Tuesday, September 22, 2009

"They're shooting at us!" — "Well, start shooting back!"

I was going to make this blog a griping session about certain booksellers and their arrogant assumptions about literally everybody who isn't published according to some, to me incomprehensible, and in my case entirely inapplicable, criteria. However, in the same manner as I wasn't really willing to listen to a certain bookseller's putative 'reasons' for...ahh, whatever...just because he wanted to 'vent', and, I guess, be 'understood' or something...in that same manner let's bury this little bit of futility and not inflict it on my esteemed readers.

Well, actually I have, in the above paragraph, but let this be the end of it.

Instead here's some flow-of-consciousness stuff. These are the lyrics from a song called 'Minstrel Boy', which appeared in the movie Black Hawk Down.



The Minstrel Boy to the war is gone
In the ranks of death you will find him;
His father's sword he hath girded on,
And his wild harp slung behind him;
"Land of Song!" said the warrior bard,
"Tho' all the world betrays thee,
One sword, at least, thy rights shall guard,
One faithful harp shall praise thee!"

The Minstrel fell! But the foeman's chain
Could not bring that proud soul under;
The harp he lov'd ne'er spoke again,
For he tore its chords asunder;
And said "No chains shall sully thee,
Thou soul of love and brav'ry!
Thy songs were made for the pure and free,
They shall never sound in slavery!"


It so happens that I recently saw the movie again, and it hasn't lost any of its impact, despite the fact that I've seen it quite a few times since it came out in 2001.

In the movie, guns figure prominently. There are also a number of vehicles, but here, guns definitely killed more people than the vehicles—which is, I suppose, something that gun-opponents will jump on to justify the continuing and widespread use of cars, despite the fact that they are actually more lethal than guns.

They might also argue that, after all, cars, unlike guns, are not actually intended to kill people. Gun-proponents, on the other hand, will, however, argue that guns, when in the hands of civilians, also aren't really intended to kill, but for such purposes as defense of oneself and those entrusted to one's care.

So, why are cars in such widespread use, even by those ethically incompetent to drive them; while guns are, for example in Australia, confined to people, like most of the police force and 'security guards', who are for the most part utterly incompetent with regards to handling them—and, if the record is anything to go by, are not ethically 'qualified' to be allowed to wield them either?

Could it have to do with economics? Like alcohol and tobacco are legal while marijuana isn't, because they are major money spinners, not least through excise?

Nahh. Too easy. Right?

No comments: