It has partly to do with the fact that the USA is a far more violent society than any of the other advanced, wealthy, Western, European-based and/or influenced societies. This, combined with the acceptance of guns as a part of normal society, means that using potentially lethal violence is seen as just another way of ‘solving a problem’. Whether the problem is domestic, business or political.
The problem is not the gun laws per se. The problem is that the gun laws ‘legitimise’ the possession and use of guns in society, and ergo, violence in general.
Just because something is a law or right, doesn’t make the object of that law or right (eg, using a gun for any legal reason) not abhorrent.
Idiot doesn’t like the President. Idiot could protest peacefully, but hey! Why not use a gun?
Number 10 might look like an ordinary house from the entrance, but it’s huge. It has around 100 rooms and it’s built like a fortress. There are heavy iron gates at either end of the street with manned guards towers. The front door is blast-proof steel and can only be opened from the inside. There are huge numbers of security staff surrounding it 24/7 including snipers on the rooftops.
While this was over 100 years ago, Queen Victoria had something like 7 attempts on her life during her reign.
In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, monarchs were huge targets for assassins, and quite a few were successful. I don’t know if that fits in with your question.
One explanation given, although patently false, goes like…
English Bob: “One isn’t that quick to shoot a king or queen. The majesty of royalty… Well, there’s a dignity in royalty. A majesty that precludes the likelihood of assassination. If you were to point a pistol at a king or a queen, your hands would shake as though palsied.”
I pointed out in another thread that the 50 years up to WWI don’t count as that was the Anarchist Golden Age along with their **Propaganda of the Deed **doctrine, so attacks on rulers anywhere then don’t count.
Including attacks on hidden rulers such as Berkmann’s ever to be lamented bungling of a simple task.
As for Victoria, I have a book in front of me, the American author Paul Thomas Murphy’s Shooting Victoria which details the attempts, and the main pattern apart from a strand of vague dribbling republicanism in a few cases is that the would-be assassins were not like other men. Even in an age of nutters such as Victorian Britain or America today.
The eight assassination attempts on Queen Victoria all tended to fit a certain pattern. An unhappy, troubled man dealing with what today might be labeled schizophrenia, Tourette’s, or various other disorders singled out the monarch as the source of his problems and made plans to assassinate her. Murphy does an excellent job detailing the early lives of the assassins and what motivated them to strike against the Queen. Each attempt is vividly described, so that it is easy for the reader to imagine what it must have been like to witness. Even though the subject matter is serious there are moments of humor, as when Victoria recognized a man who had just dealt her a severe blow to the head as a peculiar fellow who was always strutting around and making exagerratedly low bows when she went out. The reader also gains new admiration for Victoria’s bravery, as she always refused to lock herself away after being shot at but instead insisted on riding out in public again as soon as possible.
To be truthful some were as incompetent as Berkmann, Edward Oxford asked the salesman how far a bullet would fly from his casual purchase — no paperwork in Victorian England ! — and was told maybe 20 or 30 yards, at a time when the Reverend Forsyth had invented the percussion lock in 1805 and one could get 100 yards ( not that even a decent handgun is sure over 20 yards ); he still bought it.
Oxford’s defence was subverted by the prosecution into pushing for his insanity ( not that this was difficult ) and getting him locked away for life without the inconvenience of hanging him. Witnesses testified that Oxford’s grandfather often thought he was St. Paul or the Pope, and testified to his capacity for “indecent behavior” and his proclivity to violent rages when he would smash everything in sight, and which resulted in episodes of restraint and confinement: with cords, in a strait-waistcoat, at Petworth Bridewell.
Sounds like a throwback to 17th century republicans of religious excess… The Fifth Monarchy fellows could certainly have benefited from strait-waistcoats.
Victoria: * “It is worth being shot at―to see how much one is loved.” *
How are they not so eliminated ?
Anyway, if one takes killing out of the equation even, America still is one of the most violent societies that has existed, fostered by a very violent unforgiving culture.
As far as war is concerned, if they have not gassed civilians, the USA have certainly dropped a hell of a lot of bombs on them, incinerating them for virtue’s sake.
