I definitely feel that a more nuanced understanding of American history really helped me, as a British person, understand gun culture and the debate around it that seems to always be happening in the US. The idea that private citizens should be armed in order to defend themselves against the threat of a tyrannical government makes absolute sense when you consider that the Second Amendment was ratified only 15 years after the Declaration of Independence, a war where Americans saw themselves as throwing off the shackles of a tyrannical monarchic government. They were Rome, George III was Tarquinius, and the Boston Massacre was the Rape of Lucretia. These people had very different ideas about what freedom meant, and how it should be protected. Thomas Jefferson was a big fan of the French Revolution, defending it even after it had descended into a total bloodbath. American ideas of liberty and freedom have been inexorably tied to violence and gun ownership throughout the nation's history, from the settling of the wild frontier and the expansion of the territories at the expense of (in no particular order) the French, the Spanish, the Dutch, the Mexicans, the Native Americans, and more, and this identity is also strongly tied to a sense of rugged individualism that is exemplified by a desire to be able to protect oneself. I don't mean to sound anti-American, as violence, oppression, and acts of genocide is woven into the history of almost every "first-world" nation, and definitely can be said about the history of Great Britain.
But the problem, as is often the case, is that this mentality, and the legislation that enabled it, is extremely outdated and has no relevance to modern life. As others in this thread have said, if there were to be a revolt against a tyrannical US government, the fact that a decent percentage of the population owns automatic weapons is not going to make one bit of difference. My favourite opinion on this issue comes from an episode of Crash Course US History, where American author and vlogger John Green explains part of his position on gun rights in America - it originally is a rant about one of the articles from the Federalist Papers written by Alexander Hamilton, but becomes a rant about the Second Amendment:
"The whole idea of the Second Amendment was that the people could protect themselves from a standing army by being equally well-armed - which these days would mean not that people should have the right to buy assault weapons, but that they should have the right to buy, like, unmanned drones. Or arguably suitcase nukes. And by the way, in the Constitution, this is not listed as a privilege - it is listed as a right. And as a right, if I can't afford my own predator drone, I guess the government should have to buy one for me.
"It's almost as if Alexander Hamilton had no way of knowing that military technology would one day advance pass the musket".
I am very firmly pro-gun control, as I don't think that any circumstances can justify a private citizen having the right or means to purchase an assault rifle, or any kind of weapons designed to kill humans rather than animals. I love shooting guns in video games, and I believe that it can be an important and useful means of catharsis - we all have violent and irrational tendencies, and we're all conditioned to love the power fantasy of being able to solve problems with a rogueish, shoot-first-ask-questions-later mentality. I like that we're continuing to explore the possible connections between violence in real life and violence in media, rather than just assuming that there is no correlation and that they're not connected in any way. But anyone who still holds onto the idea that violent games somehow create or enable violence in real life is completely delusional.
If the only tool you have is a hammer, then every problem will look like a nail.
Log in to comment