|
|
|
November 30, 2006
Weapons of mass media
John Hind questions the logic behind the practice of carrying guns and glamorising it
A great deal is said about the prevalence of gun crime and prevalence of ammunition culture. But one could also say how little there is, particularly given the frequency with which films and TV programmes show images of guns as entertainment, and how – since the turn of the century – the police have increasingly been allowed to carry firearms in the public arena. And how the news has almost daily been riddled with talk of ‘worthy’ violence.
In London, in the `90s, the only reasonable chance of seeing firearms would have been when accidentally pootling towards the Golden Mile’s cordon in a car, or when perambulating past barracks in Chelsea, where a lone armed guard might take one half step outside the gate for a quick fag. Whether or not all of the terrorist alerts of the past five years turn out to have been genuine, mistaken or ‘stunted up’, it’s peculiar how the public has so acquiesced in allowing authorities to parade machine guns around; how few people can be heard saying, “What the hell’s that for, officer?” or, “For pity’s sake, keep that bloody thing pointed to the ground.”
The increase in gun crime is almost entirely due to more incidents involving weapons which have few controls on them, such as imitations, air guns and paintball guns. Some cynics consider that these weapons suffer little control so as to justify the authorities carrying real ones. Questions worth pondering are: why, if politicians and diplomats have exacerbated insecurity in the first place, should only they be allowed personal protection? And why, if there’s seemingly so much anxiety about foreigners entering the UK, is not a little more concentrated on people from countries where gun culture reigns? — Dawn/Observer Service
|
|
|
|
