America's weapons culture

An interesting aspect of American culture, at the same time somewhat difficult to understand by Europeans, is the passion for firearms, or what's often called gun culture” (Gun culture). This is a term that includes ideas and attitudes dealing with civil persons' relations with firearms and their use.

It should be noted here that the concept of arming citizens for self-defence is not specifically American, because he has been treated in Western political opinion at least since the time of Machivavell. Various philosophers have argued that a society in which every citizen is a soldier and every soldier is a citizen constitutes the most effective way of protecting a republican regime from trends to slide into dictatorship. The development of this culture in the United States, however, was different from that of other Western countries that this aspect of American society is now quite unique compared with its Western European sisters Canada and Australia. As such, this culture is also a major component of American isolation, or exeption.

Culture in question finds its roots in combining several factors present since the beginning of the colonization of the new continent in the 20th century VII, then consolidated in the period of the U.S. revolution of the founding of the United States in the 20th century V III, and they go on to this day.

Such a factor was primarily the thinking conditioned by what the settlers and immigrants were facing the unknown, an unexplored space filled with all kinds of existential dangers. In this sense, moving westward was only a constant extension of the border between civilization and cruelty, or “drite and darkness” as expressed in the terms of time. This “border memory” (mentalator mentality) would necessarily have had the gun as the primary means of survival, from which even the massive spread of it into all the stages of American history. The importance of the border is also inconsistently expressed in the popular expression “I, God and my rifle”.

Another factor was the absolute American trust in individual freedom, in personal skills, in solving problems at the local level, which has necessarily brought their traditional antipathy to the role of the government, meaning the state, to regulating the jobs of the country. A devotion to personal freedom is thus accompanied by passion for the rifle as guarantor of that freedom. Since there was an army organized for outside protection in colonial America, this function was performed by local militia as an early form of military citizen. The great role of the local militia was evident during the 1776-83 American Revolution: they were the first units to begin armed resistance against the British royal army, despite the fact that the burden of war passed slightly over the regular United States Army, known as the Continental Army.

But the American revolution was different from other modern - day revolutions in another direction that is worth stopping. The war of American independence, or the American Revolution, remains the only major violent revolt of the modern era to have a relatively positive outcome (a comparison would suffice the examples of human disasters caused by the French revolution of 1789 (1) and the Russian Revolution of 1917). A direct consequence of the American revolution's success was the ideatizing of the role of militia mentioned, and the inculcating of the illusion that such militias are effective in resisting, or even defeating, a regular professional army. This actually didn't happen during the U.S. revolution, because the war was finally won by George Washington's regular army and its French allies. How much less likely such a victory could be achieved today, in case of a collision, we highlight it, not at all, between armed citizens and the U.S. Federal Army. But that does not diminish the idealization mentioned in the minds of Americans, especially those in rural areas.

The role of revolution in American passion for weapons also emerges from comparing the United States with other major British possessions, such as Canada or Australia. Even in the latter, border thinking was also strong, but unlike the United States, they broke away from the empire peacefully, not recognizing such idealisation of the weapon and the armed citizen.

After the arrival of American independence, this special relationship with the weapon was sanctioned in the Constitution of 1787, which is essentially minimalistic, which gives the federal government limited competence, so that it does not become tyranny. It was exactly fear of the latter that led to involvement in the Second Amendment constitution, which regulates citizens' right to bear arms. It says that the “a well regulated militia is necessary for the security of a free state, [so] the right of people to carry weapons cannot be violated”.

Even after the establishment of the United States, the push of the border westward continued, making it even more apparent to idealize the image of the courageous explorer with its loaded rifle. Later, the invention of cinematography popularized the picture of the cowboy's sheriff, who run into Indians or all sorts of other dangers, and always solves their guns. In the parallel with what we said above about the role of the violent triumphal revolt, neither Canada nor Australia recognized the mass production of films of this subject.

Another factor that can be overlooked is the huge expense of the looning on the part of the arms industry, which has grown at huge steps, in addition to the continuing politicization of the issue of the legal regulation of the weapons. Unfortunately, such politicization has not saved even the largest arms user organization, NRA, which has existed for nearly 150 years. Her initial mission was that through theoretical and practical education, civilians would be encouraged to use weapons as responsible and effective as possible. So in cases of local militia riots, we could quickly mobilize and carry out the duty of protecting the order and calm of citizens. In line with this mission, the organization expressed itself in favor of gun control so that the latter would not fall into clean hands, from where its active participation in the drafting of a number of federal laws in this area.

But since the mid 1970s The NRA has virtually turned into a powerful lobby instrument on the part of arms producers committed to removing almost any restrictions on their use. In its numerous materials and in mass presence in the media, it stresses the idea that arming up to the teeth is the best way to protect against possible crimes. Contrary to one of its original goals, defending order in cases of unrest and rebellion, the organization in question strongly reminds the idea that the government poses a threat and a lasting danger to citizens, so they must be prepared at any moment to resist and fight it. The result of this rhetoric, as well as the dissatisfaction with the increasing number of colored immigrants, was unprecedented levels of arms sales after Barak Obama was elected as president. That is because a considerable measure of individuals thought that a black president could do nothing but start a race struggle.

The strength of the NRA and other similar groups is also evidenced by the fact that they spend about 15-16 times more each year than organisations on the opposite side of this debate mean those aimed at increasing control of weapons. We're dealing with a vicious cycle where arms manufacturers pressure to remove any restrictions on weapons, more weapons are produced and sold, and more victims are injured in mass massacres, so frequent in the United States.

Finally, an equally important factor, and specifically American, is the support of the NRA's positions on the part of the major political-religious group known as the Cheese Religious (2). In fact, some of the most active organizations of this grouping, such as Family Research Council, or American Family Association, have expressed themselves against any control over their weapons and positions is hardly perceived by those of the NRA. Thus, their followers, who consider themselves Christian, consistently mention “defending against government threats” as the main motivation to carry weapons. Therefore suspicion and even hostility to state authority, the federal authority, respectively, recognize only growth, and this is obviously associated with deep gaps in the moral basis of American society. The expression of these shocks was that followers of the Religious Right voted almost as a bloc in 2016 for a completely non-conventional candidate, current President Donald Trump, who received 81 percent of their votes. And defending the right to carry weapons was among the main reasons for this massive support.

This enthusiasm for the murderous means openly conflicts with the failure to resist evil with violence and generally the peaceful manner of conflict solved by Jesus Christ. This becomes so much more evident when such enthusiasm is expressed by individuals who declare “pro-life” and are firmly against abortion by equated with murder. So there seems to be a deep contradiction here that is unfortunately overlooked, and it shows that culture in this respect takes priority and oversteps trust.

In the end, we can say that it is the very combination of the above mentioned factors that has conditioned this particular American weapon culture, highly distinct by those of other developed Western countries. It thus remains a central element of general culture, without which neither history nor the development of American nation and society can be correctly understood.