I wonder how an experienced wall climber would feel if a ranger that never climbed told him that he was welcome to climb in the park but he could only have a blue camalot because that was all that he needed.
Hofstede's data are very broadly cut, and indeed countries look similar along his dimensions. As you say, for example, Australia and the US look similar by his account, but I'm not sure that people from either country would say the same thing as you. There may be more difference than driving lanes and "funny accents." History is a part of it, I imagine. Heck, the South in our own country is like another world than here in California.
In the end, we can't EXPLAIN anything to almost anyone's satisfaction. I think we first have our own ideas and commitments, and then we look around for data analysis to back them up.
I continue to favor a behavioral approach to the issue, though.
Thanks for the thought provoking post.
There's a lot of room to interpret the messages that may be intended or implied.
Firearm ownership is a political hot potato and an emotional subject on both sides of our border, particularly in light of recent events.
Most of the firearms discussed are designed primarily for killing people and I agree we'd all be better off living in a world where such devices weren't necessary.
Unfortunately we're not there yet and probably never will be.
I think the corollary between firearm proliferation, ease of acquisition and gun crime is for the most part, supported by evidence, Switzerland not withstanding.
The US may be unique in having the right to bear arms enshrined in it's constitution and that's a tough row to hoe.
In Canada, firearms are still a rural necessity for many for hunting and protection from wildlife.
For us firearm ownership is not a right but a privilege that comes with a high degree of personal and social responsibility. It's not perfect but most of us can live with the arrangement.
The Smith and Wesson in question is a classic sidearm chosen by many for hunting, wildlife protection and marksmanship.
The comments I posted earlier provoked a couple strong responses and I thought I'd do the courtesy of putting them in context.
Too bad about the Smith and Wesson.
I'd advocate doing that to the shooter before I'd ruin a nice pistol.
I'm all for strict gun control laws and responsible firearm ownership.
The reiterations ad nauseum that there is no justifiable reason for somebody to own an AR 15 are all by people who ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to read any of the newspaper articles cited in the Armed Citizen that detail how precisely those weapons were used, sometimes without firing a shot, to deter armed assaults by criminals who would otherwise be free to victimize somebody else.
Their immature stance is to say, "LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA ,..........."
Riley, do you have the guts to read newspaper article that detail how so called assault rifles have been used for self-defense?