So, for those that don't know, the latest Batman has just been released. Alongside this, all the crazies have come out to play, with one particular individual getting a little too riled up and shooting up a cinema. Apparently he was described as dressing like The Joker with red (?) hair. I cannot help but think the way public media has covered this story simply as a way of generating more buzz around this film for the sake of a few more ticket sales. It certainly worked to great effect on previous movies (known as The Brandon Lee/The Crow Effect or Heath Ledger effect). Far be it from me to question the questionable techniques they employ in the hope of maximising their return on investment.
 |
| FYI: this is photoshopped |
The biggest issue I have is that a civilian of questionable mental stability was able to get his hands on two glocks, an AR-15, a shotgun and head-to-toe armour. This was, and still is, the real issue. When civilians have access to military-grade weaponry under the pretext of "the right to bear arms," something is wrong with the picture. When the other classic excuse used by gun owners is that they have a right to protect their home ... and statistics state that you're more likely to be shot with the weapon you purchased to protect said home, that argument doesn't hold much water. When the true reason that you have a firearm is because it is "cool" or you "like shootin' guns like Rambo," there needs to be a frank discussion on what the public truly needs rather than what it feels it deserves.
"The right to bear arms" wasn't written with modern weapons in mind. Imagine a future where everyone has the right to bear nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles and Earth Destroyers? Interesting idea for a book methinks.
ReplyDelete