Freedom to Kill

After the horrible events in Orlando, I wanted to share my thoughts on the stubborn American society’s unwillingness to change federal gun control policy. Last Friday I attempted to explain to my colleagues Americans’ obsession with guns. Citing numerous statistics, most Europeans cannot understand why US policy regarding gun control has yet to change. But statistics are unimportant (at least less important than you would think). There is an underlying explanation to the US gun policy, and with that an essential difference between Europe and America. The interpretation of Freedom.

Before diving deeper into this post, as a disclaimer I must note that when comparing the US and Europe, I am bound to make a number of grand over-generalizations. I apologize for these in advance.

In the US we grow up learning Freedom is a privilege we must fight for; we grow to believe Freedom needs to be maintained and spread throughout the world. As we mature we start encountering nuances. We begin to understand certain tradeoffs associated with a freer society, and that Freedom can and should be limited in some instances. My theory suggests one of the elemental differences between the United States and Europe lies at the heart of the debate over these nuances, and this difference explains Americans’ inability to amend federal gun policy.

There are a number of reasons for the differences in interpretation of Freedom, most importantly a historical and cultural one. Obviously many of those living in the United States escaped prosecution and authoritarian governments, and certainly there is a historic precedence of Americans having to fight for Freedom. I doubt I need to expand on American history and the roots of American culture’s thirst for Freedom. Precisely because of this thirst, the American population fears one type of policy-mistake, while the European fears the opposite. Americans are uneasy with what can be considered a type I statistical error regarding Freedom (generally we should assume that Freedom will be used in a proper manner, because there is nothing worse than restricting one’s Freedom in an instance where it does not have to be restricted). I refer to this as a thirst for Freedom. Europeans, conversely, have mostly grown up under a nanny-state, where they are taken care of to a certain extent by the government. Thus Europeans tend to be more afraid of type II errors (let’s restrict and regulate because there’s nothing worse than the failure of preventing a negative event, when there was an opportunity to do so). I call this thirst for safety. Of course both societies lie on a spectrum, but relative to each other the positions are clear.

This fundamental disparity in priorities is the root of countless differences between the two societies, and can be seen anywhere and everywhere. As an example, let’s examine an important intersection in Budapest:

Budapest Moszkva Tér

Right next to the tram there is a railing, which is very typically European. This railing serves absolutely no purpose other than to prevent pedestrians from crossing through an area with an increased risk of being hit by the tram. The objects are too small to be seen on the picture, but on the concrete benches and curbs there are small metal decorative items (a lost wallet, a bird, a frog, etc.) Cute, but all there in an effort to prevent skateboarders from skateboarding in the square. Also, notice how everything is color coded and well structured. Bike lanes are clearly marked in yellow, on a different type of surface and level from the sidewalk, the green areas are purposely raised and isolated from the sections where pedestrians walk, even the trams stops are covered and made of a different material—all in order to restrict and direct everyone to using the square properly and safely. There’s very little Freedom, but everything serves to provide an efficient, safe, and clean square.

Now let’s examine a square in San Francisco, if anything one of the more European cities in America:

San Francisco Pier 39

What first comes to mind is chaos. There are absolutely no railings anywhere to prevent anyone from crossing, and people do cross, in front of buses, bikes, and cars. In Europe at the very least they would place railings on the other side of the tram tracks, making it futile for pedestrians to cross after disembarking the tram. At Pier 39 they even provide a nice intermediary zone between the tracks and the road for those attempting to illegally cross to the other side. I’m sure that was not the purpose, but that’s irrelevant. The green area is clearly trampled on (see bellow the temporary sign), cars can turn in any direction at any intersection (never the case in a European city), there’s Freedom to move just about anywhere with basically any vehicle.

The fundamental difference between these two pictures is excellent metaphor for one of the principal differences between the two societies. From starting a radio station, to opening a shop, to building a house, to environmental regulations, to guns, most regulations and policies can be explained with our differences on Freedom. Interestingly, though it seems the European method is more efficient, perhaps cleaner and safer, Europe’s often irrationally strong fear of type II errors can be just as devastating as the negative effects of Americans’ sometimes irrationally strong thirst for Freedom. But that’s for another post. For this post, suffice to say that the American thirst for Freedom trumps the rather limited thirst for safety, and thus Americans allow people to purchase guns. Without background checks. Without training. More or less any gun. Right or wrong, we give the benefit of the doubt to Freedom.

Gun control is interesting, as the statistics are so extreme that last I checked polls, a majority of Americans do believe in at least some modifications to gun control policy. The problem is that the majority is not large enough, and not enthusiastic enough to overcome the vast lobbying power of the NRA and other pro-gun organizations. Furthermore, the Founding Fathers did not make the institutional changes easier with this bill of rights thing we have. Thus, for those of us who believe that change is necessary, we need to realize that the debate about gun control has to be reframed. The statistics are useful, but somehow the American public must be convinced that the restrictions in their Freedom to purchase guns is necessary, and that this restriction of Freedom actually provides everyone Freedom to live more safely. We must find a way to convince our fellow Americans that in at least this one instance, the Europeans might be right, we might need a railing to prevent us from being hit by a bullet.

As a footnote of sort, I would address some instances where my argument seems to fail on the surface. How about all those railings at national parks? What about the lifeguard blowing the whistle at the first hint of a storm in the area? Americans are, after-all, more careful than Europeans in many cases. I would argue these instances are different, and actually compliment Americans’ thirst for Freedom. We have Freedom to sue anyone for more or less anything: the government for not warning us about jumping off a cliff at the Grand Canyon, the neighborhood pool for not foreseeing the pool being struck by lightning, McDonalds for serving coffee without a hot label. Thus those who own property (be it the government, or the pool), feel obliged to make it clear what they feel is a dangerous behavior or action. This notification of sorts does not limit our freedoms within our private spheres, and in most instances in public.