Unhinged • FOWC with Fandango

Being not a native English speaker, for this Unhinged • FOWC with Fandango challenge I first had to look up what he meant with ‘unhinged’. It wasn’t at all what I expected, the Merriam-Webster gave me the following synonyms: balmy,barmy[chiefly British],bats,batty,bedlam,bonkers,brainsick,bughouse[slang],certifiable,crackbrained,cracked,crackers,crackpot,cranky[dialect],crazed,crazy,cuckoo,daffy,daft,demented,deranged,fruity[slang],gaga,haywire,insane,kooky(also kookie),loco[slang],loony(also looney),loony tunes(or looney tunes),lunatic,mad,maniacal(also maniac),mental,meshuga(or meshugge also meshugah or meshuggah),moonstruck,non compos mentis,nuts,nutty,psycho,psychotic,scatty[chiefly British],screwy,unbalanced,unsound,wacko(also whacko),wacky(also whacky),wud[chiefly Scottish]. So now I’ve got the picture…

A paradoxal approach to safety

Now, what immediately came to mind is the paradoxical approach to safety many of you Americans have. In order to ‘feel’ safe you want to be able to defend yourself. Preferably with a gun of some sorts, and preferably the bigger the better. But this knife cuts both ways: the antagonist can just as easily get hold of a gun then.
A lot easier some of you will at least think. They’ve got the black market to furnish them. Being in Europe, and being brought up with European norms and values, this whole notion of the ‘right to bear arms’ seems quite looney (to use a less polite form of ‘paradoxical’.) So could someone please enlighten me…?

Do I honestly need an assault rifle to protect my children

…from being shot in the infamous high school shootings that seemingly are becoming part of American Culture?
By the way, being a naive European, I ‘googled’ how many assault rifles there are in the US. The first thing the became clear to me was that there is a difference in ‘assault rifle’ and ‘assault weapon’. Are you guys really that unhinged, mental?

Assault weapon, or rifle?

How is it possible for the curators of Wikipedia to let this crucial question being fobbed off with ‘…and can not be known because of the different definitions in different jurisdictions.’ It seems to me that if you know about this difference in definitions you simply refine your search type you lazy gits? Or might there be some truth to the conspiracy theory that the gun lobby is so powerful that it silences even Wikipedia?

Guns as Christmas gift…have you really gone unhinged?

Yes, I’m serious…

Now, this is nothing more than a rant, and it is spoken from a European mind and heart. While I raise some fundamental questions, I haven’t even begun to scratch the surface is my firm believe.

And please, if you do believe this whole rant against guns, assault rifles or -weapons (who gives a flying f*** about the difference in ‘kill-ability’) is rather unhinged, do let me – as a naive ignorant if you will and at heart pacifist European – know in the comment box below.

Meanwhile, if you’re getting bored, try this

4 thoughts on “Unhinged • FOWC with Fandango

  1. Being somewhat of a data/research nerd, I can tell you that the information Wikipedia says is unknown, probably is. There are two compounding problems at work. 1) the level at which regulations can be established and enforced. While some of these regulations may be or end up being challenged in court, some cities and towns have established rules that define what is and isn’t considered an assault weapon. It’s not that every town has done this, but there are almost 20,000 towns in the US. 2) Gun/weapon ownership data is sketchy since not all guns require a license.

    Your rant isn’t unhinged, it’s just that this is a much more complex issue than either side wants to admit.

    1. Hi Dan, thank you for the clarification. What baffles me is your second point ‘not all guns require a license.’ But what baffles me, even more, is the number of Americans equating the ability to defend themselves with the right to have/own a gun. Even after all the misery, it (=gun ownership) has caused.
      To me, as a pacifist European, there’s nothing complex if you’re looking at it from a moral point-of-view.

  2. “…this whole notion of the ‘right to bear arms’ seems quite looney.” It is looney. It was written into the U.S. Constitution 230 years ago, right after the ragtag American rebels somehow managed to beat back the British regular army. And back then, “arms” consisted of single shot muskets or pistols that were capable of getting off one or two shots a minute.

    The Second Amendment was written in relation to “a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State.” It was not, in my humble opinion, meant to say that every man, woman, and child alive should be permitted to carry around a military-style, high-capacity, semiautomatic assault rifle, weapons that the Founding Fathers could not even have imagined 230 years ago.

Leave a Reply