America
is at war with itself, and it has always been. Ever since the
kill-joy Puritans left England in a huff because not everyone there
would agree to their desire to forbid all music and dancing, and
their subsequent attempt to make the exciting New World the dullest
place on earth, Americans have been at war with each other over the
concept of freedom. We Americans love freedom. But it's usually our
own selfish personal freedom, and we're remarkably ungenerous in
wanting to afford freedom to our fellow Americans.
Right
now two old wars have flared up. The war over the right to have guns
and the right to have drugs. Engaged in these wars are people of
extremes, as well as more moderate people, sensible people of good
will who are trying to make some sort of sense out of highly
complicated issues with no easy answers.
On
the extreme sides in the gun debate we have people who believe that
all weapons, no matter how lethal, machine guns, napalm, portable
atomic bombs should be readily available and sold in your local 7
Eleven – to the other extreme, those who believe that guns along
with sharp knives, sticks, skateboards and the running with scissors
should be forbidden. Stuck in the middle are those who believe that
having a small pistol at home to protect oneself from home invaders
is not only a good idea but a human right. People living in rural
areas, where it might take police a half hour or an hour to arrive,
especially feel this way. One woman I heard interviewed commented,
“Why do we call the police? Because they come with guns. So why not
just cut out the middle man and have one yourself? Why depend on
others to do your dirty work for you?”
Those
in America who do not get a firm and happy erection at the sight of a
gun, tend to explain their support for gun ownership from purely
practical reasons. Guns, simply, are tools. And perhaps that famous
practitioner of all things American, capitalistic and freedom-loving,
Al Capone said it best: “You can get further with a kind word and a
gun than you can with a kind word alone.” He was simply pointing
out that in any dead-locked situation a gun is a tie-breaker. Might
always makes right.
Another
reason for the popularity of guns in America is the idea that they
are the executors of the ultimate justice. Hollywood did not
originate the idea of guns as judgment day, but it certainly has
packaged and sold it to the whole world. And the same people all
around the world who scornfully decry the primitive and vulgar
aspects of American culture none-the-less love the exploits of John
Wayne and Bruce Willis, Clint Eastwood and Arnold Swartzeneggar.
America's commercialization of violence has been and continues to be
a resounding success, as sadly proven by the fact that arms and
Hollywood action movies are America's two biggest export successes.
The
idea of guns as justice in these movies is best illustrated by the
fact that in every movie the villain must be killed by the hero.
It is not enough to be captured or even badly wounded before being
taken away to jail to spend many decades locked in a cage. No,
audiences demand to see the villain die, and to suffer as much as
possible as he dies. Trial by jury and incarceration please no
audiences. An eye for an eye is still demanded by the descendants of
puritan America (..and don't Danish viewers prefer it, too?)
The
debate over drug possession is perhaps less heated in America but
none-the-less quite extreme at times. On one hand we have the
puritans who want to keep all so-called narcotics illegal – and a
few of them even long for the days when alcohol, too was prohibited.
At the other extreme there are those who would like to see pot, coke,
L.S.D. and heroin sold at every gas station and McDonalds. For these
people freedom to choose is everything, and any possibly unfortunate
effects of widely available drugs, even on our children, is of
negligible or no real importance, they say. The advocates of free
pot, for example point out that not one person has ever been reliably
reported to have died from pot smoking – from subsequent car
accidents, yes – but not directly from pot smoking, while countless
millions have died from tobacco and alcohol. They also point out that
insane areas of America, like Texas, once gleefully handed out
10-year prison sentences for the possession of just one joint! How,
the free pot advocates ask, could pot possibly be as dangerous as
such a crazy and cruel legal system? Opponents of pot usage,
however, usually make the point that experimenting with pot will all
too often lead to the experimentation with more addictive and
debilitating drugs.
Predictably
the debate over guns and drugs all too often lines up with a Right
Wing-Left Wing chasm. A majority, but not all, of the most rabid gun
freedom advocates, tend to vote Republican, often voicing fear of -
and contempt for - the government. “We need guns,” they often
say, “to protect us from a tyrannical Washington” as if automatic
rifles of even the largest caliber will successfully fend off a
Pentagon armed with drones, tanks and tactical nuclear weapons!
On
the free pot side its advocates usually vote Democratic, favoring a
strong central government that tells us how to keep water and food
pure, but otherwise stays the hell away from our bodies. New York's
mayor Bloomberg's advocacy of stricter gun controls is appreciated by
those on the Left, but his efforts to forbid public sale of large
container sugary sodas has had a more mixed reception from freedom
loving Lefties. His intentions are good, we Lefties agree, but his
methods seem silly and ineffectual.
Which
is how the defenders of gun possession would describe gun opponents'
suggested solutions – silly and ineffectual. Just as the opponents
of the war on drugs in America point out that despite billions spent
on the decades-old war on drugs you can still buy them on nearly any
street corner at ever cheaper prices, the advocates of gun ownership
could, if they wanted, point out a war on guns would be equally
ineffectual. Why continue a hopeless battle, they could well argue..
but they generally don't. For the gun-loving portion of the Right
Wing in America is still bound by the puritanical dictates of
fundamental religion, in which sex and pleasure, pornography and the
intoxicants brought to our shores by dark-skinned people – as
opposed to brewers and distillers from white Europe – continue to
be a taboo. So they never equate gun freedom with drug freedom.
