Politically Charged Violence - Who's Responsible?

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by Linus

See. I don't think it's the number of guns that a nation has (Canada's estimates range from 7-11 million firearms for about 2-3 million gun owners). The 270 Million guns isn't per person. The last estimate was about 25% of the population in the US had guns. Canada is half that and I've rarely (very rarely with exception to Mark Levine in the 1990s and the FLQ in the 70s) heard of the kind of violence that exists here in the US. Heck, look at Switzerland with a pop of about 7 million and where there is an est 1.2-3 million guns in the household (granted a lot are because the expectation the all citizens make up the national militia). But I think it highlights my next point.

And you make an excellent point (thank you for reminding me that Switzerland has a high percentage of gun owners as well). The point I was driving at--not very well--was that I think that the reason(s) for the gun violence in America has much less to do with those parts of our national behavior we may not like (having a standing army, sending that army to fight wars in various and sundry places) and much more to do with cultural issues within the US.

I think it's the culture around guns and the culture of the US itself that leads it to where it goes. As a Canadian living in the US, I'm shocked often by the attitude towards guns (I shouldn't be since I grew up seeing American news regularly as a kid). The thing that strikes me is the overreaching desire or belief that if someone doesn't agree then we'll make them agree at the end of a barrel.

Couldn't agree with you more! We have a culture that glorifies the myth of the lone wolf hero who, against all odds and armed only with his trusty hand cannon, defeats the 'bad guys'. There is also a double-standard at work here that I've already touched on but I'll delve into a little bit more.

Imagine, if you will, that there was a rap group that had songs about Second Amendment remedies being the next natural step after losing an election. Imagine that someone then went out and shot up a supermarket. Is there anyone who doubts that rap music wouldn't be blamed? If the shooter had been a Muslim, is there anyone who doubts that Islam would be blamed? The ONLY reason that Mr. Loughner's alleged actions are his and his alone, is that he is white. His actions will ONLY be considered as symptomatic of a collective outlook is if it turns out that he is a product of the Left (which, while possible, I doubt). Consider that Mr. Obama is considered to be 'palling around with terrorists' because he served on the board of directors of an organization with a man who was a member of the Weather Underground when Mr. Obama was not yet in junior high school! Yet, Mr. Obama is considered to be *directly* responsible for the actions of the Weather Underground. He is also considered responsible for the words of his former pastor, Mr. Wright.

In this nation the rules are this:

If you are a liberal and you say "regime change begins at home" (which may be facile but is, more or less, innocuous) then you are advocating the violent overthrow of the United States.

If you are a conservative and you say "Democrats are a bunch of Marxist, fascist, Islamist terrorists who are more Nazi than the Nazi's were. Wouldn't the world have been saved a lot of trouble if, in 1937, someone had taken out the Nazis before the Anchluss, before Munich, before Poland? We should take out the Democrats before they can do to America what the Nazi's did to German" then no matter WHAT happens afterwards, your words were 'misunderstood' or the 'liberal media' are trying to smear you.

Look, if we're going to hold people to a standard of appropriate political behavior then we should use the same standard instead of a double-standard favorable to one party while making another party walk a *very* short and narrow path. Right now, liberals have no room to maneuver while conservatives, from my perspective, can walk right up to the line where the *next* step has the Secret Service showing up at your down without any consequences.

It is why I contend that the rhetoric has a lot to do with the way things go in this country. I do not recall ever seeing this kind of rhetoric in Canada and even when a party I didn't like got elected I knew it wasn't the end of the nation. I knew the party I would have elected would keep them on their toes and challenge them on their policies. That isn't something I see here.

The nation is built on confrontation and continues that today.

Part of the problem that I, as a liberal, have is that I try to hew pretty close to the facts. I don't think that my opinions are the same thing as the facts which, I hope, are the basis of my opinions. How does one effectively fight the good fight if, for instance, the other side conflates opinion (e.g. the HCR bill has language that after 70, a 'death panel' determines whether you can live another year) and fact (the HCR bill has end-of-life counseling coverage so that people can get help creating a durable power of attorney)?

Cheers
Aj