Anger is honorable, says Hillary Clinton:

"People will be attacking you instead of your ideas, they may impugn your patriotism, they may even say you're angry."

"If they do that, wear it as a badge of honor, because you know what? There are lots of things that we should be angry and outraged about these days," she said.

It's control over emotions that I think is important. To say that anger is honorable (or, more properly, the imputation of anger by others is a "badge of honor"), in my view, does a disservice to people who control their anger. Controlling anger is generally thought of as a virtue -- at least in anyone entrusted with power. People who have their finger on the button have to be able to control their anger.

But we don't have to get into nuclear issues. Even people who get behind the wheel of a car are theoretically supposed to be able to control their anger. We even have a label for those who don't. Road rage. I suffer from it myself, and while I try to control it, if I were arrested for leaning out the window and screaming at another driver I doubt very much if a judge would be sympathetic to a claim that a road rage charge was a "badge of honor." (And I say this as someone who believes passionately that there are "lots of things that we should be angry and outraged about these days" on the road -- for I have seen them!)

So, while I don't think anger is bad or unnatural, I do think control of anger is more virtuous than simply having the anger.

For some reason, Hillary's anger pride makes me want to revisit the topic of concealed carry, and Heinlein's phrase "an armed society is a polite society." The state of being polite is epitomized by having control over anger, and it's long been my view that there's something about guns which inherently tends to force people to control their anger. Because, if you're armed, even if you take pride in your anger (a dubious proposition, IMO), it's not a good idea to routinely let your anger get the better of you. Otherwise, you might overreact to a situation like this (in which a local off-duty police officer chased down a man whose car had just collided with his own):

When the driver stopped, he got out of the vehicle and yelled, "You're dead," and "I'm gonna get you," while reaching with both hands under his shirt toward his waistband and beginning to charge Sudler's car, which was stopped in the middle of the lot about 35 feet from the Chevrolet, Ferman said.

Sudler said he thought the man had a gun under his shirt and fired three times, apparently missing as the man kept charging. The Chevrolet had two bullet holes in its driver's side doors and a flat tire from the shots.

Sudler then took cover behind the rear passenger's side of his car as the man kept coming. The officer fired two more shots, striking the man, who fell next to Sudler's Lexus, Ferman said. Sudler called for an ambulance immediately, and police crews were on the scene within seconds, she said.

No weapon was immediately found. The crime scene investigation and ballistics tests are pending, Ferman said.

"You have to make a decision about what you are going to do," said Capt. Benjamin Naish, a spokesman for the Philadelphia Police Department. "Should we get into a wrestling match with somebody?" The officer's gun "could get used on police," he said.

What do you do if a psycho comes running at you and you're carrying a gun? This is a judgment call, and if you allow yourself to be ruled by your emotions, you can end up in a lot of trouble, whether it's "fair" or not, and whether you believe in the pride of anger or not.

Ditto yesterday's story about teenage burglars who enjoyed breaking into homes for an "adrenaline rush":

Police said the seven teens knew each other from work and school. All came from upper middle class homes but told authorities they carried out the crimes for "an adrenaline rush," Suelter told Florida Today.

The teens randomly picked homes to break into during the day and early evening, Suelter said. In one home they stole a gun. In others, cash, electronics and jewelry were taken.

He also said the teens would ring doorbells and if they did not get an answer they would kick in the doors.

"The suspects were very arrogant and the attitude they had was unbelievable. I explained the possibility that one of them could get hurt or shot. One of them told us that he was a big boy and that 'I think I could take 'em,' " Suelter said.

I don't think so. But then, I don't have the luxury of Secret Service protection.

I'm glad I'm not one of those religious scolds who get moralistically ballastic about these things, or I might start yelling about the Seven Deadly Sins:

Beginning in the early 14th-century, the popularity of the 7 deadly sins with artists of the time engrained them in human culture around the world. The generally accepted deadly sins are superbia (pride), avaritia (greed), luxuria (luxury, later lust), invidia (envy), gula (gluttony), ira (anger), and acedia (sloth).

If you put two of the above together, is that a net gain?