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.
Two sets of economic data released last week by the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) have drawn mixed reactions from the public: One on the nation’s economic performance in the first quarter of the year and the other on Taiwan’s household wealth distribution in 2021. GDP growth for the first quarter was faster than expected, at 6.51 percent year-on-year, an acceleration from the previous quarter’s 4.93 percent and higher than the agency’s February estimate of 5.92 percent. It was also the highest growth since the second quarter of 2021, when the economy expanded 8.07 percent, DGBAS data showed. The growth
In the intricate ballet of geopolitics, names signify more than mere identification: They embody history, culture and sovereignty. The recent decision by China to refer to Arunachal Pradesh as “Tsang Nan” or South Tibet, and to rename Tibet as “Xizang,” is a strategic move that extends beyond cartography into the realm of diplomatic signaling. This op-ed explores the implications of these actions and India’s potential response. Names are potent symbols in international relations, encapsulating the essence of a nation’s stance on territorial disputes. China’s choice to rename regions within Indian territory is not merely a linguistic exercise, but a symbolic assertion
More than seven months into the armed conflict in Gaza, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to take “immediate and effective measures” to protect Palestinians in Gaza from the risk of genocide following a case brought by South Africa regarding Israel’s breaches of the 1948 Genocide Convention. The international community, including Amnesty International, called for an immediate ceasefire by all parties to prevent further loss of civilian lives and to ensure access to life-saving aid. Several protests have been organized around the world, including at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and many other universities in the US.
Every day since Oct. 7 last year, the world has watched an unprecedented wave of violence rain down on Israel and the occupied Palestinian Territories — more than 200 days of constant suffering and death in Gaza with just a seven-day pause. Many of us in the American expatriate community in Taiwan have been watching this tragedy unfold in horror. We know we are implicated with every US-made “dumb” bomb dropped on a civilian target and by the diplomatic cover our government gives to the Israeli government, which has only gotten more extreme with such impunity. Meantime, multicultural coalitions of US