Understanding guns in the USA: A fresh look
Posted: Wed, 28. Feb 18, 08:12
I have been thinking lately about the gun problem in the USA.
Whenever there's a problem to solve, step 1 is always trying to understand the other. This case is no different.
To people outside the USA, it all seems simple - too many guns = too many shootings. And we are baffled as to why the Americans permit this - it seems like it should be a no-brainer.
What we need to be doing is to try to get inside the head of the US gun lobby. Why is such a simple concept so difficult to communicate? In the past I've just thought it was about "they want their toys and they'll stop at nothing to keep them." But recently I've wondered if I might have had the wrong end of the stick.
What if the problem is not the guns so much as a clash of cultural concepts?
By which I mean other countries such as New Zealand and Canada have relatively relaxed gun laws, and still don't have a problem with mass shootings. Nor are individual shootings a regular feature of a normal day. What is the difference?
In thinking about this, I have realised that there is one HUGE thing - Americans tend to see personal security as an individual responsibility, whereas the majority of the rest of the world sees it as a collective responsibility.
This has consequences.
If you see it as individual responsibility, then you have to do whatever it takes to be prepared for whatever consequences may occur. You have to accept that nobody will help you, you have to do it all yourself. It's totally up to you. In that context, it is totally rational to be heavily armed.
If you see personal security as a collective responsibility, you act in a way that is counter-intuitive to the individualist; you eschew armament. But the thing is, there's an implicit trust there that is so much a part of our culture that we don't even think about it as a thing. We implicitly say "If I'm not armed, society, you'd better DAMN WELL make sure that there is no serious threat of violent crime against me!"
I think this is the point of disconnect. Real or imagined, Americans find it hard to imagine trusting government in this way. I think Americans tend to envisage government as an external body, whereas Australians (and others?) see it as representatives of ourselves - perhaps Americans see the government as "them", the rest of us see it as "us".
This is completely made up, whole thread. Opinions?
Whenever there's a problem to solve, step 1 is always trying to understand the other. This case is no different.
To people outside the USA, it all seems simple - too many guns = too many shootings. And we are baffled as to why the Americans permit this - it seems like it should be a no-brainer.
What we need to be doing is to try to get inside the head of the US gun lobby. Why is such a simple concept so difficult to communicate? In the past I've just thought it was about "they want their toys and they'll stop at nothing to keep them." But recently I've wondered if I might have had the wrong end of the stick.
What if the problem is not the guns so much as a clash of cultural concepts?
By which I mean other countries such as New Zealand and Canada have relatively relaxed gun laws, and still don't have a problem with mass shootings. Nor are individual shootings a regular feature of a normal day. What is the difference?
In thinking about this, I have realised that there is one HUGE thing - Americans tend to see personal security as an individual responsibility, whereas the majority of the rest of the world sees it as a collective responsibility.
This has consequences.
If you see it as individual responsibility, then you have to do whatever it takes to be prepared for whatever consequences may occur. You have to accept that nobody will help you, you have to do it all yourself. It's totally up to you. In that context, it is totally rational to be heavily armed.
If you see personal security as a collective responsibility, you act in a way that is counter-intuitive to the individualist; you eschew armament. But the thing is, there's an implicit trust there that is so much a part of our culture that we don't even think about it as a thing. We implicitly say "If I'm not armed, society, you'd better DAMN WELL make sure that there is no serious threat of violent crime against me!"
I think this is the point of disconnect. Real or imagined, Americans find it hard to imagine trusting government in this way. I think Americans tend to envisage government as an external body, whereas Australians (and others?) see it as representatives of ourselves - perhaps Americans see the government as "them", the rest of us see it as "us".
This is completely made up, whole thread. Opinions?