I am (slowly) making my way through "The Silk Roads: A New History of the World" written by Peter Frankopan. Following are selections from Chapter 13, "The Road to Northern Europe."

Referencing the Incas of the 16th century:

"In the Inca lands, wrote Pedro de Cieza de Léon, law and order were carefully maintained, with great care taken 'to see that justice was meted out and that nobody ventured to commit a felony or theft.' Data was collected annually across the Inca Empire to make sure taxes were calculated correctly and fairly paid, with births and deaths recorded centrally and kept up to date. The elite had to work the land themselves for a set number of days each year and did so 'to set an example, for everybody was to know that there should be nobody so rich that he might disdain or affront the poor.' These were not the savages described by triumphalists in Europe; in fact they seemed positively enlightened in comparison to the highly stratified societies that had emerged throughout most of the continent, where the gap between the powerful and the weak was cemented in an aristocratic patrimony that protected the social position of the powerful."

And referencing the Dutch, (perhaps moving in a positive direction), in the early 1600's:

"In due course, the conclusion was reached that despite competing ambitions and rivalries between provinces, cities and indeed individual merchants, the most efficient and powerful way to build up trade was by combining resources. In 1602, therefore, [they] created a single entity... ...on the principle that this would be stronger and more powerful than the sum of its parts... ...The Dutch model proved astonishingly successful."

And referencing technology in the same Era; (perhaps a step backwards):

"The traditionally built craft... ...were no match for western vessels that could outmanoeuvre and outgun them at will. Continuous improvements in ship design that made them faster, stronger and more deadly widened the gulf even further. The same was true of military technology. Such was the reliability and accuracy of arms used in the Americas that small numbers of conquistadors were able to dominate populations that were vastly superior numerically---and populations that were advanced and highly sophisticated, except when it came to weapons... ...Between 1600 and 1750, the rate of successful fire of handguns multiplied by a factor of ten. Technological advances---including the inventions of ramrods, paper cartridges and bayonets---made guns cheaper, better, quicker and more deadly."

And in conclusion:

"Although Europeans might have thought they were discovering primitive civilisations and that this was why they could dominate them, the truth was that it was the relentless advances in weapons, warfare and tactics that laid the basis for the success of the west... ...The great irony, then, was that although Europe experienced a glorious Golden Age, producing flourishing art and literature and leaps of scientific endeavour, it was forged by violence."

Some Westerners may justify that violence with a grand, sweeping gesture, as if to say, "Look around. That violence brought us to where we are today."

And as I look around I have to wonder if we (as a world) would not be better off as descendants of the more advanced civilizations of that era.

Following is a (paraphrased and quoted) compilation from various sources of some headlines and news excerpts from this week.

New York Times headline, 11/5/17:

"Gunman Kills at Least 26 in Attack on Rural Texas Church"

Some facts about the weapon used, (an AR 556), from Slate.com, posted 11/6/17:

• The stock weapon uses 30 round magazines. It will fire each time the trigger is pulled until the magazine is empty.
• With modification, the weapon can fire 60 rounds in twenty-four seconds.
• With further modification, the weapon can fire 41 rounds in four seconds.
• In 2016, the weapon's manufacturer donated $4 million to the NRA's lobbying arm.

From NBC News, 11/7/17:

[Our President] "said the attack on Sunday was not 'a guns situation' but instead 'a mental health problem.' But [experts] say that their work did not show mental health to be a significant factor in their studies, while gun ownership was... ...'It's a mathematical model that decides what's important, and in this case it was far and away the firearm ownership rate which explained why some countries had more mass shooters than others,' [one expert] said."

"Firearm-related injuries are among the five leading causes of death for people ages 1-64 in the United States."

"There [is] a lack of research on the issue from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention because of an amendment Congress added to a spending bill in 1996, which was strongly supported by the NRA, that said no funds made available to the CDC 'may be used to advocate or promote gun control.' ...The move has had a chilling effect on CDC research on the subject."

From Fox News, 11/7/17:

"The bloodbath is proving to have elements both sides of the gun debate can use. More than two dozen were killed, from babies to the elderly. The slaughter took place in a house of worship. The killer had a history of domestic violence that legally should have prevented him from buying his guns. And a National Rifle Association member pulled out his own rifle and wounded the killer." The killer ultimately took his own life.

From CNN, 11/7/17:

Debunking the "good guy with a gun" argument, (that maintains a good guy with a gun is the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun), research and statistics find the claim largely anecdotal. Violent crime is consistently 13-15 percent higher in states that have right to carry laws. And according to the Harvard School of Public Health, "case-control studies, ecological time-series and cross-sectional studies indicate that in homes, cities, states and regions in the US, where there are more guns, both men and women are at a higher risk for homicide, particularly firearm homicide." And according to a 2007 study, though constituting less than 5 percent of the world's population, US civilians own more than 30 percent of known firearms.

As a society and a culture, we, in the United States, remain relentless.

I understand that interpretations may vary, but if health experts maintained that there was a strong correlation between ownership of a plasma TV and cancer, as a government official, would you outlaw plasma TVs? Granted, plasma TVs do not enjoy the aristocratic patrimony inherent in powerful weaponry, but I also do not understand the necessity of 41 shots in four seconds to maintain my manhood; that's more than 10 per second! If we want to make it about mental health, I believe this "need" qualifies as illness. Even the desire for a mere 2.5 shots per second should cause serious concern; unless, of course, I am humiliated by standing next to the guy whose manhood is 4X mine. And I believe this "pissing contest" is at the root of the problem.

We are afraid. We are not afraid of the bogeyman. We are afraid of losing our identity; an identity defined by a bogeyman. We need a bogeyman.

In this past year, I believe we have been given permission to act out. It has become okay to say and do, based on reactive emotion. There is a straight line from divisive rhetoric to destructive action. Yes, an individual must consciously choose to follow that line, but the way has been cleared.

I am afraid. I am afraid that while I work very hard to be one of us, I may actually be one of them. I am afraid that those qualities and characteristics I ascribe to the bogeyman, I may share with the bogeyman. I am not afraid of the bogeyman; I am afraid I am the bogeyman. And odds are, that in varying circumstance, to varying degrees, I am. So, one option for denying fear of this bogeyman aspect of my character, is to establsh my manhood with the aristocratic patrimony of powerful weaponry.

We should be afraid...