There’s a member of my family who has, shall we say, an “impressive” collection of firearms (all legal Mr. FBI…no need to go visit him again…er, um…), and in fact among the men in my family, I’d guess the average number of firearms owned is about 4, maybe 5. I own one rifle, but it’s at my parents’ place…NYC not offering much in the way of free, legal target practice. Baptised in the “be prepared” propaganda of the Cold War, nearly everyone in my family has contingency plans, stockpiles of canned goods, extra batteries for the flashlight, etc., and would truly be prepared if catastrophe struck…or, as they might admit if pressed, their darkest fear/fantasy came true and their was need to overthrow an invading force or our own corrupted/threatening government. Again, Mr. FBI, there is no need to revisit…it’s a mindset, not an actual plot…
I mention this in response to the seeming surprise in the tone of the New York Times reporter’s account of the Khadamiya bazaar uprising in Baghdad yesterday:
The Khadamiya bazaar exploded in a frenzy. Shopkeepers reached beneath stacks of sandals for Kalashnikov rifles. Boys wrapped their faces in black cloth. Men raced through the streets, kicking over crates and setting up barriers. Some handed out grenades. Within minutes this entire Shiite neighborhood in central Baghdad had mobilized for war.
The folks where I come from would read this and think, “Of course. That’s how you do it. Smile to their faces; prepare behind their backs.”
The one aspect of the planning for the invasion and afterwards that has always struck me as dangerously ill-thought-out was the timetable. Not when we invaded (although I disagree with that as well), but rather how long it would take to assess when it was time to hand the country back over. Again and again Middle East scholars tell us that a different concept of time is held there. We expected Hussein’s forces to put up a good fight when we rolled into Iraq, and given how “well-trained” the insurgents who attacked in Ramadi were, I’d say they now are. They simply chose the moment that gave them the greatest advantage; that is, when the US was focussed on the upcoming turnover of sovereignty, with all the pomp and circumstance, to the Iraqis who, for the most part, seemed to really appreciate that they had been liberated…after all, they were smiling to our faces.
among the men in my family, I’d guess the average number of firearms owned is about 4, maybe 5
Would people here say this is a lot, or a normal amount?
Obviously, since I’m British, to me this seems very alarming. I don’t know of anyone who owns a gun. Edward, you’re right when you say it’s a mindset, and I’d hesitate before arguing it automatically increases the likelihood of firearm-related problems, and I know you have the right to bear arms, or something like that, but… am I the only one here who views the images of people wandering around the Middle East with rifles handguns and firing them up in the air to celebrate and thinks that the world would be a little better off if no country felt that owning guns was a perfectly normal thing to do?
It would certainly be alarming to the average New Yorker too, James. I trust the individual people in my family, not the mindset.
Nice segue into the Middle Eastern practice of celebratory fire, as it levels that rhetorical playing field a bit, by the way.
“Would people here say this is a lot, or a normal amount?”
This is one of the many issues where it’s necessary to emphasize to British folks that this land is thousands of miles long, with a vast variety of differing mores, customs, and needs.
What would be a “lot” in, say, Philadelphia, Chicago, or NYC, which is to say, in an urban area, is entirely different from, say, a farm in Idaho, where the nearest law enforcement may be an hour away, and where there may be dangerous wildlife about.
I’ve never owned a gun, myself. But I also don’t have any problem with responsible gun ownership. I have no problem with the idea of a law restricting ownership to those who have passed a test on safety and marksmanship, and I have no problem with a law mandating that gun licences must be issued to those who past such a test and are not otherwise a felon, or other in violation of certain mandates.
I like to think of this as the moderate position.
“I know you have the right to bear arms, or something like that…”
It’s actually the right to arm bears.
People frequently get this confused.
“…the world would be a little better off if no country felt that owning guns was a perfectly normal thing to do?”
More seriously, this really does ignore the point that not all lands have the geography of Britain.
Seriously suggesting that one go out in wolf or bear or snake country unarmed is suggesting that one take a considerably greater risk than would seem prudent. Seriously suggesting that anyone an hour or more from the law be banned from a means of self-defense is suggesting that millions of people should be prey to any bandit who chooses to go make a living by home invasion.
And, to be honest, there’s a philosophical difference between the American tradition of a right to self-defense, even in a more urban setting — your home, say, at the least, and a different British tradition that says only law enforcement has the right to inflict harm, and people may not use certain degrees of force even in self-defense (if there is a better phrasing, I’d appreciate it).
I used to be a sound liberal gun-control sort of person, but in recent years I’ve come round to somewhat different position. I don’t think that, for instance, if a person is sleeping in their home, and hears a disturbance in the night, that person takes a gun to investigate, and, finding a man with a knife standing over their child’s crib, says “drop the knife” and if the man lunges towards the child, and you shoot the man, there is anything at all wrong with this.
Yet, according to British custom, apparently one would be restricted to hurling a fry-pan (is even that allowed?).
Basically, guns are just another piece of iron (or whatever alloy). They are no more inherently evil than fry-pans, or knives, or axes, and treating them as if they are seems more based in magical thinking than in actual logic. Every item and device is subject to misuse. Misuse should be punished. The more dangerous a device or item is, the more legitimate it is to have cautionary restrictions as to its use, which is why I am fine with licensing requirements. But an absolute ban would not be appropriate under many circumstances, in my view.
I am not, however, prescribing what Britain or anywhere else should do. This is also very much, in my view, an issue that should be primarily local.
“more inherently evil than fry-pans”
I myself have 11 fry-pans, some with Teflon, some stainless steel, several thick cast-iron, a couple gourmet saute pans….inherently evil? From my cold dead fingers, you commie….