Only
a tiny minority in America, often calling themselves Libertarians,
favor both the legalizing of all drugs as well as the continued
legalizing of most guns. Perhaps the reason, however, that
Libertarians remain so few in number, is the fact that in order to be
consistent in their proclaimed desire of freedom from government
nanny state dictates, they are forced to say, “Yes we want private
roads only, private schools only, private fire departments, private
police forces. All taxes and government organization is
oppressive!”
Thankfully
such extreme independent thinking doesn't go well in America, as most
Americans know quite well that to live under such a truly dog eat dog
scheme would require great effort and constant alertness –
something few Americans are prepared for at length, our laziness
fortunately in this case inclines us to prefer as little effort as
possible.
While
there is no need for a debate about guns in Denmark (knives do pop up
from time to time, as well they should) Denmark has a continuing
debate about the legalization of hash. Proponents correctly point out
the considerable added tax income to the nation and the inconvenience
to drug dealers who would be forced to switch to other products and
markets. The opponents of the legalization of hash fear that it would
become even more readily available to children and young people.
Not
so.. I claim! If we were to restrict the sale of hash to
pharmacies I am sure the use of hash by young people would fall
dramatically. Why? The most disgusting place in any city for most
young people is a pharmacy with its slow moving collection of
wrinkled and diseased relics clinging on weakly to their pathetic
lives. Pharmacies, to the young appear to be God's waiting room.
(Perhaps if we restricted the sale of rap music to pharmacies we
might do away with that pestilence, too?)
As
far as drugs are concerned, and especially hash, Denmark should
continue its efforts for progressively building a sensible society.
In the past Danes were sensible enough to control guns and to free
sex from religious and government taboos. Now is surely the time to
do the same for the consumption of drugs less harmful than tobacco
and alcohol!
But
what about America and guns? Can anything sensible and effective ever
be done? (News flash: Danish police
recently charged eight Danish men with the illegal import of 158
weapons – everything from pistols to machine guns, proving that
Americans aren't the only potentially dangerous gun-loving idiots.)
The
comedian Chris Rock had a solution for so-called drive by shootings,
in which gang members would randomly shoot at anyone on the street in
their rivals' neighborhoods. “Make bullets cost 100 dollars each,”
Rock suggested. “Then no one would waste them that way.”
Rock
was making a point, however humorously. In a country that already has
300 million guns in private hands, what can America possibly do in
the future to exercise an effective control over guns and their
usage? The professionally cynical like the National Riflemens'
Association (..and their cowardly and paid-for congressmen in
Washington) make this exact point. Nothing at this stage can be done.
As long as any guns exists they will be traded or even stolen, as was
apparently the case in Newtown, Connecticut where the killer
stole his mother's legally owned guns.
Some
have suggested that future guns all have a chip so that the weapon is
programmed only to be fired by the registered owner, and perhaps only
at certain places. Perhaps future guns can be programmed to only be
fired on one's own property? But that still leaves 300 million that
will continue to be lethal for hundreds of years. Ban bullets and
bullet bootleggers will quickly begin production to meet the illegal
demand. The same goes for clips for rifles and pistols that hold more
than 10 rounds. Such clips can be mass produced in anyone's garage.
Those
of us who can see no effective way of making a dent in the number or
types of guns easily available in America, have to resort to other
ideas. Better mental health checks in schools, a more watchful eye
for early mental health problems. A much greater focus on
effective anti-bullying education in primary schools.
The
only problem with this approach is that America is a profoundly
juvenile society. The things that make us the entertainers of the
world, the clowns, the rock and rollers, the Youtube providers, the
teenage maniacs, the fun-lovers, also make us kings of teen angst,
spoiled resentment and bad behavior. To always tell the difference
between a teenage Bob Dylan and a teenage Charles Manson is never
easy. Would a teenage Andy Warhol have behaved much differently in
school than a Jeffrey Dahlmer who cooked and ate dozens of young
boys? Is it ever possible to differentiate the altruistic rebels from
the mean-spirited and destructive Hitlers-to-be?
One
gun advocate claims that mass murder didn't occur in the years before
the spread of drugs. He points out that many of these killers had
been on long term medication, and suggested that these medicines
prescribed by medical “experts” are to be blamed – not guns, of
course. But no one, except for perhaps yours truly, blames the
male sex, despite the fact that women make up a tiny percentage of
murderers, drug or sex addicts. It is men and not women who abuse
freedom!
Bob
Dylan once famously sang, “To live outside the law you must be
honest.” Many have speculated as to what he meant by that exactly.
Was he saying that if one doesn't want society making the rules then
one must make one's own and stick strictly by them or else be equally
lost?
The
writer, Hunter S. Thompson seemed to live by such rules. He was
perhaps the first modern Libertarian, an equal lover of guns - the
more lethal the better – and vast quantities of drugs and alcohol.
And when he had had enough of all of them he ended his life by
blowing off his head with one of his favorite guns.
Others
beside Dylan have written songs about freedom. Kris Kristofferson
wrote, “Freedom’s just another word for nothing left to lose.”
But
perhaps the 1980's Techno-pop Devo said it best when describing the
times in which we all continue to live - “Freedom of choice is what
you have. Freedom FROM choice is what you want.”
In
previous Danish essays I've pointed out that many problems have no
palatable solutions. In one I humorously(?) suggested that all men be
chemically castrated ..just a little.. to dampen our violent
tendencies. Perhaps America's gun problem could be solved if everyone
there is issued a pistol at birth right there in the hospital and
then given an education later as a lawyer. An equal playing field
for everyone!
How
many of us truly want to live in a world of absolute freedom? Most of
us don't really want it for ourselves. And we certainly don't want
it for the other guy.. he's crazy!
