I respectfully submit that when someone says you are a buffalo, you need do no more than place a hand on your backside and see if you have a tail.

If you do not, you are not a buffalo.

_/|\_

“Good observation, but just to point out the Celts were culturally, geographically, and linguistically distinct from the Anglo Saxons.”

True, my fault for lumping them.

An aside: I have commented to several how the blog here (HW) is such a store house of knowledge that it makes just reading it a joy.

@ CoralSea

“It is distressing that you appear to equate Celtic Knotwork with white supremacists. Not everyone with Celtic tattoos is a WS or a WN.”

Again, humbled, and you are entirely correct.
My observation was situational, and from experience with these cross burners here.
The “Tribal” tats currently in vogue are also something I watch for, although I am also sure that some getting these types of things are not WS either.
It is usually a combination of these things: the tattoos, a W.A.R. bumper sticker or “Peckerwood” T-shirt, I know they are friends with some local cross burning and race hating/baiting people, they have Confederate Battle flags on their vehicles and have made racist or anti-Semite or anti Obama statements, they are tied to a local drug ring/dealers, and they have screwed me in some way (some repeatedly) that I equate to WS involvement.

I love the zoomorphs, and the mesmerizing qualities of good knot, spiral, twist design even back to Babylon and Assyria.
I also know of the heron designs, and the nurturing qualities of that particular.
I have done some of the deities in much of the Ancient world, as well as contemporary ones… some armour… various and sundry, for various people.
I, myself, don’t differentiate images/objects until they are obviously intended to tie me to their groups or ideologies like that gidiot (giggulous idioti) that wanted me to make them en mass for his troop of baboons.

First, this is not _my_ theory but an academic line of thought that has been developed by others and which I have brought forward into the discussion.

Second, the scarcity of source documents is indeed a problem for a complete analysis of Anglo Saxon literature and modes of thought. However, archeology and history provide plenty of evidence for the warlike nature of the early Anglo Saxons, which viewed together with the literature provides a more robust analysis than merely looking at extant documents. We don’t actually know if they didn’t write much or those documents were destroyed. It was probably both.

And by the way there is a lot more to Beowulf and the other poems and writings than violence, but that is a very strong characteristic. There is neither space nor interest to cover all that here.

Third, why single out the Anglo Saxons? Obviously the American colonies inherited Anglo Saxon culture from English progenitors, and this was enshrined in the foundations of our culture and collective worldview even though the United States received many other influences from other cultures over time. The Anglo Saxon male still defines the power elite in our country, which suggests that the roots of culture run deep.

If we were talking about gun violence in China, for example, the influence of Anglo Saxon culture would not be absent (the English did colonize there), but undoubtedly the same lines of thought would not be adequate to address the problem.

In addition to being distinct for our Anglo Saxon cultural roots as Americans (whether or not we have Anglo Saxon ancestors is not the issue) we have a love affair with firearms. As I mentioned up above, the issue is about the heroic notion of violence.

It would be unfortunate to conclude from my comments that I have something against Anglo Saxons. The Anglo Saxons were also characteristically democratic. They elected their thane (king), but of course, the criterion for leadership appeared to have been who was the greatest warrior.

So, my point is that being a violent culture is not necessarily exclusive of being a democratic or egalitarian culture, which are virtues. The problem arises in that we seem to think our egalitarian and democratic principles justify our violence.

“I studied the Anglo Saxon language, and the written record of the West Frisian poetics is limited to what little remains over time (only a few hundred thousand words) but almost without exception this record is extremely warlike.

So this is not really just one poem, but nearly the entire record of literature of the Anglo Saxons which has been presented as evidence. By all means verify this for yourself, but I think you will also find this to be true if you look into it.”

So — you admit on the one hand that only a small portion of Frisian literature is available — but based on this small portion, you appear to believe that Anglo-Saxons were more violent than other cultures.