Guns can be beautiful works of tech craft, but expensive to collect….one good pistol costing more than all of my fry-pans…ummm, make that two good pistols
That’s “Mr. Commie Conservative,” to you, Mr. Acid Head McManus!
(I’m still getting thrown up to the Kinja conservative list; currently this includes a post opposing “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance, a post defending Ted Kennedy, a post sarcastically attacking John Ashcroft….)
The “prying from my cold, dead, fingers” line tends to remind me of my favorite crazed bad/good right-wing movie, John Milius’ Red Dawn, where, of course, the invading Cuban/Russians are instructed to go to the hardware store to find Form [Whatever] to track down who owns guns, and we see one pried from the fingers…. (Of someone with that bumper sticker.)
“John Milius’ Red Dawn”
Never was a more inspiring and ridiculous argument for an armed citizenry put together. Don’t take away our guns! The Reds might parachute in! Great movie, though.
Of course we all know the real reason to keep your citizenry armed is to let them defend themselves against their own government. A fact which conservatives keep in the back of their heads when liberals are in power. And I like to think the Bush presidency, if nothing else, is encouraging liberals to be a little more thoughtful about gun control.
My grandfather grew up in the hills, so to speak. He was one of fourteen children (!!!)… I remember being told that more often than not, if the family wanted to eat meat, then somebody had to go into the woods out back and kill something. My dad didn’t have so many siblings, but small game and the occasional deer certainly made a big difference in making the household budget of a limestone cutter/tenant farmer go a lot further. I was raised under quite different circumstances (only child of the country boy who became an engineer), but we lived in the woods, too, and it only made sense to pass on the traditional knowledge of how to shoot straight and live in the wild. That’s my anecdotal contribution to the geography issue.
On the topic of paranoia, russkies are comin’, etc., another story comes to mind. I spent the better part of my adolescence suffering from the notion that nuclear war was all but inevitable.(Recent revelations on the Korean Air incident give us all the chills.) I once asked my dad if he thought a nuclear war might be followed by an invasion. To paraphrase his response, “Yeah, an invasion by looters from Chicago who managed to make it through the first strike.” We also had a contingency plan.
As always, I apologize for being so verbose… but one more story that’s priceless. At a company picnic, I remember a serious gun collector who was impressed by my father’s knowledge of firearms, and wondered out loud if we might have a small arsenal hidden away somewhere. “No,” my dad said,”just a few shotguns and hunting rifles.” …”But what if things really fall apart, and you actually need an assault rifle?”
“Well,” he answered,”I guess if things ever get so bad that I actually need an assault rifle, I’ll just have to take my shotgun and go get one.”
Touche, Mr. NRA.
Gary said:
Yet, according to British custom, apparently one would be restricted to hurling a fry-pan (is even that allowed?).
You could use a knife.
Point taken about the rural areas, but that’s a local issue rather than national. Fine, if the whole country was rural, that’d be a national issue, so it is at least theoretically possible that a national mindset of owning guns isn’t a bad thing.
But not everyone lives in wolf/bear country, do they? And multiple weapons? And of course, the use of an object is primarily down to the user (guns don’t kill people, kittens kill people, as we all know), but a gun is also less likely to be used by the average human being than a knife or a frying pan. Furthermore its uses tend to be more limited to violent ones.
“Furthermore its uses tend to be more limited to violent ones.”
That’s the cliche, James, but if you think about it, you realize it’s nonsense. The main use of guns, as judged by counting statistically where the overwhelming number of bullets go, is firing them at targets and cans.
That’s probably about 97% of use. I think you’d agree that’s not what we commonly call “violence.”
Not counting police and military, probably about 1%, if that, of bullets go towards, let alone into, people. I fully admit I’m pulling these numbers out of my ass, and may be somewhat off.
“Fine, if the whole country was rural, that’d be a national issue, so it is at least theoretically possible that a national mindset of owning guns isn’t a bad thing.”
I already said I think it should be a local issue.
“And multiple weapons?”
What’s it matter? If you have one kitchen knife, or twenty, are you more apt to stab someone because you own twenty? Don’t, in fact, people who like having a lot of cooking utensils sometimes like to have a large number of knives, using different ones for different purposes, or simply for aesthetic value in some cases?
Are knives inherently evil? Are guns?
Gary – I think it’s fair to say that gun use is limited to violent uses, if one calls causing damage violent. I’m perfectly willing to accept one might not. I would do so. Is shooting holes in cans harmful? No. It’s not excessively violent, either. But it is of a violent nature. No doubt some will consider this a weakening of my case.
However, thinking about this, I can see that the uses of knives are all damage-causing as well; and although I’d say their potential is less than guns – insofar as the average person is more likely to be able to be careful and controlled with a knife than a gun (for a start because the target of the knife is closer) – one might easily say this is getting too hypothetical.
The main use of guns, as judged by counting statistically where the overwhelming number of bullets go, is firing them at targets and cans.
I’d say that doesn’t do my point any harm – although I see now that I’ve made my point badly. By ‘use’ I meant ‘useful employment’, rather than ways in which the objects are used. I don’t call shooting cans useful. I would say that a knife has many uses that are useful and not calculated to cause damage to other living creatures.
If you have one kitchen knife, or twenty, are you more apt to stab someone because you own twenty?
…
Are knives inherently evil? Are guns?
Of course not, and you never expected me to say otherwise. But availability means that accidents or otherwise are more likely to happen if someone gets something into their head on the spur of the moment. If that gun wasn’t in your house, by the time you went to get one, you might have changed your mind.
Again, this is all ‘mights’ and ‘more so than’; but, if it was a cut and dry argument, everyone with an ounce of sense would agree one way or another.
I also don’t think that we have militias in the UK – I may be wrong – and I would say that is a part of the mindset as well.