Saturday, 23 November 2013

A Personal Insight Defiled

You know I don't grab for attention and so I won't link to the interview my post refers to, nor any of the comments and posts answering and interpreting and ... it.

I don't want the attention a direct link to it might bring, nor do I appreciate major parts of the discussion which followed the interview.
Though I am aware that my post, rather than letting the topic rest, once again puts up a clear opinion and view of the world and the statements RA made in his interview.
If you can't bear my open statement of my opinion, stay away from the freedom of opinion and don't read my post.

Wer sich in Gefahr begibt, kommt darin um.
(Who willingly encounters / searches danger, dies therin.)

I am not sure if in the translation the ambiguity of the German proverb still is as present as in the original, while even in Germany, most people no longer can apply the proverb correctly or see its whole meaning.
The interpretation possibilities are manifold, though the sentence itself looks rather self explanatory and straight forward, but it is not all as it may seem or as clear an advice for action / none-action as one might read into it.

The connection, why this proverb came up in my mind while thinking about RA, was the whole discussion about RA's interview and his position about weapon possession.

While RA's position is exactly what I would have expected of every well educated and sensible European, it lead to heavy discussions in the fandom.

I know about the background of U.S. legislation, the 'oldest' democracy - and according to that, the first test ground of democracy, while other countries and forms of constitution already had samples and could select what they found re-usable and fit to be copied.
So I don't need a reminder or hint that Europeans just don't see the special situation and necessities of the U.S. (It is rather a well established way of not caring about the specifics of other countries and expecting the same from them in return. I continuously encountered that attitude while visiting the U.S.A. but fortunately also found some very interesting exceptions to that rule.)

Still, the fan-debate - though I followed only very (!) loosely (for reasons of self-preservation. I just hate to explode about things I can't change.) - astonished me in its fierceness, when in my opinion and European world view, it should be common ground to try to live and establish a better future from an obviously not well working out past and present.

Europe has a history where people slaughtered one's neighbours for the least of reasons. The only way to live together in some kind of peace in such a densely populated area is, to set the hurdle to kill as high as possible.
So I am deeply in favour of our strict weapons legislation we have here in Germany.
Everyone who possesses a weapon, but should not, commits an immediately punishable crime.

Whoever can possess a weapon, e.g. for reasons of job (hunters, police forces, etc.), hobby (sport, hunt), is constantly checked and controlled: Mentally, ability (weapons training) and security (safe keeping of the weapons, separated from the ammunition and especially unavailable for children).
Every breach means the loss of all weapons and enables the police to enforce the prosecution.

Clear, clean and secure for all involved.

I myself did shoot and was even asked to join a sports club of shooters in my youth. But while I enjoy shooting at fairs and as teen was allowed to use the air rifle of my uncle to learn how it works,  I was more interested in the mechanics than the shooting itself, though it is nice if you exactly hit your intended target.

Still, I am very much against weapons. I even broke the connection to the first boyfriend interested in a closer relationship, because he worked in a weapons factory (Not just guns, but a bit more heavy and sophisticated killing machinery.) and thought nothing of it.
They paid their employees extraordinary salaries to forget about their morals and provided exceptional additional educational and work possibilities.

In weapons lies money, big money.

So the two things I detest most and are up to no good, come together here to build an unhealthy union.

To allow everyone to have a weapon just is like trying to extinguish the devil with Beelzebub. (Another German proverb: Den Teufel mit dem Beelzebub austreiben.)

It won't work, ever.
Or can you imagine me with a pistol trying to defend myself against professional killers?
Think again, if you ever want to reason with me that this is a sensible way of defence, except you think the killers will fall over dying on their own laughter over seeing me thinking that I have a chance that way.

Though I even know where a sharpshooter needs to place an exact killing shot or where a shot is more likely to kill, ache, heal or simmer and lead to cruel death or amputation.
Curious, how my mind works. But that knowledge interests me far more than wanting to possess a weapon and actually shoot.

How many people in possession or able to get hold of a weapon do you think also know those facts? How many do you think are even interested or even able to direct and execute their shots in such an exact way?

The professionals need to learn those things and need to train their abilities, to get their moods under control as well as get their abilities up to scratch to execute exact shots.

I am glad to live in a country where I can rely on the strict rules and training of security services to guard my safety, much better than I ever could or would like to and am grateful that they create big hurdles for anyone to possess a weapon.

Thank you, Mr. Armitage, for making this statement and hoping, as I do, for a better future and not giving up on us ungrateful and unworthy humans.

(As I don't really want to hear a single word more about this discussion, but felt it necessary to make this clear statement, comments are closed on this post. What, by the way, I never did before, as I am a fierce democrat - just not a compromise-democrat - and believe in the freedom of opinion.)