I don’t have a dog in this fight, really, since my ancestory is primarily stone-aged Britains and Norman (an argumentative bunch of conquerors in their own right) and the Franks (Charlemagne) and other assorted groups, including a little dose of African, but why single out the Anglo Saxons — especially since you yourself indicate that only a small portion of their poetic sagas are available for study. I hope you aren’t asserting that Beowulf is the font of all gun violence (are you a member of Team Grendel, by any chance?)

But why single out the Anglo-Saxons? I’m not be-laboring this to be a creep, I’m just wondering.

I do whole-heartedly agree with you that myths of other civilizations can be instructive in showing other ways to act. We read the Illiad and the Odessey and studied Greek myths in Junior High. One of the important lessons many of these myths told (in addition to clever ways of achieving ends or, in Zeus’s case, getting laid), was that strangers should always be treated courteously, because they might be a disguised god or disguised hero, returning from battle or on some other quest.

I would love to see much of our current “mythology” altered: the worship or celebrity, money, and beauty over good works and faithfulness; or that real survival often depends on group efforts and coordination rather than what was depicted on that God-awful “Survivor” show!

Groups of people and civilizations often exhibit positive and negative traits, and people may embue them with positive or negative interpretations. (I once met a women who was recently moved to Texas from Lebanon. She was horrified by the brutality of Mexicans — because they encouraged their children to beat cardboard animal figures with sticks! [pinatas, you know.)

MRJ — FYI — It is distressing that you appear to equate Celtic Knotwork with white supremacists. Not everyone with Celtic tattoos is a WS or a WN. I have a dozen Celtic tattoos, although most of them are zoomorphic designs of specific animals that are significant to me as a Wiccan (horse, salmon, herons). It is annoying that WSs are using Celtic motifs, however. I had some friends 20 years ago who were from Sweden who were involved in Asatru. They basically left their own religion because of the influx of WNs and became Wiccans. They wouldn’t be pleased to hear that people are now equating Celtic Knotwork designs with WNs!

Good observation, but just to point out the Celts were culturally, geographically, and linguistically distinct from the Anglo Saxons.

These papers are interesting, but don’t adquately address urban, intra-cultural violence. As I mentioned before, anthropology has been limited in its pursuit of those answers. Regardless of culture, I still insist violence begins and ends in the mind.

http://www.academia.edu/172147.....f_Violence

http://www.academia.edu/265144....._Identity1

Actually, I am neither disagreeing nor agreeing with you in this case. I studied the Anglo Saxon language, and the written record of the West Frisian poetics is limited to what little remains over time (only a few hundred thousand words) but almost without exception this record is extremely warlike.

So this is not really just one poem, but nearly the entire record of literature of the Anglo Saxons which has been presented as evidence. By all means verify this for yourself, but I think you will also find this to be true if you look into it.

Anyway, I don’t think I missed your point about action myths at all. As we say in journalism if it bleeds it leads. I do consider it a perfectly reasonable starting point for questioning why violence is culturally esteemed, but I also see more nuances to be explored, and provided some counterpoint to your argument.

There is compelling evidence that the Anglo Saxon peoples have been exceedingly warlike, and their myths and cultures have glorified the use of violence and brute strength as exemplary of human virtues. Whether that is unique to the culture seems less important than if and how such tendencies manifest themselves in the contemporary United States.

“Now, WHY black people would drive 40 miles out from Chicago to picnic in an area with no tables, grills, etc. and that was next to a peat bog never seemed to enter into the opponents’ thoughts.”

Another, from this area: “They drive around, and then park, and pretend to be breast feeding their baby while they case your joint.”
This one has been used in this area, generational, for over 27 years: I first heard it that long ago, and just recently again (2010) from a 20 year old.
The same lie, again, and again, and again.
No one has EVER been actually witnessed, arrested, or involved with B+E in the situation as this story/account states: it is all just propaganda fomented from father to son for dozens, and dozens of years.
“They bring their babies when they commit crimes.”
The psychology of this, and the whole “criminals from birth” and intentional child endangerment/”their women are criminals too…”.

What do you even say to this kind of thing?
I, personally, give them three times for their racist rants and lies… and then just ask them this question:
“Do you know any?”
When they sputter and evade, I then ask them: “Then why do you say things like that about people that you have never even met?”
“Any” covers any race/creed/religion/color they might have been maligning.
Yeah, I make a lot of friends here.
Some, I have literally put up with for over twenty years, always hoping they might stop, or at least when I was around… but they take delight in it, particularly when they have friends with them to back them up.

In answer to your question: No, I have never killed a person, nor have I ever struck a person, and I hope like hell to never be in a situation where I have to make a definitive choice like that without recourse to some other form of evasion or escape.

Yeah, seeing what happened to VAWA has not made a very good impression on me: there are facets of that that hit very close to home.

I truly feel for your friend and her situation: I cannot even imagine what she had to go through.
Strong.
And my hat is off to you as well.

“More enduring solutions involve beefing up laws and programs to protect those who are being menaced and holding law enforcement and the criminal justice system (and our elected officials) to a high degree of professionalism.”

Accountability for indifference, or major error, and particularly in a case of possible malicious indifference or disregard needs be more than a slap on the wrist as well.
Color of Law is not a joke, not an “oopsie, gee, I didn’t know…”, or “it can’t be that bad…” when threats have been made and someone is reporting them: particularly when firearms have been involved and a friend is dead through the same kind of malicious, community instigated/sanctioned harassment.
R.I.P: Fred Gottschalk.

@ Erika

“Although even looking at class and racism one still wonders… …the white males have been using guns to control women, blacks, Hispanics, and Asians for centuries.”

There is total agreement on just about everything between these two sentences.
A fun one is trying to say to a Protestant that they are here because Europe thought them backwards, regressing, and an enlightened, Renaissance Europe didn’t want them is another thing guaranteed to make friends.
Thank Luther.
Thank Calvin.
Unfortunately, many of them still think that way, and there are entire institutions set up for the education of “Christian Soldiers”.
Read the response of NOW to the “Promise Keepers” and the web pages of those groups: they almost always use militaristic wording in their statements of intent.
“Christian Warriors”.
Talk to the guy across the street who was stalking a pair of underage girls in a local church, and trying to deprive them of Right To Worship… who is the local “Patriot At Large” of the local “Tea Party”… or his wife abusing, racist, Felony drug dealing/convicted son a house down….
I. Would. Love. To. See. That!
Think: cheering like a mad soccer fan.

@ aadila

Beowulf = MMA… UFC… Football and Wrestling glorified in HS Sports… and the libraries have to close or don’t have the money to staff or buy books while the football team gets a new stadium and equipment.
Really, one only need look at most of the WS arm “sleeve tattoos” that you find: they aren’t puppies and roses and unicorns… most of them have Celtic knot work somewhere.
I have been suckered into making a bunch of that stuff in my shop by people who thought it was funny to get an NA to try to sell Eurocentric products.
One local even tried to get me to make “Thor Hammer” pendants for him and all of his racist buddies: I sent him packing.
Then again, it does sell, and we are here (US)…

I think you missed my point about “action” myths and stories, but I do agree with you that there are also many myths, stories, songs, etc. of heroes and heroines employing goodness and clever solutions to prevail. One often needs to understand the surrounding mythology to fully comprehend the nuances of many folk legends, however.

Or in the Ramayana of ancient India, we have another mythic hero Rama who is depicted in proper observance of societal duties (ideal father, ideal servant, the ideal brother, and the ideal king.)

In both cases, unlike the Anglo Saxon Beowulf, for example (or other similar Nordic myths) the hero derives his power from sources other than mere violence and brute strength.

Anyway, the whole cannibalism thing was a really long time ago, and except for that incident in the south Pacific with the stranded….Oh, ah, I guess I never mentioned that. Never mind!

Seriously, however, conquest was a feature of early civilization, although many of the supposedly “war-like” groups also engaged in agriculture, large-scale trade (meaning that they were playing nice and trading rather than pillaging), and, in some cases (the Celts come to mind), egalitarian societies that cared for the those who couldn’t care for themselves and allowed women to have their own property and status.

Unfortunately, as is still the case now, many of the best “stories,” whether on TV now or spoken around camp fires thousands of years ago, had to do with fights, conquests of various sorts, and hunting (“That bear with THIS big…er, the pelt shrunk a lot when we washed it.”) The whole, “I invented weaving last summer” stories probably also existed at one time, but since many of the more militaristic societies won out, those stories were placed on the back burner.

However I would like to point out that David Riches in his 1986 work Anthropology of Violence, brought into light some interesting correlaries between the violence of Anglo Saxon poetics and the violence present in Anglo Saxon societies.

That is, to greatly simplify it, the notion that rendering hurt upon another is viewed as a heroic act. Is that notion truly any different that what we are seeing with all this national debate about gun control?

Be honest.

Although even looking at class and racism one still wonders why the United States has such a high violent crime rate compared to comparable countries – other countries have major class divides between the rich and the poor and horrible histories of racism, yet they do not have our murder rate. Of course, these countries do not have the gun obsession that the U.S. does.

Now what causes the U.S. gun obsession – there are several reasons. First, the European settlement of the U.S. was initially done by two general groups – adventurers and losers. The attachment of both groups to guns – beyond merely being a tool to hunt for food – should be obvious. Adventurers seeking to go to a then wild frontier would have weapons due to them conducting adventurers which is to say danger. The movement west was largely driven by the goal of adventure. The developing frontier was often a violent place with little government or law enforcement around. This is the reality of the wild west – but also its mythology promoted in movies, books, and television shows. The clinging to guns thus is in a way a lot of ways a lot of grown men looking to play like they are cowboys or brave explorers setting off into the unknown. The American heritage contains both groups so it is no doubt in our DNA.

That brings us to something else in our DNA – the influence of losers. Now i know you will likely get mad at me for pointing out that many of the early settlers of what is now the U.S. were losers (and this includes my ancestors) – but the fact is that it is true. The Pilgrims and Puritans came to the U.S. because they lost a religious battle in England. Catholics and Quakers came to the U.S. for the same reason. Even before the revolution, an influx of Protestants from Europe such as French Hugonauts came to the Americas after losing a religious war. During the settlement period, and heavy immigration period, people came to the U.S. who often were driven from their homelands by various wars – always on the losing side. This continues into more modern times – note the number of people from South Vietnam who came to the U.S. after they lost their war against North Vietnam. And of course, the Native American population was decimated and displaced by white settlement – and the African American population was brought here in chains. Thus, losing and displacement is also in the American DNA. As a country settled by people who were displaced, the U.S. has been settled by people who fought and lost – thus, fear of being displaced again from one’s new homeland has likely passed down through the generations.

That brings us to the third component – the remarkably violent history of the U.S. who has been constantly fighting – in fact, being a mix of adventurers and people displaced by losing wars in Europe, it is hardly surprising that us Americans are a violent lot. Move in the insecurity which comes from having fought and lost in your homes to the adventurer spirit and you have an insecure person looking for a fight. The U.S. has fought tons of wars – the message coming from the government is then might makes right. The U.S. has even been the aggressor many times – starting the War of 1812 to try to take Canada, the Mexican American War, and the Spanish American War which were all naked terrotorial grabs (or an attempt which almost resulted in the death of the U.S.). The U.S. also fought an incredibly violent and destructive Civil War where one side (the Confederacy) was actively trying to take over much land outside of the United States at the same time.

Now you add in the class structure and the basic hypocracy of a government which claimed to be for equality yet has historically always sided with the rich and often oppressed the poor. The American Revolution was an upper class revolution staged by the richest people in North America (and some of the richest in the entire British Empire at the time). In fact, Ben Franklin may well have been the richest non-monarch in the world at the time of the American Revolution and George Washington wasn’t too far behind. The American government was thus set up by the rich – at the time, only white male property owners were allowed to vote. The fact that slavery was not only tolerated but specifically protected by the founding fathers shows that the U.S. from the start had designs to oppress poor people (you can’t get poorer than being a slave).

The American government soon showed its desire to oppress the less fortunate and protect wealth and privilege – although for the most part, there was peace as long as the lower classes didn’t threaten people’s property. But as the Civil War shows, Americans would go to great lengths to protect their personal property – however, what the South did not count on was that the rich people in the North were much richer and reached the conclusion that slavery was standing in the way of industrial progress (the fact that slavery was dying in the south as the country industrialized was one reason why the slave owners felt so threatened). In fact, there were battles over tarrifs but they all had their root that the Southerners were afraid of losing their property.

In fact, this fear of privileged people losing their property today explains much of the gun culture. In fact, the rich people are perfectly content to see poor people kill each other as long as they only kill their kind. Hence, that is why the party of Mammon opposes gun control. To the rich, the only goal is to keep down their taxes – and to scare the middle class. A violent criminal underclass is the perfect way – in fact, while the criminal underclass in the U.S. has always been violent, it is not surprising to learn that Ronnie Raygun’s CIA worked hand in hand with the Mexican drug cartels to bring cocaine into the U.S. It is also not surprising to learn that many of the most prominent banks in the U.S. have profited handsomely from drug dealing at the international level.

The fear of crime helps drive profit – from gun manufacturers to hysterical media to politicians to business executives who using the fear of crime by lower middle class white people have been able to run off with almost everything. What better way to keep control than to direct the fear of the lower middle class towards the poor? Thus, hysterical crime stories spread fear – then add into the fear of government oppression inate in the American psyche by saying the governmetn is coming for your gun. And make it understood that by “gun” they really mean “are coming for your manhood” – the guns and bullets are all phallic symbols after all. So you have the media driven crime fear and the claim that the government is coming for your guns (or money – or Medicare see the Tea Party’s ludicrous “Government Hands off of Medicare” signs) solely to lead the target – middle class white males to vote to serve the ultra wealthy’s interest.

The ultrawealthy don’t care about guns – well, maybe they care about the profit they make selling them. Guns are merely a tool for them – and in any case, no one in their neighborhood would think of using such a thing except for maybe hunting peasants (oopsie, i meant pheasants). They have security gates, cameras, bodyguards, packs of hounds – for them guns are merely for little people. Guns and the resulting fear of crime that results from having guns being easily accessible are merely a way to terrify the middle class into voting for them. Unfortunately, for the rich the game might be up. The old angry white male who believes everything that Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, and the NRA tell them about liberals population is shrinking fast – and the new populations taking their place are more likely to see guns as symbols of white male domination. Mainly because the white males have been using guns to control women, blacks, Hispanics, and Asians for centuries.

Guns are a symbol of oppression and control by the upper classes, not freedom and it is folly to think otherwise.

Agreed on preservation of rights, however, I don’t think anybody but me is saying do away with all the guns. I won’t kid you. If I could I would.

But from what I have seen about the proposals is banning certain types of firearms that go beyond the reasonable excercise of rights to bear arms (and that is the right in question, not the right of self defense or to protect others).

Why does someone need a bushmaster with a banana magazine to defend their home? The .223 that nut in Connecticut used is a varmint gun with high velocity and flat trajectory, not a self defense gun for close quarters. The .38 is a perfectly suitable weapon for self defense or police in this country wouldn’t have used it for decades. With a speed loader it can be as useful as a semi automatic pistol, or so family friends in the FBI tell me.

Also Sam your right to have a gun doesn’t outweigh my right to life and limb. I personally don’t want to see a bunch of vigilante concealed permit holders opening fire in public crowds because they have neither the training nor the experience in stressful scenarios for the most part to keep their wits about them in chaos.

Also no matter what the gun we’re talking about, there are a lot of safety measures like cooling off periods for purchase which are a good idea. The NRA has always argued that simple, reasonable precautions such as this are violations of “rights”.

What forms of gun control would you consider reasonable to consider, given at least half our country is ready to ban firearms altogether?

MRJ — You raise to difficult and knotty issues. For the record, yes — I have been shot at. And mugged. I prefer to live brave, because you can also have those things happen to you ANYWHERE.

In regard to the self-defense issue, such as women being attacked in domestic abuse situations and/or stalked, I personally agree that if she fears for her life and can do so, she should kill the guy if she cannot otherwise escape. Unfortunately, the Justice system may not take too kindly to that. Same with people who are being harassed and threatened and decide to fight back with lethal force. As I have said, firing off a bunch of rounds in a populated area may well take out an innocent bystander as well as your tormenters.

You raise an all too valid issue in how little protection there is for people being stalked and harassed or beaten and threatened in domestic situations. Any real progress in this area will involve the political will and social pressure to deal with violent offenders and protect those who are being menaced. Judging by the lack of interest in the Violence Against Women Act in Congress, clearly many of our elected officials don’t really care about this (one Congressman I know still refers to Battered Women’s Shelters as “Run Away Wives Shelters. I’ll let you guess his party affiliation, but it begins with an R and ends with an N).

Putting the awful task of using lethal force against a neighbor or a former loved-one on a civilian isn’t an ideal choice. Do you know what it is like to kill someone? Would you, if you were a woman, like to have the baggage of having to kill your children’s father because he is coming after you with a knife? Yes, you would do it, hopefully (and hopefully, the kids won’t have to witness it). But it will change your life in some very difficult ways, including possibly having to defend your actions in court. I don’t know this (thankfully) from personal experience, but I do know someone who went through it.

I believe that people should be able to defend themselves, but guns are only one tool, and in many cases, they aren’t the best (unless you are my brother-in-law shooting the bear that has just battered down your front door in Alaska). More enduring solutions involve beefing up laws and programs to protect those who are being menaced and holding law enforcement and the criminal justice system (and our elected officials) to a high degree of professionalism.

*giggle*

Whoops… cite, not site.
Typing too fast, and personally involved.
My Fault.

As does its phallic shape.

Not to mention the fact that schools with predominately minority students pay their teachers less than schools in the same district with predominately white students, as substantiated by Dept of Education findings in 2009, available for anyone to see. Is that a level playing field?

Hmmm… OK… there are some very good points all around… can all of those posting agree that firearms have been a major part of the history of the world, and that in order to determine might vs. right since the first gob of whatever was thrown at whatever predator to drive it away from a tree top, or a feeding ground, or watering hole, or family, that finding better and better ways to project that thought/action has been an ingrained part of our collective psyche?
Rocks and sticks replaced dung… spears (sharpened sticks to begin) and arrows replaced those… the advent/introduction of gunpowder escalated and changed the entire spectrum of changing another’s mind/thoughts/actions to further and further project these violent, dominating, aggressive behaviors and the have and have nots of escalating cultural and religious disparities to place one (person, god, language, way to open an egg, whatever, etc..) over another… we, as a species, like to throw things, we are actually almost perfectly designed (that was a tongue in cheek) or evolved for it, and it will continue to be part of us until there are no more threats or perceived threats to our existence: personally or collectively.

This “projection” of violence and fear also explains the ICBM.

I would have any who have stated that there is no need for any type of defensive armaments of any kind against aggression by those who do have that “paranoid, penis thing” (as so eloquently put by Erika) going, spend some time with an abuse victim: until the threat to life and limb, or family, is nullified or removed, a person who is in fear will look to anything to defend themselves, and, in many cases, rightly should.

There are literally thousands of women who own firearms for personal protection for darn good reason, and you would be hard pressed to take it from them.
Until you, personally, have been in that type of situation, all of the explanations of “paranoid”, etc. are, unfortunately, seemingly, just a somewhat self righteous stance for non-aggression.
Say that at Wounded Knee.

I agree entirely with this: No one should have to feel the “need” to own a firearm in this Country for protection, and those stockpiling and worshiping the “fire power” ARE a major threat and should be considered as such.
Do you want to know the difference?
Look at the types they own, how they were designed (bolt vs. auto-feed, etc..), and what their stated intent to use/collect are.
How much actual wood and gun blue is in their collection, and are they clean, rust free, unloaded, trigger locked or gun-safed, and purchased through a licensed dealer requiring a background check?

Do they own a “Ghillie Suit”? There is one reason for the ownership of such a thing. To hide from people.
Do they own head mounted low-light gear? There is one reason for that: “tactical” people hunting.
Suppressors? Flash or noise does not matter. There are one reason for those: protecting the shooter’s sight at night, and dispersing/hiding noise.
Do they own more than one pistol for “home defense” (laughable if more than one) and what kind? A “tactical” contemporary with a 15 shot, or some historic type?
Multiples of high cap. magazines and bulk purchases of the ammunition required. I (personally) don’t care who says what: accuracy for “hunting” is not what those are about.
Are their purchased or chosen targets shaped like people, or just a dot, square, or circle on a box? That alone shows intent.
Do they use those targets at a range or specific, metered distances, or on “tactical” courses? Again, a Church “gun group” going through the motions of an assault in an urban or rural setting are not practicing deer or other types of hunting for food. (An aside: those here who don’t like this equating Churches and tactical assault gun groups should come here.)
Are there Automatic “Black Weapons” with pistol grips, body armor, kevlar helmets, web gear or “load bearing” vests, “tactical small unit” books and training videos, boxes of MREs, drums of gasoline, 30 or more firearms, etc…. are all indicators of someone with a serious problem in the “NWO/ZOG-JOG/FEDS R GUNNA TAKE OUR GUNS” mind set: I know of at least a dozen in this area who fit all of the above to almost every one of the listed indicators.
Let’s add Documented Spousal Abuse (divorces), Child Abuse or Endangerment (documented), Drug use and Convictions (documented), history of racist rants and tirades (witnessed), frequenting seditious chats and web pages (admitted, witnessed), handing out copies of the “Turner Diaries” and Koerneki’s manifestoes (witnessed), ties to local, armed militias and “Patriot” groups (documented, witnessed)….

Even the Police in some areas are justifiably afraid of some of these types and will downplay or ignore reports/complaints against people of this ilk.
In many cases as well, if the popular vote and consensus is that the local Sheriff or Law Enforcement was elected on a platform of “Good Christian Moral Family Values”, any POC, LGBT, Interracial couples, etc. might as well pack up and leave.
Is this legal?
No.
Does it happen?
Every day.

I would site a local woman and her two children here, now dead, who had made repeated reports about a stalker/ex spouse, with multiples of restraining orders, and a local Sheriff’s Office and local State Police who have a history of refusing to investigate or even respond to reports of stalking or Domestic Violence….
I would site a local Hispanic family here who had their dog shot right off of the top of it’s dog house in their yard by three guys driving around looking to do it with a shotgun….
I would site a local African American man who was threatened at night with high powered lights in his windows and shouted threats, destructions of his property, stealing of his mail and destructions of his mailbox, U.S. Postal Service being used to contact absentia property owners to “help” target him, SLAPP litigation against him for “complaining” and local, specific laws passed targeting him alone in a township in light of his situation… and unknowing collusion by local News channels interviewing his neighbors with long, long histories of Hate Group organizing in this area and other areas of the State, and local Racist targeting by others in the area….

This list can go on for pages.

That is just here, in this small community, in the U.S. of A..
It is a onion as to the reasons why a person might or might not “need” a firearm in any country on any area of the globe.
Was the ANC justified in owning weapons?
There are multiples of laws against illegal ownership/use, and it is a hard pressed issue in light of current affairs to even begin with this Hydra.
Until you have been shot at, threatened, or assaulted you will not know how you will react, or what you might “need” for your defense, or the defense of your family from some deranged individuals in an area who have actually stated intent to do you and yours personal harm.

But it seems to me that a lot of the discussion about public saftey and firearms forgets that gun violence doesn’t exist in a vacuum.

There are economic, social and cultural reasons why crime and violence occur and many of those reasons are historical (e.g. the legacy of slavery without reparations paid to former slaves).

It is very difficult to convince anyone who benefitted from the historical transfer of wealth and opportunity over generations that they have any responsibility whatsoever to those who were punished by history. As much as well meaning folks like Sam insist it is a level playing field, every credible statistical argument shows that for just this one example, slavery, the field is very much titled toward descendents of non-slaves even today.

No doubt this comment will be taken out of context, so I am supplying just one example that relates to the out of control gang violence and collateral deaths that Coral mentions in her last comment.

But there are many other social, cultural, economic and historical factors that should be taken into consideration when we want to solve the problem of gun violence. In this sense I think the NRA is right that it is not just the guns.

Unfortunately, the people supporting the NRA are willing to kill or die to avoid addressing the deeper social problems that lead to violence, and that leaves us very little political wiggle room outside gun control.

I agree with Erika’s assessment of the urban/rural divide above. The stakes whenever one discharges a weapon are much, much higher in urban/suburban areas — there are more people who might be hit by stray bullets. Since I live near Chicago and work periodically in one of the gang-dominated neighborhoods there, I can say that most people aren’t nearly as concerned (unless they are gang members) about shots aimed specifically at them as they are about the shots sprayed wildly by gang bangers and other miscreants. I’m sure that anyone with access to the Internet knows about Chicago’s “body count.” Most of the people who die in our infamous “drive-bys” aren’t those who are the intended targets — they are innocent bystanders. More shooting with NOT solve this problem.

The Chicago police are currently using intelligence and gang mapping techniques to prevent some of this violence. When they hear of a shooting involving a particular gang, they can deploy officers to areas where retaliation is likely to occur, and bust the retaliators. From what I understand from attending neighborhood policing meetings, they are having success with this.

Finally, as Erika also pointed out, a lot of the unfounded paranoia is just plain weird and often based on racists or classist ideas that, when held up to critical analysis, are just nutty. I grew up in a very affluent area outside Chicago and got involved in a campaign to turn an old church campground that was next to a wildlife sanctuary at the edge of town into yet more wildlife sanctuary. A developer who wanted to buy the property had convinced a lot of people to vote against the bond issue required to make the purchase, telling them that if the currently abandoned property (with a bunch of derelict structures on it) was turned into a park (actually, a wildlife preserve), then “black people from Chicago will come there for picnics!”, which was code for, “they’ll come to steal stuff!!!”

Now, WHY black people would drive 40 miles out from Chicago to picnic in an area with no tables, grills, etc. and that was next to a peat bog never seemed to enter into the opponents’ thoughts. Fortunately, we did manage to debunk this lunacy, and the “park” is now one of the crown jewels of the community.

History repeated itself (somewhat) several decades later when there was talk of converting an old freight rail line into a commuter line to connect with Waukegan and other destinations north and south. The police chief (a white guy) got all hysterical, claiming that it would just make it easier for poor minority people to take the train to the town to rob it! At the exact same time, the Chamber of Commerce was bemoaning how difficult it was to get retail workers and other low-wage workers to work in the local shops or provide domestic services — because wealthy locals certainly weren’t going to take THOSE jobs. So — on the one hand, we have the opportunity to make it possible for people who might take those jobs to actually get to them — but if THEY were able to get to the town, they would unleash a crime wave, because if they didn’t drive Mercedes, they must be up to no good! This sort of weird logic never fails to amaze, anger, and sadden me because it is all centered around phantom ideas of “the other” that, when exposed to the light of day, are utterly ludicrous.

It certainly would help if people would actually think through who they think they are defending themselves from. Statistically speaking – it’s a family member or acquaintance. If you have a gun lying around loaded, then you are arming THEM as much as yourself.