I read an interesting article a couple years ago that proposed the interesting idea that TV and movies were not violent enough, rather than being too violent. I wish I knew where to find that article again, so I could share it and represent it accurately. The writer made some valid and interesting points that I wish to pass on, with a few additions gleaned from other sources and some of my own ideas thrown in. If someone knows who wrote it - or has the article - please send it to me so I can acknowledge him/it properly.
Not violent enough?
Think about this:
When TV characters get shot to pieces, survive, then the next week are back to 100% and getting beat/stabbed/shot-up again, for season after season, even intelligent people can start to underestimate the real severity of gunshot (or stab) wounds. So, Jack Hammer, P.I., gets shot in the shoulder while on a case; he puts a Kotex over the hole, secures it with DuctTape, and continues the chase. In the next scene (about two days later) he has his arm in a sling, he's well on his way to a full recovery, and he's going home with The Girl. Great part to play, fun show to watch. Properly depicting his wounds as causing severe blood loss and shock, possibly shattering the shoulder joint (or at least 1 or 2 bones) so that he will probably have a lifetime disability, maybe a collapsed lung; this would make the story a little too realistic to be as much fun.
Even "just a flesh wound" can cause tremendous (read: permanent) muscle/tissue damage.
Stuck with a knife? No problem, of course; just pull the knife out, apply a little pressure to the wound, fend off the perpetrator, drive yourself to your ex-wife's house to have her sew it shut, and you're back to 100% in a day or two. What a man!! Not like the rest of us that would run the risk of systemic infection from an un-sterilized blade invading our abdomen, even if there were no risk of peritonitis from anything other than skin being damaged. (I remember well when my appendix ruptured and they "cut" me! Ideal surgical conditions, still not negligible.)
Knocked unconscience with gun butts and pieces of pipe on a weekly basis? Wake up a couple hours later with a mild head-ache, jump up and continue the persuit. No worry about concussion, possible annurism, chipped/cracked vertabrae, or a torn/detached retina like we mortals are prone to suffer from such severe trauma.
The point is, with so much action on TV and movies, no-one ever suffers more than a passing inconvenience at worst. Being raised on this nonsense undoubtedly convinces some ignoramuses (ignorami?) that committing such violence can't be that bad.
Now, to add to this confusion, let's outlaw guns - especially (shudder!) handguns - so that they become prestige (street cred), something with almost magical powers that make you invincible - like on TV. Now you have a street thug - a predator - that has The Power, and knows that law-abiding citizens don't because they aren't smart enough to carry (albeit, illegally) like he does. (Know why the criminals call themselves "Wise Guys?" Because they believe they're smarter than the rest of us.) Drugs are illegal, but he deals in those. He can get cocain from South America and opiates from Asia and Afganistan; why do gun-control freaks think
that guns don't come in with the drugs? That supplies the (already) criminal element, while laws only disarm the law-abiding citizens, creating easier victims.
Ignorance of guns makes them more alluring, more fantastical. Something almost magical. (Remember Robinson Crusoe's Man Friday when they "met?" Knowing nothing of guns except for having seen his own attackers shot, he jerked off his shirt to see where the hole in him was.)
People in TV and movies calmly discuss their divorces, their present predicament, how much ammo they have (don't have), etc., while shooting hundreds of rounds at an adversary that also carries hundreds of rounds (already loaded in magazines, of course!) Have you ever fired a full magazine without hearing protection, then had a normal conversation? I can't hear plainly for an hour or so after a trip to the range, even though I use foam ear plugs and earmuffs together.
Never mind that I need a range bag to carry more than one handgun, a couple hundred rounds, and spare mags, but they have all this just stuffed in their jacket pockets - as often as not, grabbed on the fly. (Of course, the BG's use the same caliber and magazines as the Hero/Heroes so all can share!)
Perhaps if guns were a part of everyday life like they should be (ever heard of the Second Amendment?), and everyone had (freedom to access) them, there would be less misconception and subsequent misuse (read: abuse) of them. And never mind that crime would be lower: statistics have proven this many times, while gun control laws have never - never - shown to be effective against crime (just the opposite, in fact - quite literally and consistantly so. Look at Australia: Violent crimes jumped some 70% in the couple years following the (near) total dis-arming of the general public.)
If we didn't treat guns like some Devil's Magic that should be shunned; if we didn't attach some artificial, imaginary stigma to gun ownership that makes it unacceptable for "polite company;" if we could remember that Hollywood is nothing but fantasy, totally detached from reality - guns could again be regarded as nothing more than the potentially dangerous tools they really are. Potentially dangerous, yes. So are propane torches, bandsaws, hydraulic logsplitters, tillers, - anything is dangerous if misused or abused. Cain and Abel only had rocks. The simple truth is that a handgun is a specialized tool intended for self-defense rather than splitting firewood or soldering pipe joints. Why is that evil? Because it might hurt a child? If that's a legitimate concern (not just emotional leverage), why do you drive a car? I know, and know of, several minors (under 18) killed and/or maimed by cars over the years, but I don't know anyone accidentally shot as a child. I do, however, know one senior citizen that lost an eye as a child from - you guessed it! - a thrown stick.
Anyone that takes TV and movies - and anything else from the entertainment industry (Entertainment Industry - get it?) - seriously or literally probably also believes Michael Moore is filming rightous documentaries.
Friday, July 20, 2007
Gun Controversy - Deeper Than Just the Hardware
Everyone is probably familiar with all the rhetoric and arguements pro- and anti- private ownership of firearms. I admit right now, up front, that I am biased: I am a staunch believer in and supporter of the 2nd Ammendment. However, this is not about my stand on gun rights but my observations of the people that get involved in debating the issue.
Invariably, the Anti's make the point that if everyone had guns, violence would be uncontrollable - simple arguments might escalate out of control, fender-benders could become shoot-outs, cutting in line at the grocery store check-out would possibly be a fatal mistake, and on and on. They seem to believe that people, our citizens, apparently cannot be trusted to show restraint or judgement if they have the (potentially) lethal power of a firearm available.
How depressing it must be to feel that way about their friends, neighbors, co-workers, family. If they really believe this, perhaps (probably?) they feel that way about themselves, too, deep inside. After all, if they are part of this society it must be part of them, and they can't be so different than what they seem to observe around them. (Maybe they need anger-management counselling for themselves?)
The Pro's generally contend that people don't necessarily choose to be violent if there is any alternative, people can be trusted to manage the responsibility of having (potentially) deadly force available to use, and they should be allowed the right to self-defense if it proves necessary.
No, the Pro's don't deny that there are violent criminals in our midst; they simply choose to believe that they don't dominate our society, and thus society as a whole shouldn't be punished or deprived for the aberrant few.
The Anti's arguments seem to me to be negative, dis-trustful, even paranoid about society in general, whereas the Pro's arguments seem to demonstrate more faith in people, a more positive opinion of their (our) society in general.
Another sticky point: The majority of the Anti's leaders seem to feel - even demand - that since they don't choose to own firearms, no-one should be allowed to. Seems like a societal control issue to me, more than an object control issue. Something to think about when deciding whom to repeat, support, or emulate.
On the other hand, even the most adamant 2nd Amendment proponents don't demand that everyone should own a gun just because they choose to. What they do say is that everyone has the right to decide ownership status for themselves. Quite a different disposition, I'd say.
Interestingly, there is the town of Kennesaw that passed an ordinance requiring every head of household to own and maintain at least one functional firearm in the home, but it is my understanding that there has never been any attempt to enforce it. Personally, I would assume such a law to be more of a statement than a binding rule. (In this case apparently the "statement" made was that the town's inhabitants were not helpless or willing victims, because crime levels dropped dramatically and have remained low since.)
But, what about those "nuts" that want to stockpile weapons and supplies for "The Day?"
So what?
That doesn't diminish society - you, them, us - in any way. What's the danger in that anyway, if they aren't taking from you? The only real danger is to themselves, from the Janet Reno-type Anti's that would "take them down" for - what? Those people are only a threat to you if you attack them, so why not just leave them alone? (Besides, if "The Day" does come, who will you look to for protection? The Police? Guard? Reserves? Ever heard of "Post-Katrina New Orleans?" Maybe those "nuts" are on to something, after all.........)
If I just suddenly fell to earth, having no concept of firearms and no possible means to learn anything about them other than to hear the two different sides debate the issue, I believe I would choose to side with the Pro's because of the less negative attitude.
It also seems just a little bit amusing to me that, if you try to approach NYC's fanatical Mayor Bloomberg, or Rabid Rosie O'Donnell, or pretty much any of the top Anti's, you will be swarmed by their personal armed bodyguards.
I can afford to buy a reasonable quality firearm and ammunition and training to protect myself, my wife, and our four children, but I cannot afford to hire bodyguards for all of us. Does that mean my family and I have less right to live in safety than they do?
Would they change their minds about me (personally) if I carried a gun to protect them? Would they change their minds back if I left their employ and decided to just protect my own family?
Apparently so.
How can anyone be so hypocritical, self-important, self-righteous? (After all, they are paying the guards to carry privately-owned firearms! In public!) They have money, I don't, so I guess their safety matters but mine doesn't.
Money is just money; it buys things like education, cars, radio/TV time, fame, even politicians.
It can't buy intelligence, or class, or morality, or a sense of principles.
Invariably, the Anti's make the point that if everyone had guns, violence would be uncontrollable - simple arguments might escalate out of control, fender-benders could become shoot-outs, cutting in line at the grocery store check-out would possibly be a fatal mistake, and on and on. They seem to believe that people, our citizens, apparently cannot be trusted to show restraint or judgement if they have the (potentially) lethal power of a firearm available.
How depressing it must be to feel that way about their friends, neighbors, co-workers, family. If they really believe this, perhaps (probably?) they feel that way about themselves, too, deep inside. After all, if they are part of this society it must be part of them, and they can't be so different than what they seem to observe around them. (Maybe they need anger-management counselling for themselves?)
The Pro's generally contend that people don't necessarily choose to be violent if there is any alternative, people can be trusted to manage the responsibility of having (potentially) deadly force available to use, and they should be allowed the right to self-defense if it proves necessary.
No, the Pro's don't deny that there are violent criminals in our midst; they simply choose to believe that they don't dominate our society, and thus society as a whole shouldn't be punished or deprived for the aberrant few.
The Anti's arguments seem to me to be negative, dis-trustful, even paranoid about society in general, whereas the Pro's arguments seem to demonstrate more faith in people, a more positive opinion of their (our) society in general.
Another sticky point: The majority of the Anti's leaders seem to feel - even demand - that since they don't choose to own firearms, no-one should be allowed to. Seems like a societal control issue to me, more than an object control issue. Something to think about when deciding whom to repeat, support, or emulate.
On the other hand, even the most adamant 2nd Amendment proponents don't demand that everyone should own a gun just because they choose to. What they do say is that everyone has the right to decide ownership status for themselves. Quite a different disposition, I'd say.
Interestingly, there is the town of Kennesaw that passed an ordinance requiring every head of household to own and maintain at least one functional firearm in the home, but it is my understanding that there has never been any attempt to enforce it. Personally, I would assume such a law to be more of a statement than a binding rule. (In this case apparently the "statement" made was that the town's inhabitants were not helpless or willing victims, because crime levels dropped dramatically and have remained low since.)
But, what about those "nuts" that want to stockpile weapons and supplies for "The Day?"
So what?
That doesn't diminish society - you, them, us - in any way. What's the danger in that anyway, if they aren't taking from you? The only real danger is to themselves, from the Janet Reno-type Anti's that would "take them down" for - what? Those people are only a threat to you if you attack them, so why not just leave them alone? (Besides, if "The Day" does come, who will you look to for protection? The Police? Guard? Reserves? Ever heard of "Post-Katrina New Orleans?" Maybe those "nuts" are on to something, after all.........)
If I just suddenly fell to earth, having no concept of firearms and no possible means to learn anything about them other than to hear the two different sides debate the issue, I believe I would choose to side with the Pro's because of the less negative attitude.
It also seems just a little bit amusing to me that, if you try to approach NYC's fanatical Mayor Bloomberg, or Rabid Rosie O'Donnell, or pretty much any of the top Anti's, you will be swarmed by their personal armed bodyguards.
I can afford to buy a reasonable quality firearm and ammunition and training to protect myself, my wife, and our four children, but I cannot afford to hire bodyguards for all of us. Does that mean my family and I have less right to live in safety than they do?
Would they change their minds about me (personally) if I carried a gun to protect them? Would they change their minds back if I left their employ and decided to just protect my own family?
Apparently so.
How can anyone be so hypocritical, self-important, self-righteous? (After all, they are paying the guards to carry privately-owned firearms! In public!) They have money, I don't, so I guess their safety matters but mine doesn't.
Money is just money; it buys things like education, cars, radio/TV time, fame, even politicians.
It can't buy intelligence, or class, or morality, or a sense of principles.
Monday, July 16, 2007
What's with this generation, anyway?
This is a question that's as old as humankind, but for now I'm talking about this generation - the Columbine, West Nickel Mines, Red Lake Minn., Santee, Ca., Jacksboro Tn., Essex Vt., Virginia Tech, (etc.) generation. There have always been malcontents, aberrations, miscreants, whatever label you choose to apply. But, what is it with this generation?
I heard my wife and her friend having a discussion recently, and one of them made an observation that floored me: This is the first generation raised on Ritalin from earliest childhood.
Think about that.
If you squirm in your seat in Kindergarten or first grade, you may be put on Ritalin to "calm you down." (The fact that you're a child, and full of life and energy, is apparently moot. The teachers shouldn't have to deal with childish behavior; they have a job to do. Go figure....)
If you have trouble staying focused on your studies, or if you're caught talking in class sometimes, you may be put on Ritalin for "behavioral problems."
If you appear to be having social problems in school, you may need Ritalin to help you cope.
If you have personal/private issues - perhaps your parents are separating, or you just moved to a new school - Ritalin is faster and easier than counselling.
Just take your pills and let the medication cope with whatever may (or may not) be troublesome in your life.
Then, when it is determined that you have outgrown the need for bliss-in-a-bottle (or you leave home and Daddy's health insurance won't pay for it any more) you are suddenly without your psy-crutch.
Meanwhile, during your formative years you've been deprived of the true impact of most of the learning experiences of childhood - good and bad - that should have prepared you mentally for the Real World. Now, when your lover moves on, or you get teased in class, or you suffer a career setback, it's devastating because - although you're an adult already - you haven't learned how to cope with life.
Obviously, those who you believe may have slighted you must be removed from your (developmentally retarded) world! We certainly can't allow you to be offended, after all!!!
(What if Albert Einstein had been put on Ritalin, since he was known to be a restless and sometimes disruptive student?
Surely Benjamin Franklin was a spirited youth.
I'd bet Samuel Clemens wasn't the most docile student in the room.....
Think what this generation may have lost from over-utilization of Ritalin. I know it may be a stretch, but what if - what if - even just one of those outbreaks were the result of a brilliant mind being stifled and packaged neatly for conformity's' sake!)
Added to this situation is the "Feel-Good," Humanist attitude that is so prevalent in our society; the attitude that places higher importance on one's ego and self-image, and denies the reality that we all occasionally lose out on things throughout our life. If there were no losers, there would be no winners. Our nanny-state society that refuses to let anyone lose, likewise can't allow anyone to win. I was raised to believe that "The only thing worse than a poor loser is a poor winner." But if there are neither winners nor losers, how does one learn to be a gracious/generous/caring individual?
One of the traits of humanism is, it goes counter to the teachings of popular religion - especially the Judeo-Christian beliefs that founded our nation. (Yes I am Christian, and I also greatly value the Jewish teachings that influenced Jesus; but that is not the point at this time.) Confucius is quoted as saying, "I have no use for a man with no religion; for without a source of power, what good is a cart?" He didn't appear to promote any particular religion, but he felt everyone should have some belief system to be a complete human. Our society - moving itself ever closer towards Humanism - is removing all religion, bit by bit, from its populace.
See what happens when people believe themselves to be the Pinnacle of existence? When we create people that have no Higher Authority to answer to, we create people that believe they can make the decisions of life and death. They are, after all their own God.
The all-too-commonly held attitude of entitlement is another symptom of this social decay. If you aren't willing to work for "it", I'm sorry, you don't deserve "it." If you are willing to work for "it", and you do deserve it, you still may not achieve "it". This is called "LIFE." Even when it seems to suck it's still worth living; learn to accept disappointment and move on. (Unless, of course, you're medicated so that you don't experience such emotions.) When you don't get everything you want when you want it, you can better learn to appreciate - and care about - what you do get.
So, what's wrong with this generation?
This is possibly the most self-indulged generation since Roman times.
This is likely the most pampered generation in our Nation's history.
This is certainly the first generation raised Humanist in our Nation's history.
This is the first generation of Ritalin-induced social retardation.
What's wrong with this generation?
- Not the TV or violent movies.
- Not the violence-based video-games.
- Not the failing educational system.
Obviously - sadly - the previous generation.
This generation only got what our generation allowed them to have. We are, after all, their parents - aren't we? Or, are we also teaching this generation how to deny personal responsibilities and consequences?
oh, yeah.
sorry.
Chuck Brick.
(Many people have benefited from Ritalin, properly administered. I am aware of that. Ritalin certainly has its proper place and legitimate uses. However, it's wide-spread abuse and over-use has greatly overshadowed this fact. It is this blatant and unacceptable abuse that I'm railing at)
I heard my wife and her friend having a discussion recently, and one of them made an observation that floored me: This is the first generation raised on Ritalin from earliest childhood.
Think about that.
If you squirm in your seat in Kindergarten or first grade, you may be put on Ritalin to "calm you down." (The fact that you're a child, and full of life and energy, is apparently moot. The teachers shouldn't have to deal with childish behavior; they have a job to do. Go figure....)
If you have trouble staying focused on your studies, or if you're caught talking in class sometimes, you may be put on Ritalin for "behavioral problems."
If you appear to be having social problems in school, you may need Ritalin to help you cope.
If you have personal/private issues - perhaps your parents are separating, or you just moved to a new school - Ritalin is faster and easier than counselling.
Just take your pills and let the medication cope with whatever may (or may not) be troublesome in your life.
Then, when it is determined that you have outgrown the need for bliss-in-a-bottle (or you leave home and Daddy's health insurance won't pay for it any more) you are suddenly without your psy-crutch.
Meanwhile, during your formative years you've been deprived of the true impact of most of the learning experiences of childhood - good and bad - that should have prepared you mentally for the Real World. Now, when your lover moves on, or you get teased in class, or you suffer a career setback, it's devastating because - although you're an adult already - you haven't learned how to cope with life.
Obviously, those who you believe may have slighted you must be removed from your (developmentally retarded) world! We certainly can't allow you to be offended, after all!!!
(What if Albert Einstein had been put on Ritalin, since he was known to be a restless and sometimes disruptive student?
Surely Benjamin Franklin was a spirited youth.
I'd bet Samuel Clemens wasn't the most docile student in the room.....
Think what this generation may have lost from over-utilization of Ritalin. I know it may be a stretch, but what if - what if - even just one of those outbreaks were the result of a brilliant mind being stifled and packaged neatly for conformity's' sake!)
Added to this situation is the "Feel-Good," Humanist attitude that is so prevalent in our society; the attitude that places higher importance on one's ego and self-image, and denies the reality that we all occasionally lose out on things throughout our life. If there were no losers, there would be no winners. Our nanny-state society that refuses to let anyone lose, likewise can't allow anyone to win. I was raised to believe that "The only thing worse than a poor loser is a poor winner." But if there are neither winners nor losers, how does one learn to be a gracious/generous/caring individual?
One of the traits of humanism is, it goes counter to the teachings of popular religion - especially the Judeo-Christian beliefs that founded our nation. (Yes I am Christian, and I also greatly value the Jewish teachings that influenced Jesus; but that is not the point at this time.) Confucius is quoted as saying, "I have no use for a man with no religion; for without a source of power, what good is a cart?" He didn't appear to promote any particular religion, but he felt everyone should have some belief system to be a complete human. Our society - moving itself ever closer towards Humanism - is removing all religion, bit by bit, from its populace.
See what happens when people believe themselves to be the Pinnacle of existence? When we create people that have no Higher Authority to answer to, we create people that believe they can make the decisions of life and death. They are, after all their own God.
The all-too-commonly held attitude of entitlement is another symptom of this social decay. If you aren't willing to work for "it", I'm sorry, you don't deserve "it." If you are willing to work for "it", and you do deserve it, you still may not achieve "it". This is called "LIFE." Even when it seems to suck it's still worth living; learn to accept disappointment and move on. (Unless, of course, you're medicated so that you don't experience such emotions.) When you don't get everything you want when you want it, you can better learn to appreciate - and care about - what you do get.
So, what's wrong with this generation?
This is possibly the most self-indulged generation since Roman times.
This is likely the most pampered generation in our Nation's history.
This is certainly the first generation raised Humanist in our Nation's history.
This is the first generation of Ritalin-induced social retardation.
What's wrong with this generation?
- Not the TV or violent movies.
- Not the violence-based video-games.
- Not the failing educational system.
Obviously - sadly - the previous generation.
This generation only got what our generation allowed them to have. We are, after all, their parents - aren't we? Or, are we also teaching this generation how to deny personal responsibilities and consequences?
oh, yeah.
sorry.
Chuck Brick.
(Many people have benefited from Ritalin, properly administered. I am aware of that. Ritalin certainly has its proper place and legitimate uses. However, it's wide-spread abuse and over-use has greatly overshadowed this fact. It is this blatant and unacceptable abuse that I'm railing at)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)