THE AMERICAN GUN DILEMMA

Outsiders often look at Americans in amazement.  We cannot understand why they value gun ownership more than human lives.  Not just owning a gun for household protection or hunting, but semi-automatic weapons capable of killing dozens of people in less than a minute.  Of course that is a little over simplified, but the American discussion seems a bit unbalanced.

Here in Canada while we have had some violence in our history we actually got our independence through peaceful means.  The American second amendment is interpreted by many as a protection against state abuse.  The American Revolution, the taming of the "Wild West" were violent and made Americans conscious that possession of a gun could be an important ingredient for freedom.  Vigilantes and lynchings have a long history in the US.  Americans are one of the few remaining countries to allow executions.

The National Rifle Association presents itself as deeply concerned over constitutional rights, but in reality it is very self serving as they really represent gun manufacturers.  Of course they will benefit if our reaction is we need a gun to protect ourselves from all the bad guys out there.  As a salesman I have learned that fear is one of the most potent motivators.  Get a prospect to become aware of the danger of not buying whatever you are selling and they are more apt to pay attention.  For gun manufacturers fear is their best ally.  The bad guys have guns so you need guns to protect yourself.

The government itself is visualized by many as something to fear instead of something to provide protection and nurturance.  Nazi Germany could have been stymied if enough Jews had been armed goes one argument.  In fact politicians fear the National Rifle Association and many go to great lengths to win their endorsement.

One factor facilitating violence is income inequality.  As long as there is real hope of improving your standard of life, there is enough incentive for most people to play by the rules.  In the best of times there is envy of those in better circumstances, but worse when the scales tip too much.  It is not so much that the majority of people feel a need for survival, but some feel life is unfair and they are better off with their own rules.  One of the things people do as they get more wealth is to protect it.

Violent cultures from movies and video games have spread around the world.  The ancient Romans escalated their demands for excitement culminating in a variety of gladiator contests to the death.  We feel they were very barbaric, but in fact we in North America seem to be evolving in the same direction.  United States is not unique in its love of violence in sports, movies and video games.

Mental illness is a concern, but as I once heard, the mentally ill are more apt to be victims than perpetrators. As mental illness becomes more accepted as part of society we can deal more effectively with it.  Rosalynn Carter, former First Lady has given out journalism awards for covering mental illness in a positive manner to help remove the stigma.  Health insurance which should include mental illnesses, in the United States lags most other industrial nations.  Mental illness is a factor in gun violence, but is much bigger issue and much more serious.

I have mostly lived in cities, except for a two years of high school when I lived in a rural area.  The attitude towards hunting was something I was unfamiliar with.  Businesses close down or employees take holidays.  Hunting season is looked forward to and talked about the rest of the year.  It is not something its participants would willingly give up.  Hunters might be afraid of losing their life style, but in fact if something isn't done to curb urban violence at some point the efforts to deal with urban fear may affect rural life styles.

Americans are not as safe as much of the rest of the world, but seem to feel if they just get a gun they will be safer.  Of course it tends to be counter productive.  Guns may in fact keep some of them safer or their property more secure, but there is a price.  Homicides, suicides and fatal accidents all occur because guns are too easily accessible.  Fear and intimidation are not conducive to improving relations.

Citizens recognize concerns with cars and dogs and have taken steps to control their abuse. Lawmakers are very reluctant to impose any further restrictions on the use of guns.  Even so called assault weapons or multiple bullet systems are easy to obtain.

What can a politician do?   The gun lobby is very powerful and there are enough people who are fearful of danger that a politician can risk losing a contested election by not being pro gun enough. What can a private citizen do?  Joe Biden suggested there is no total solution, but that we ought to diminish the problem.  Voters need to make their concerns known, but perhaps more importantly they need to be educated.  Look around the world.  Some of the underlying causes of violence need to be dealt with including income inequality.

Freedom to own a gun is an imposition on other people who feel a need to protect themselves from gun owners (some of whom are not trustworthy) or want to keep up with the Joneses.

A BOOK ON JOHN MAYNARD KEYNES

Economics can be awfully boring and I admit it was a struggle to get through "Keynes, the Return of The Master." I wanted to understand his message a little better and perhaps succeeded. You may not have heard of Keynes as in some circles he is very much out of favour. But after the Great Depression his ideas were heralded as the solutions to handle future depressions.

He is dismissed by conservative thinkers who now seem to have the bigger stage. Keynes is criticized as the guy who wants to increase spending during a depression or recession even to the point of a deficit. Those who think that is terrible (and some of them seem to be in control) say that it is far better to cut expenses. They overlook that his theory includes the idea that governments should run surpluses when times are good and then spend when it is needed for the very slow times that otherwise result in unemployment. In fact he thinks that running a surplus keeps growth from getting out of control when it could precipitate a crisis.

I discovered that underlying his mathematical and psychological thinking is a different kind of philosophy than one hears much of these days. The purpose of economics is not to make finances more efficient. Keynes feels that the only purpose is so that people could live "wisely, agreeably and well." He didn't restrict that to the rich, but felt income inequality was part of the problem. One of his most famous quotes is "..in the long run we are all dead."

As ordinary citizens we hear a lot about how important it is to protect the job creators, but in truth we are all job creators. Meeting our needs and wants is what gives someone else a purpose (and an income). We in turn use our talents and energies to meet other people's needs and wants. Governments are not the problem as was famously said by Ronald Reagan, but they can facilitate the solutions.

The author recounts history noting that governments swing from conservative to liberal and back to conservative. The problem is that society goes too far in one direction creating a crisis that causes a swing in the opposite direction. One of the problems comes from a political context. Rich people are at bottom interested in protecting and expanding their wealth and power. A philosophy that justifies what they want to do to benefit themselves is just another tool. With their wealth comes power that can be leveraged to attain their goals.

The author, Robert Skidelsky has written a lot of books on economics including a much more substantial book on John Maynard Keynes. This one is struggle enough, but it is fairly current covering events up to 2009. He recognizes that Keynes had his limitation, lived in a different era, but that his wisdom still shines and should be heeded.