March 17, 2005

Of America and the World
Bob Praz

I’ve finally come around to post a bit of my opinion on the debate. I can be very political, if I have a mind, but I usually avoid submitting any kind of opinion, because both politics and religion are astoundingly sensitive subjects, where usually everyone has different and contradicting opinions, and where usually everyone is equally convinced that they are right and everyone else is being unreasonable.
Fortunately, I am relieved that everyone here is being very civilised, courteous, and outright interesting! Be wary, though, as I have written a surprising amount of words.

Anyhow, my opinion on guns can be ambiguous, if only because the "gun situation" is equally ambiguous when you look at it in different countries. The problem I see with gun posession, however (and this is only a non-adamant opinion, from someone who hasen’t conducted any major studies on the issue), is that the concept was invented back in the day when the Americans were still rather afraid that the British would be returning or that the "savage" Indians could be rushing down from the hills any day. But obviously, that was centuries ago, and nowadays there is no need for millions upon millions of normal citizens to be so heavily armed as if they were expecting to be invaded by a horde of warriors on foot. Although the concept is a noble one – that every man should be able to defend his family and his property – it simply doesn’t seem to work, sadly. Does that mean that everyone who owns a gun is likely to commit a gun-related crime? Not at all, but he’s far less likely to actually need a gun to defend himself against criminals; he has about fifteen times more chances of dying in a car accident on a beautiful morning, and that’s something else you can’t do much about. Therefore the weapon he possesses is now nothing more or less than a potential danger to anyone at whom it might be pointed. And we’ve already seen that teenagers or even younger children can potentially find the weapon and use it irresponsibly; why take that risk?
If every country in the world possessed nuclear weapons, would most of them actually use it in a heinous way? No; most countries would not even think of touching it. But they would all still claim that it is their right to have a weapon with which they can guarantee their own ability to defend themselves against other countries; kind of like a fail-safe device against outside attack. However, they are forgetting that the mere fact that nuclear weapons are thus so easily available allows just about anyone to have access to them, which means that nuclear weapons are therefore more likely to be used by those who wish to use these weapons for evil. Although this is a rather grand-scale and exaggerated analogy, it’s simply used to demonstrate the situation in a more obvious light; because the same concepts apply to gun ownership, which, although intended for good, only really profits the bad people, at the expense of the innocent.
Anyhow, I can't claim to be any closer to offering a solution to the problem, because we can no longer simply forbid gun ownership, due to a variety of reasons. Of course, the question is: why are there still fewer gun-related crimes in other countries where guns are also accessible? I frankly don’t know. Bowling for Columbine is interesting take on that question – even if you don’t like Michael Moore – but it’s only one possible answer. So, in conclusion, that’s the way I see it, and please don’t be offended by this if you don’t agree. I’m not desperately trying to convince anyone here; just expressing my view.

Anyhow, onto matters relatively less dark. There is, of course, seemingly plenty of anti-American sentiment across the world these days, and I’m not referring to the fanatic islamic fundamentalist factions. The sentiment is not new, but it is definitely more acute than ever. This, I find, is not at all a compliment to anyone. Whether the media is guilty of generalising or the people are guilty of over-simplifying, the problem is that a lot of people simply blame the american public for things that their government is doing; the americans are not bad or stupid people – in fact, it’s quite the opposite – but that’s what much of the world seems to be preaching. Of course, maybe the problem is actually less present than I think, but from my limited knowledge that’s what I perceive. The issue can be seen in various ways, but I think that George W. Bush’s administration should be the real target of accusations, not the american people – even if you don’t agree with their choice of leader. Keep in mind that, on average, only about 50 to 55% of americans actually vote in a national election; in the last election I’m not sure what the actual number was (someone correct me if they have the stats) but I think it was about 55%, which is apparently very high by american standards. Now, keep in mind that only 55% of the country voted, that a very large minority of that 55% didn’t vote for Bush, and that the liberal population in North America usually doesn’t participate at its fullest in most elections. Therefore, if you’re looking to generalise the entire american population over one political event, you would be guilty of the very ignorance of which you accuse others.
Also, the nature of the international population is to always criticize the world superpower in place at the time. This is for good reason, actually, because a world superpower usually does a good deal of morally compromising things, seeing as it can afford to do so. What we forget, however, is that all countries and political powers do such things, and we can expect no less. Everyone, sadly, is looking after their own interests, and so the american government is not alone in being guilty of this. One would be surprised to learn all the unethical actions that have been taken in the past (recently as well as long ago) by even the most stereotypically innocent country. Also, let’s not forget that the United States is not the first world superpower and that it will not be the last; but being the most powerful country in the world right now, it is easy to point fingers at it. Does this mean it should be immune to reprimand? No, it just means that we should keep an open mind and not forget that we are all human and that all governments are run by humans, and therefore bound to the same imperfections of humanity. Ultimately, we should simply live by a very cliché quote: "With great power comes great responsibility." All countries should be judged by that.

So with my great ideological speech essentially communicated, I will retire. Sorry for taking so long, though I imagine that if you’re actually reading this last sentence, you were interested enough to read all the way here in the first place. Just don't take any of this personally, as it is not meant personally.

Anyhow, until next time.