"Selective Realism"

I was watching American history X the other day, and I found that there was a problem with the film. The same problem runs through most of John Singleton's early films as well as most of Spike Lee's films.

And that problem is: Selective Realism.

Most people, regardless of skin tone or ethnicity experience racism at one point or another. Being from Lancaster's East Side, I definitely know what that is like. I can't tell you the sheer numbers of times that I was jumped by a rainbow coalition of people, but I never developed a specific hatred for any group. I've beaten dozens of assailants of every stripe into the ground for attacking me, and it made me feel like less of a person each time it happened, instead of a powerful man.

My martial skill in my younger years was the primary reason that I'm still here to this day, but there's nothing fun or entertaining about slamming a kid your age's face into a brick wall to just thin out the ranks so you can continue to breathe.

Most of my friends didn't go to my school nor did they have the pleasure of being stomped on by Skinheads for giving a young Mexican girl who's your friend a ten-second headstart, so I doubt that they'll ever understand what my life was like before I met them... nor do I ever expect them to.

I've addressed this subject before, but people that join Gangs are weak. Only a pussy needs to hide behind his friends to do what he should be able to do on his own. The Old-School Gangs of the 60's and 70's had a code. Those of us that knew the old-timers know that. Their disputes were handled with words, and if the words failed, they slugged it out on the front lawns of a neutral neighborhood. After that, if it still wasn't solved, then violence happened.

Think of gangs as they exist now; a gaggle of violent, thoughtless people that aren't of any specific ethnicity that attack first and think last.

We have spent years in this country ignoring one simple fact: if you want to talk about poverty, White people top the charts. Sure, we haven't got the percentage, but we are the most massive in number.

The problem is that, unlike other gangs, White gangs tend to lean towards a racist ideology more obviously then others do. Sure, the other gangs are racist as hell, but that's not their sole agenda. They rule on the basis of turf and business, not skin color.

When I was in High School (Antelope Vally High School) in the early 90's, there was a sudden surge of Skinheads that was so massive that the local Fox affiliate came up and did a story on it. Lots of bad things had happened before that, but the Antelope Valley (Lancaster, Palmdale and Quartz Hill) was always treated like the bastard kids of the fringes of L.A. County, so we were a bit shocked that they thinked we were worthy of a story.

They showed us what we already knew; most of the Gangs were from L.A. Holy shit! Stop the presses! most of the people were from L.A... I was, so what does that have to do with anything?!

Bottom line to this whole segment?

Racism only serves one person: You.

You get to hide behind your shallow understanding of other human beings through stereotypes... and White people aren't alone in that. Look at Black, Asian or Latino comics performing, and you'll find hypocritical bullshit aimed specifically at White people, however well-intentioned, that's irrelevant.

Racism is racism, folks, it doesn't matter the history and skin-tone of those involved.

"Guns"

I was having a conversation with my friend Charles the other day about “Gun Control” and the Virginia Tech shootings.

Chuck is a staunch Libertarian and a member of the NRA, so I pretty much understand his views on the subject, and have for the better part of ten years.

But I later started thinking, “Why is it called ‘Gun Control’ when it’s actually ‘Gun Regulation’?”

I can’t tell you how many times I’ve heard a conversation on this topic that started with the sentence, “You know who else was for Gun Control? Hitler, Mussolini and Fidel Castro, that’s who!” Which is a simple and frankly, weak comparison for responsible ownership of a firearm to Nazism and Communism… very clever. No one wants to take away your grand-pappy’s six-shooter, Jethro… calm down.

That is a statement that is a total exaggeration in my mind, and will continue to be as long as people cling so desperately to the 2nd Amendment like a baby Chimpanzee clings to its mothers teats, and here’s why: In this country, there’s no such thing as “Gun Control”. Oh sure, there are a few Liberals that are against all guns, but most of us aren’t. And let’s go over what you need to do to own a gun so I can prove a point…

All you need is a relatively clean criminal record (and if you don’t have one, all you have to do is go to a state where you don’t have a record), the money for the gun and the licensing fees and Presto! You’re now a gun owner. To me, that just doesn’t seem adequate in terms of making sure that the person that owns the gun has the training necessary to safely and responsibly handle a firearm.

In military and police basic training, you learn all the steps that are necessary to take apart, fix, re-assemble and safely discharge your firearm… so why doesn’t everybody else have to go through a less rigorous form of instruction? Hell, even actors who fire guns filled with blanks in movies have to get training so that they don’t hurt themselves!

I’m not a person that is screaming for no guns whatsoever, but I just think that if you have a gun, that gun should have some purpose other then just being a gun. Guns by themselves are benign; an assemblage of bolts, springs, screws and metal plates, but when wielded (like any weapon) by someone skilled in its use, it’s deadly. But the problem here is that you don’t have to be skilled in the use of a gun for it to be deadly… lots of people accidentally shoot themselves or others fatally every year. Sure, the numbers aren’t “Tobacco Industry-related” in number, but the fact that it doesn’t go away is emblematic of the problem, which is training.

Accidents happen, but the chance that they can be reduced and eventually done away with through a series of training classes seems like a minor imposition on carrying or using a lethal weapon. Sure, the people that enjoyed the way things were in the past are going to get pissed, but frankly, who cares? You’ve been handling a gun safely and responsibly for 40 years? Then the class should be easy for you… but who knows? You may just learn something that you didn’t know before you took the class. After all, if all you have to do is go to the firearms equivalent of the DMV and pay a fee to renew your license every three or four years seems like it would be pretty fair to me.

I think guns are cool, despite the fact that I’ve never owned one, nor do I ever plan to own one. I’ve been shot at, and I’ve had them pointed in my face on a couple of occasions, but I hold nothing against those that do chose to arm themselves, as long as they do so safely and responsibly.

So I guess the whole point of this post is to just pose the question, “In order to get a legitimate license, you have to prove that you have a reasonable level of proficiency to drive a car, so shouldn’t you have to do the same thing with a gun?”