be hated by the rest of the world.
Personally, I’d love to see the E.U. take on it’s own defence. The U.S. would save money and manpower and be free to concentrate on what’s good for US.
Yes, I’m aware that NATO is a mutual defense treaty. Admittedly, The Netherlands and Britain have been very generous and forthcoming.
But, in recent years, most of our NATO allies have picked and chosen their areas of support. It may just be time to recognize that fact, and agree to dissolve NATO so that we can support each other selectively as a matter of self-interest.
Tommy (bottom part of the Bell Curve) says:
One thing people overlook is the fact that the citizens of countries that don’t allow firearms generally (surprise!) can’t shoot very well. No wonder the Europeans are so squeamish about war.
Lest you forgot, two world wars happened on EU soil. Please take your **** to LGF where it is mre appropiate. Only a few Europeans and Russians stubbed their keyboard fingers in those battles.
EF – You have taken the article and selectively pasted a section for your partisan purposes. You used this part:
What follows after puts the quote into a larger perspective.
So, what he said is – to the true non-violence believer – use nonviolence even against the Nazis. To the cowards and nonbeliever violence against the Nazis is OK.
Why did you take the article out of context?
MLK said something similar, he told the cowards to accept the Malcolm X way.
Rudi,
How is it your seeing this as a partisan issue? I might have missed someone commenting differently. But the vast majority of US posters here in favor of Gun Rights are from all sides of the political spectrum.
Rudi,
So you seem to agree that Gandhi felt there are situations in which violence is the preferable choice? Or do you believe that his context somehow changes the meaning of the quote?
Did, or did not Gandhi say that violence was the correct choice under certain situations? And, how is my, out of context, quote changing Gandhi’s meaning?
Additionally, why do I, an American, have to accept Gandhi’s assertion that non-violence (even though he apparently says there are situations when violence is proper) is correct even though it invites tyranny and/or invasion?
Rudi,
Again:
Whatever.
Lest you have forgetten, Europe was far less restrictionist when it came to firearms during that era than it is today. Granted, Adolf Hitler was really the original gun control advocate, but Hitler counteracted much of this restrictionism by heavily militarizing German society including its youth. Prior to World War II guns were not unusal in many European countries. In fact, the British rifleman of the First World War is often considered among the best the world has ever seen. I guarantee you they aren’t now.
Rudi,
I’ll accept “whatever” as capitulation, since I never said anything about marksmanship vs. gun ownership.
No I did not respond with – whatever. That is the response from the National Vandguard Crowd.
IMO neither Swaraaj or Ganhdi imply that an American response to tyranny or invasion with violence is cowardly. Ganhdi wanted people who excepted “Satyagraha and Tapasya”, as he said – “There are many causes that I am prepared to die for but no causes that I am prepared to kill for.“. For those who could not understand or accept these principles then violence could be their choice. Think of a comon situations which results in the awarding of the Medal of Honor during war.
The soldier who covers a grenade to sacrifice himself to save the others around him. This would be an act of complete Tapasya – willingness for self-sacrifice. Senseless violence, comitted without reason or justification, is a cowardly act. Torture is a cowardly….
Sure when we talk with Americans we might bring it up, out of fascination or out of just… not understanding something. But again, European obsession? What are you talking about? Bringing something up is not obsessive.
“is that it appears to be what this whole series of articles has been about”
What do you mean. I’m the only European blogger here. I only wrote one article about it, which was, if I may say so, quite in the middle on this topic and more looking for a debate about this subject than anything else.
Also I celebrate Swaraaj for this post: as the comments show, very thought-provoking.
Comment provoking but incendiary and truly ha-kneed.
He stated a conclusion that seems to me to be as far from reality as the moon from being made of cheese. He used as the basis for that conclusion the supposed responses that only a small minority of said, could even be said to resemble. Refuses to answer any criticism of his posts.
MVG, I like your posts but mere controversy is not the highest for of “blogism”. It is obvious that Swaraaj has preconceived Ideas and little concern for facts of discussion.
Firstly thank you and secondly, I agree of course, but one should not be afraid of it either.
Michael,
Very true, but note also that it is not at all uncommon for an American to be challenged by Europeans and Canadians on our beliefs of gun rights. Not unlike the death penalty. For every study done on how guns kill there is another study that shows it isn’t the gun at all. And when I say that Europeans and Canadians give off the impression that they’re morally superior on the subject – that is because that is the impression they give off. That somehow we are wayward children that may someday grow up.
Usually I respond with how do you explain Switzerland. To which most Europeans have no answer. just like Lynx didn’t here. Swaraaj’s series of posts on the subject shows a complete ignorance on the subject. And while I think it’s great and I welcome for someone to try to understand the issue. It is a different thing entirely for someone like Swaraaj (who’s not even an American) to attempt to prove how wrong we are when he cannot fathom the issue to begin with. That much was clear the first few paragraphs into his writing and indeed the remainder of his writing did not deserve the time to finish reading about it.
In a rare moment I would agree with C.Prez – he quoted a quote that nailed it.
And indeed if anyone – anyone can show me how a firearm can kill someone entirely by itself with no outside interference (not a bad thing to try given there are billions of weapons in the world) – than I’d be willing to fully read what Swaraaj has to say about it.
And on the flip side, perhaps American’s have a tough time understanding the European view on it – maybe just removing a tool of destruction is by itself a good – common sense thing. However it is just a tool. After all a weapon by itself can not kill anymore than a car can by itself, or a cigarette can by itself. or even a nuke. Something has to set an act into motion for the objects to kill. That’s an undisputable fact. We too can see the violence that people take using weapons as their tools of destruction; we can see on tv African nations tearing each other apart, and little kids carrying an AK-47. We can see the news where some guy went nuts and killed 10 innocent Amish girls – girls of an incredibly peaceful religion. But in each and every case substitute the firearm for a different weapon and the outcome will still be the same.
if you have an individual or individuals bent on a killing rage for whatever reason – they will substitute a gun for something else. That’s not to say that everyone should be reckless and thereby sell guns to whoever. It’s just to get smart and educate. That’s the real difference with Switzerland – they have a heavy amount of education about it – and it works. Most responsible gun owners have no problem with reasonable laws about gun control. We have no problem with a waiting period – or a background check. We welcome these types of laws. We also think there are enough laws on the books that the existing ones can just be enforced or tweaked to have greater success. We are the ones that put trigger locks on our weapons – then lock them in a cabinet, and store the ammo also locked up in a different place. We also make sure that the keys to these locations are not accessible – and that it takes three separate keys. And we believe in educating children about the extreme dangers with weapons. Not unlike educating children about the extreme dangers of driving a car. And it would be tough to see why responsible gun owners should be punished by further regulations – as much as people may say that the laws will effect the bad people – they usually do not. For the people following the laws are the responsible ones to begin with.
We are still hoping that our American cousins will, once, achieve adulthood.
sorry, could not refuse.
Also, you make some very good points. I believe that Michael Moore also made a strong case by comparing Canada to the US; in essence what I remember of Fahrenheit is that the problem isn’t guns. It’s attitude.
That being said, poor people, you have to realize this, this is reality, will move to use guns sooner, because they are desperate or even downright self-destructive, filled with anger, etc. So… perhaps the problem isn’t so much guns as such, but too much extremes in one country. Today I read Benjamin Franklin addressing Europeans who were considering migrating to America. He said, we don’t have poor like Europe does, but we also do not have rich like Europe does. Generally, he wrote, every single American has enough money.
What do you think?
I agree that the destitute will resort to the tool that will do the greatest destruction to achieve their goals. – I.e. have a gun and a hand grenade on the table they’ll toss that grenade first. Which isn’t unlike why you see little kids who should be playing cops and robbers – instead playing soldier with a real weapon – and it’s no game.
The extremes is a pretty head on good point – 99 times out of a 100 it’s the extremes, or the mentally imbalanced that you hear about in the news. With lack of education on the subject someone makes a weapon accessible and it’s used.
I think the European nations &Canada grew up teaching a distaste for firearms to their children – and it’s a mindset of the citizenry. It’s not a bad mindset to have – just not one we agree with. I think the U.S. has failed to embrace the fact that we’re not doing away with the 2nd Amendment and we need to educate. It’s almost like admitting we need to become aware of the problem means we’re damned for having the problem. (to ourselves)
BF’s quote could go a few different directions. lol I’ve found a few so far. He musta been a democrat
j/k they didn’t have Democrats back then.
I think even the poorest in the US live better than most. Things regular folks in the UK do without would be unacceptable here. Some how people think because we no longer have the situational economy that allowed the working class to become what would effectively become rich anywhere else, that somehow that means the “rich” took away the money and the govt should do something. Bah humbug! Right now we still have amazing opportunities and options. Anyone thru brains or hard work can still make it big.
Personally I think it has more to do other countries trying to make themselves feel better than anything else. When you look at the violent crime rate in the UK and it’s higher than the US, without having the societal differences that ours do, who has a bigger problem?
PING:
TITLE: How We See Ourselves vs. How We’re Seen
BLOG NAME: Dean’s World
Last week in response to this observation from an overseas blogger: