In the wake of the massacre at Virginia Tech, I spoke with my nephew back home in Virginia. He is an interesting guy, well educated and articulate, he is president of a successful family-owned lumber business, and he still lives in my home county of Franklin, about 80km south-east of Blacksburg. He also owns a "conceal carry permit" which allows him to carry a concealed firearm.
In fact, my nephew rarely carries a gun on his person, but he always has a firearm to hand both in his car and at home. He also has a perfectly legal collection of around 20 guns, and, unusually for a civilian, he occasionally attends a shooting class. He says that at his most recent class, about 15 percent of the people attending were women.
My nephew argues that not only is it every American's right to carry a firearm, but it is also their responsibility.
"Each person," he says, "should not rely solely on the government for their protection."
Mistrust
At the root of this view is something very much part of US culture -- not just a fear of crime, but mistrust of the nation's government.
This is why Americans cling so furiously to their right to bear arms. It's not that anyone truly believes that government troops are about to come running up their driveway waving guns at them -- but they do not completely rule out the possibility.
This mistrust is what fuels popular TV series such as 24, in which Kiefer Sutherland's character is more often than not at odds with corrupt elements within his own government. Added to that, most people don't believe that if some criminal comes to attack them, the police will definitely be there to help them.
This lack of trust is partly a hangover from frontier culture; it is also because we Americans have ejected one ruling government -- the British -- and we were careful in our Constitution to ensure that its replacement would be bound by very strict limitations.
A gun, to my nephew, is both an equalizer and a deterrent. It enables an individual to stand up to a more-powerful "other," whether that be a government or a criminal. It deters this "other" from attempting to do harm. An armed populace is one far less easy to subjugate, he points out, and after that it doesn't take him long to get back to the American Revolution.
Secure
In short, if everyone were armed, and known to be armed, everyone would be more secure. This is a sentiment that my nephew reckons most of the 50,000 inhabitants of Franklin County would endorse. We're not talking here about everyone carrying around a handgun, but rather creating the general perception that everyone, potentially, is equipped to look after themselves.
The bald truth is that the majority of Americans will never give up their right to own weapons, however many awful massacres take place.
The reasons are complex, historical, and probably not wholly rational. They are tied up in our sense of individual liberty and our need for self-sufficiency, as well as our ingrained and deep-seated mistrust of government.
I myself am not a gun person; I've never even held a gun. But I understand and respect my nephew's point of view. We are a nation of individuals, jealous of our civil liberties, and we are suspicious of any power or agency capable of curtailing those liberties, be it a government or a criminal.
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers