4 ms·
I’m European, so I’m looking at the US fascination with SUVs from the outside, and my take is that it’s a similar circular effect as in US gun ownership. Every
by hnarn 4y ago
I’m European, so I’m looking at the US fascination with SUVs from the outside, and my take is that it’s a similar circular effect as in US gun ownership.
Everyone needs a car, so everyone gets one. Since the US is hyper-individualistic (by no means a uniquely American trait) you want a “safe” car, but not “safe” as in “Volvo” but “safe” as in “being able to ram another vehicle if it tries to stop you”.
So this escalates the trend of how a car is supposed to look, and when you’re forced into an infrastructure where the “default” car to European eyes looks more like an Infantry Mobility Vehicle than anything else, what are you going to buy when you need a “car”? The implication is quite objectively that if you buy anything less, you are in a sense in danger, and the same goes for gun ownership: it’s very easy to be a proponent of strict gun control in a country where almost nobody has one.
I currently don’t own a car, because I don’t need one, and I’ll likely never own a gun for the same reasons, but I’m not fooling myself: if I took the place of an SUV- and gun-owning American I probably wouldn’t get rid of them.
I guess my point is that since these are both circular problems, they’re kind of a Gordian knot. It’s not easy to start untying the reality as it is, but it’s of course possible if the political will exists.
- mikrotikker 4y agoThe gun thing isn't a circular problem tho since humans can pose a threat even without a gun. Even the difference between men and women puts the woman at a huge disadvantage. Thus a firearm becomes a force equalizer for her protection from the average unarmed man that could easily victimise her.
- hnarn 4y agoThat’s not the point. It’s a circular problem because if you live in a country where the majority owns guns, your safety is obviously compromised if you don’t, to a degree it wouldn’t be in a country where almost no one did. That women are on average less strong than men is just as irrelevant as any other existing difference in violence capital before involving guns, that’s not the point, and neither is the point that guns are “equalizers” because everyone understands this, the question is how the average rate of gun ownership affects itself (circular), and to me it’s pretty obvious and relatable: if everyone else has a gun then you’re exposed without one, if no one else has a gun then not having one is much more tolerable because the violence monopoly of the judiciary system can be upheld.
- mikrotikker 4y agoI completely disagree and I feel as though you are just trying to bend reality to appeal to your presupposed ideological positions.