Charlton Heston Put His Bullet Proof Vest On – How The NRA Are Right. Sort Of

That's It Charlton. Cover Up The One That Says

That’s It Charlton. Cover Up The One That Says “Thou Shalt Not Kill

I was a great admirer of Charlton Heston when I was a kid. After all, it takes a person’s entire day’s energy resources just to watch Ben Hur. Imagine how exhausting it was to actually make the thing. This is why the film is only shown on Bank Holidays at midday, to give people a legitimate excuse for lounging around listlessly for the rest of the day. It lends that indefinable Four O’Clock ennui we all should be ashamed of some kind of basis in fact. Can’t be arsed to do anything until bed time? Of course you can’t. You’ve just valiantly sat through Ben Hur.

I have to admit how surprised I was when I learned how much Mr Heston was into guns, despite how violent most of his films were. In my mind’s eye he had been an erudite actor/philosopher who just happened to be very good at playing dangerous psychopaths in the movies. Shows how wrong you can be. My jaw dropped to the floor when I saw him utter the immortal words “From my cold dead hands” in reference to the circumstances that might result in him giving up his gun.

History does not record whether anyone actually managed this feat, or even had the opportunity to manage it. Much as he liked firearms, I doubt even Charlton Heston lay on his deathbed clutching a rifle in order to blow the Grim Reaper’s bony noggin off when he loomed over him, scythe in hand. Though I could be wrong of course. Mr Heston really, really liked guns.

Another phrase associated with firearms fans  is “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people”. Fair enough. Well sort of fair enough, if you discount the habit that guns have of going off for no readily apparent reason when they’re just lying on a table, thus killing or maiming their owners from the other side of the room. Though to be fair, this is usually down to two factors: poor maintenance of the weapon and stupidity on the part of the weapon’s owner. So even in these cases, the phrase “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people” still holds true. Well maintained guns that aren’t left around the place with live rounds in their chambers simply just don’t  go off unexpectedly.

A gun is just a collection of chemicals and mechanical parts. You could argue, if you were that way inclined, that it is just an inanimate object. A knife is also an inanimate object. A knife can be used to peel and chop the ingredients for a lovely meal. The same knife can also be used, after the consumption of the lovely meal, to go out and slit someone’s throat. The nature of the knife does not change from the act of preparing a meal to the act of slitting a human throat. Only the intentions of the person holding the knife are different.

The “Guns don’t kill people” statement attempts to apply the same logic to firearms. The argument is that a gun is just a tool. And a gun is a tool, but it is unique in being a tool that evolved in on battlefields with the sole purpose of killing human beings. Shoot all the deer you like with them, that is simply not what guns were designed for.  Well actually there are other weapons which evolved this way. The sword, the mace and chain, the hand grenade, the land mine etc. Strangely though, no one is suggesting that anyone should be able to walk around carrying these items with impunity. Why is this?

The answer to that question is simple. Guns are really fucking sexy. I hate guns. The idea of what they can do horrifies me. But even I think guns are sexy. A well designed gun is indeed a thing of beauty. A well designed steam locomotive is also a thing of beauty, but I wouldn’t want to be standing directly in front of one when it’s thundering towards me along the railway tracks. Guns are beautiful and sexy, but only when they’re not being fired.

Obviously, I’m writing this from the perspective of a British person. We have gun crime in Britain, but nowhere near on the scale that the US has gun crime. Part of the reason for this is that we simply don’t have anywhere near as many guns. But this was not always the case. Immediately after World War Two, Britain was awash with guns. The Government organised many gun amnesties. Bring your guns in to your local police station and they will be safely disposed of, no questions asked.

This is because, in Britain, we regard the population having access to guns as a problem. In America, the population having access to guns seems to be regarded as some sort of solution, or even a right. The NRA are right in stating “Guns don’t kill people”. No, it’s people’s attitude to guns that kills people. You can’t un-invent the gun, so it’s attitudes that have to change. If you get angry at the prospect of someone taking your gun away, you’re not the sort of person who should be allowed to have one in the first place.

© Copyright Michael Grimes 2013


Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

About thedailygrime

At that awkward age - too young to be a grumpy old man, but just acerbic and downtrodden enough to have an opinion. Read it here.

3 responses to “Charlton Heston Put His Bullet Proof Vest On – How The NRA Are Right. Sort Of”

  1. thirdnews says :

    It isn’t some ‘sort of right’ but a Constitutional right. Your argument, specific to the ‘right to keep and bear arms’ is old, and I care not to address it.

    Though, I think the history of the British and their willingness to succeed their speech rights is presently more interesting, and I think a continuance of the consequences of giving up arms.

    How sad that your countrymen need to google a US press site to find out information that your government finds invasive -we call it free speech here, and it is also ‘some sort of right’.

    • thedailygrime says :

      I fear you may have misunderstood my point when I used the phrase “some sort of right”. It was not the “as part of a well regulated militia” clause I was referring to. Though it’s interesting that having your argument resoundingly beaten on many occasions, including in the Supreme Court, makes you the winner due to the debate now being “old”.

      No. I was not tinkering with the minutiae of the US constitution. I was pointing out that the US constitution is fundamentally flawed. It’s old and dusty and needs a bit of a spring clean. We are not talking about muskets and flintlock duelling pistols here. We’re talking about Desert Eagles and Uzis.

      We Brits don’t relinquish our rights to free speech. We just don’t feel the need to flap our gums quite as much as Americans do. You have as much right to free speech as the powers that be allow you to have, same as anyone else.

      hope that clears things up

      • thirdnews says :

        It does not; your logic is flawed, and I suspect you are commenting on a document never read.

        Your right to free speech is limited, and not by the ‘yelling fire in a crowded theatre’ argument but by references deemed to be in conflict with your ‘Super Injunctions’.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: