Ritchie asks us this question:
Richard Murphy @RichardJMurphy
@cjsnowdon @worstall Why do you take such pleasure in the knowledge that weapons used to kill innocent children will still be available?
A tad over the top: for all I did was point out that changing the US Constitution is a difficult thing to do.
However, there is an answer. Because that availability would also mean that the weapons to prevent or overthrow a Courageous State would also be available.
Which is perhaps a rather cruel trade off: but don’t forget, it’s not me that has to, or even can, make this trade off. It’s the Americans that get to do that.
And let us not forget the defining moment of America. The founding story of the place: the Revolutionary War.
They went and got their guns and slaughtered their rulers until they gave up and left. And I’m afraid that if you’ve not lived there you’ll not really understand quite how hard wired that is into the national psyche. It really isn’t just the weirdos hiding out from the Feds in Montana who think this way: although those that are doing so are an extreme manifestation of it.
Whether they’re right or wrong about it, whether it’s an appropriate trade off to be making or not, they themselves, or at least a sufficiently large portion of the population (polling numbers for leaving gun laws as they are, or making them weaker, have been above 50% for some years now) that that is the trade off they’re making.
Lone nutters slaughtering children? A collateral price to be paid for that freedom to be armed and ready to slaughter the gubmint if it should ever get above itself.
I’m not sure I agree with that trade off: but as I point out above, it’s not me that gets to make it. They do: and also as I say, more than 50% (the numbers were in the Washington Post yesterday, sorry, lost the link) think gun laws should stay as they are or get looser.
I guess that’s democracy for you, eh?