Lately, there have been a rash of gun related crime in Toronto, most notably in several schools, as well as the high profile murder last Tuesday of a fellow who was shot right on the 401 (a major 8+ lane highway in Toronto) and dumped onto the highway in the middle of the day, in front of shocked drivers. Of course, with it now being election season (again), politicians are positioning themselves as trying vet their own political agendas, under the guise of trying to find solutions to crime. The latest account of this is with Toronto mayor David Miller (NDP) and Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty (Liberal), both of whom have renewed calls for a handgun ban not only in Toronto, but nationally.
On the surface, to those who aren't well read on crime and guns, and who are generally not in favour of firearm possession, it sounds like they are getting tough on crime, right? But let's look at their position a little deeper here.
Let's face it, few want to publicly admit this, so I will be happy to do it. First, let's look at these crimes - make no bones about it, you will see a very clear commonality here, that few are wanting to admit. These crimes, for the most part, are perpetrated by young black men, and the victims are often young black men. The crimes have occurred in relatively heavier-populated black areas. You can't debate this with me - just pull up the news and check out the location of the shootings. Second, there is a gang component tied into a number of these shootings. Third, from the few arrests that have been made, it is discovered that the handguns used are by and large stolen and smuggled from the U.S. David Miller actually has the gonads to flat-face lie to the public and say that 60-70% of guns from crimes are either legally obtained or stolen from legal owners here in Canada. A police officer was interviewed this afternoon, who was on an anti-gang squad in Toronto, and he vehemently maintained that the percentage is more like 3 - 6%, and confirmed what we all know - that guns used in crimes are almost always stolen and smuggled from the U.S.
Why am I mentioning all this? Because of the fact that if the municipal or provincial jurisdiction were able to successfully enact a handgun ban, nothing would change. Crime would not go down. Why? Because the criminals don't give a rat's ass about following the law. Does anyone seriously think that a law outlawing all handgun possession would cause any criminal element to think twice about using handguns and / or register their stolen handguns? Think about this - it is illegal to rape or murder someone. It is illegal to steal someone's car. Yet these things happen every day, because criminals do not observe or respect the laws in place - that is the nature of the criminal mind.
If nothing else, such a handgun ban would target and penalize the law-abiding handgun owner, who took the time and expense to fill out an application for a licence, take the mandatory course, pay the fees, subject themselves to an exhaustive criminal check and waiting period, after providing written approval by one's spouse and several references. And to top it off, in Canada, owning a handgun is very restrictive as is. There are maybe a handful of people in CANADA who have a conceal carry licence. For the average Joe who wants to get a handgun licence (Restricted Possession and Acquisition Licence, or RPAL), they would then need to apply for a Authorization to Transport (ATT) licence, who only allows them to transport the handgun from their residence to an approved shooting range. That's it.
And, if you look at the typical profile of a gun owner, it is not a young black male from a broken home with little to no education. The vast majority of gun owners, whether it be handgun or long gun, are older folks with no criminal records, and who use the guns for sport shooting, hunting, or target shooting. They store their guns responsibly and obey all laws regarding the safe transport and use of their firearms. Those are the people who would be targeted with such a proposed ban, not the criminals.
You can draw a parallel to prohibition in the 1920s. How did that turn out when all alcohol was banned? People still managed to find alcohol illegal and a whole underground criminal element came into being in order to smuggle alcohol.
This is a complex issue, so I don't presume to have all the answers. Some people have said that the answer is for young black men to keep it in their pants and not father child after child with different black women who can't keep their legs shut and subsequently are faced with the daunting task of raising a child without a father present, and in trying to work long hours just to provide for the child, ends up not being able to spend the quality time with him, and as such the child joins a gang, and on and on it goes. This argument is fine, but it's not realistic - you can't change the problematic element in the community by idealistic wishful thinking. Sure, these young men who father these children should take responsibility for their actions, but who among us is going to enforce this or even teach it?
For me, I think that a possible solution is to increase the penalties for gun crimes. Some say that this would flood the system, but better these people in jails than on the street. With the Canadian revolving door justice system, no one spends an inordinate amount of time in the penal system - with good behaviour and a good lawyer, you'd be lucky if you even served half your sentence. By making the laws tougher, it at least removes more criminals off our street. And if they are 15 or 16, treat them as adults - they know what they are doing.
I've always endorsed the death penalty for murder, and for those who talk about crowding in jails with convicted murderers, this is one way you can cost-effectively deal with the situation. Sure, the bleeding hearts will say that it is cruel, but so is the murderous act that they did. Too bad, so sad.
Showing posts with label crime. Show all posts
Showing posts with label crime. Show all posts
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
Preach It, Barack Obama - There IS A Problem In the Black Community
This is, like, the only time EVER that I will heap anything close to praise for something Barack Obama said. Truth be told, while I've been following the U.S. presidential race and primaries since the whole thing began, with a new child in the family, I've not had as much interest in fervently commenting on the primary season, which of course, is now over and we will have Barack Obama and John McCain duking it out in November. Not the best candidates each party has to offer, but oh well...
But back to Obama - I cringe everytime I hear this guy talk - I swear, he sounds like an enthusiastic snake oil salesman. Speaks in platitudes and generalities, and why not? His experience is sorely lacking - he needs to make up for it in the only way a politician can - by generating revolutionary sound bytes and catch-phrases in order to ignite the imagination of a political audience who is cynical, despondent, and perhaps even ambivalent towards anything political.
But...his recent comments regarding problems in the black community, particularly in the area of absentee fathers and broken homes for black children was quite a welcome breath of fresh air (on Father's Day, no doubt). I mean, this is nothing new - Bill Cosby has been preaching this for years, yet for whatever reason, it seems as if when bright, highly educated Black folks like Cosby or Obama (well, not sure how bright he is, but anyhow) point a finger at the Black community and pours criticism on them for problems that are seriously over-represented in that community, they usually end up having charges of reverse discrimination, being an "Uncle Tom", "race traitor" and such thrown at them. Obama has been receiving some criticism for his words. But you know, I think this is symptomatic of what he is saying - not taking responsibility for one's actions.
You know, in my younger years when I was haplessly idealistic, naively egalitarian, and would rather turn a blind eye to a problem for fear of offending people, I would never have agreed to such a statement as what Obama and Cosby are saying. Hey, it's not just them - look at those loudmouths Louis Farrakkan (sp.) and Jesse Jackson - they all had that Million Man March back in 1995 - wasn't that sort of saying the same thing?
Now, I know what you are thinking - I certainly cannot be painting all Black people with the same brush. Of course I'm not - I do personally have several Black friends who are in strong, committed marriages, who discipline their kids and raise them right, who don't cry racism at the drop of a hat. I am smart enough to know that I cannot simply paint one broad brush on the "Black community" - which, incidentally is a bit of a peculiar term, since those Black folks I know do not associate with any "Black community" - I wonder whether this is more of a media construct than anything else.
But back to the point - Obama is touching primarily on the issues of Black men who disappear after porking their latest Black female, and producing a child. Who of course, ends up growing up without a father, and despite what the liberal media will tell you about the virtues of a strong single mother, let's all cut the bullshit here, shall we? It has been statistically proven over and over again (not to mention this is just basic common sense) that children from single-parent homes are many times more likely to join a gang, father a child at a very young age, or get pregnant at a very young age, get in trouble with the law, drop out of school, and so forth.
What gets me are these Black people who seem to have blinders on who say that single-parent families are not exclusive to the Black race. That is technically true, but my goodness, how can anyone deny the fact that over 50% of Black kids in the U.S. and Canada are not raised in a home where there is a father and mother present? I can you tell this - there is no better confirmation of something I hear than to see it myself. Several weeks ago, my wife (yes, the only one that I have), my kids (yes, I had them with my wife) and I went to a kids' party establishment. For whatever reason, at either of the locations of this establishment that we have frequented, there is a pronounced number of Black kids there (don't know why, can't be bothered to figure it out). Anyhow, it was of no surprise for me to see that only about 35% of these kids came with a mother and father (whether they were married, I wasn't sure). Yet, 90% of the White kids there, around 90% of the East Indian kids, and 95% of the Asian kids had both fathers and mothers present (and the ones that didn't, you could see that the mothers had wedding bands on - yes, I notice these types of things, and no, I wasn't looking for a date).
Now, I work at the corner of a major intersection in Toronto (and by major, I mean major - like, both of these intersecting streets encompass the length and width of the city, if not ore). On one of the streets, about a 10 minute drive Westbound, you will find perhaps the most notorious intersection in Toronto for crime and such. Again, when I was young and stupid, I used to think that that intersection's crime rate was a figment of the press' imagination. I've been there during the day (just driving through, though I've since learned to take severe detours around that intersection - even if it costs me an extra 15 minutes to do so). Let me tell you what I have seen and heard there. 1) I have seen several gangs openly doing drug deals (yes, I know what a gang looks like and what drugs look like). 2) I have heard gunshots during the freaking day - yes, I know what a gunshot sounds like. 3) I have seen all manner of complete lack of respect - ie. two young punks were trying to beat the light in crossing the street and plowed over an old man - which they didn't even bother checking to see if he was OK - he was. 4) it was a harem of single motherhood. Oh, did I mention that everyone in that neighbourhood was Black?
I am sorry, but whatever you may hear about Asians, I can confirm that the rate of children being raised in two-parent homes (and I mean a mother and father, not that gay/lesbian shit that has been all over the press lately) is significantly higher. In fact, in the whole time growing up, I think I only know or one or two Asian families whose mother and father figures divorced. I'm sure it's slightly higher now, based on the poisonous North America anti-marriage culture, but I can bet every dollar in my bank account that it is still nowhere near the epidemic proportions of out-of-wedlock births and single-parent homes that just permeate in the Black community. I'm pretty sure my fellow Asians aren't lining up the jails and penitentiaries. I'm almost certain that a high majority of gun crime in Toronto is not perpetrated by Asians. Heck, I think I'd be comfortable in saying that White folks, who have experienced a high incidence of divorce as this sad scenario continues to rise statistically, are still by and large more likely to be in two-parent homes, as compared to Black folks.
Now, onto a topic that is a favourite of mine: guns. Let's be honest here - who commits most of the gun crimes in the U.S.? Despite the fact that millions of Whites have guns, it's not the Whites perpetrating the crimes (sure, you'll see the Columbines and what not where White people are "featured", but for every reported White crime with a gun, I guarantee there are many more unreported Black crimes with guns. But of course, it is not fashionable to paint Blacks in a negative light nowadays, so the generally left-leaning press tends to ignore it. I find it funny that these "Black leaders" are calling for gun bans and extreme gun control measures, yet the eventual targets of these proposed bans would be mostly law abiding White folks. Consider this as well - you see guys like 50 Cent who, on both his "Get Rich or Die Trying" and "The Massacre" albums - by the way, both albums are pretty good from a music perspective even though the lyrics aren't exactly the more family-oriented - both of these albums feature 50 Cent and his posse holding Tec-9s, 9mm handguns, some assault rifles, and so all, while they are all dressed up in gang regalia. You ever see a White person dressed like this holding all these weapons? We'd probably all laugh at it. But for Black rappers for the most part, this is commonplace - and in a sense, it is almost portrayed as cool, and kids (and adults) buy into this. I remember when I was a teenager, the big controversy was Ice-T's track, "F*ck The Police", which at the time generated great concern among a number of folks. These days, no one would bat an eyelash, as Blacks seem to almost be synonymous with gangs and drive-by shootings, etc. I mean, looking like a pimp is not only in fashion in the Black community, but exudes an air of street credibility, and life experience (forget the fact that the practice is not exactly legal or moral).
I happened to turn to a radio call-in show on the car ride home from work today, and they interviewed a Black guy from Africa on this. He says that this problem with Blacks is U.S. issue - it's not like that in Africa at all. Is he kidding me? Africa - the place where the largest incidence of A.I.D.S. occurs. No, it's not because African males are bonking monkeys, as urban legend would have it (at least not anymore). Fact of the matter is, in Africa, Blacks encounter the same thing - lots of fatherless children, and the A.I.D.S. virus is passed by men having several women partners (whether by a polygamous "relationship" or wild, heathenistic living. Don't believe me? My wife and I sponsor an adorable little girl in Africa (Rwanda, to be exact). Her father and mother are not married. Where is the father? In jail. Sounds familiar?
Last year, I hired a guy at work from Africa. Aside from the fact that he really didn't do his job properly and we ended letting him go, I got to know him as a person through the number of months he was with us. I found out that he had two kids - ah, that's great, I said. I asked him why they didn't come to Canada with him. He said they are with their mother. I said, "oh, you mean your wife?" He said, "I'm not married". Sound familiar?
I keep in touch with this 46-year-old lady from Alabama, to whom I sold some Michael J. Fox collectibles. She has given me great insight on the American South, and have confirmed some of what I had always thought about the South. She did tell me, interestingly enough, that racism is alive and well there. However, it is her opinion (she she says is echoed by many) that she would never date a Black man. And I mean never. She said where she lives, the Asians there are "hard working and treated like Whites". The Blacks, however, no matter how hard working, are still not regarded well. And I think we're starting to see a subtle backlash now. Growing up, my parents were of the mindset that "you marry your own kind", though they added the caveat that "if you do decide to marry of a different race, please let it be anyone other than Black." Now, I will be the first to admit that Asian have their own hangups and can be one of the more racist groups out there (though as a general rule, Asians never have the balls to actually tell someone else how they feel about their race - ie. Asian parents are not likely to confront their daughter's Black boyfriend and tell him to get lost, at least not explicitly. Anyway, I am mentioning this because I am still seeing this nowadays talking with parents who have teenage kids - there's still an "anyone but Black" mentality out there. But whereas before I was disgusted at this sentiment, now that I look at it objectively, based on my observations, would I be happy with my daughter dating a Black guy, knowing what I know about the rate of out-of-wedlock teenage pregnancies among Black women (or White women who obviously try to be Black)? Probably not. If you are shocked by this, think about what you would do in your situation.
Why is it like this? I am neither a sociologist or anthropologist, so I cannot be definitively sure, but I can say a few things. One, is that similar things beget similar things. It's not really all that different from the oft-mentioned notion that victims of physical or sexual abuse as children, tend to become perpetrators of the same once they become adults. After all, like it or not, we tend to be a product of our environment (and this doesn't even count my belief in the presence of sin as a key factor to why people are all born bad, in my opinion). So the Black child (a boy in particular) who grows up without a father generally does not have certain key elements of manhood passed down to him. What do I mean by this? Well, let me just say that is my belief that while a mother and father both equally impart important life lessons to a child (a boy in this case), a father has a particular role in teaching his son the value of accepting responsibility, honour, treating women properly, etc. Without that father teaching his son about these things (and enforcing them through example), the child grows up without a compass of masculinity. As a result, he seeks the acceptance he probably subconsciously wants from his father, so he will join a gang to get it. Women will be regarded as objects to be used, rather than people to love. Having a child would be considered a collateral event as a result of "hitting it" rather than a responsibility to be accepted.
Now, before you target me a closet racist (or even an overt racist), consider the following: I am really targeting my rant here towards young Black people. With older Black folks, it's a different ballgame. I have a deep respect for Black elders - if you look at Black folks who are 45+ years old, chances are you will see them married with kids, just like the rest of us. I guess I am talking about Black men here. In fact, one of the people on this earth I have the most respect for, is my former boss at work, who of all my bosses I have ever had, took care of my career and job development more than anyone else - he secured fantastic raises for me during the time I worked for him and he really looked out for my well being and best interest, career-wise, as well as peronal-wise. I actually will likely be leaving my company of 11 years and joining him within the next year, as a Network Manager at his establishment (he's the C.E.O., by the way). He also happens to be a born-again Christian, and a mature one at that. And this is one thing I really like about older Black people - there is a deep sense of spirituality that is very strong. I am not entirely sure where there is such a dichotomy between older Blacks and younger Blacks, but that's what I've noticed.
Now, I don't want to give the wrong impression here - a lot of Black folks are equally as concerned about this problem in the "community". I am on an Asian cultural discussion forum and one of the topics one day was why you seldom see Asian male, Black female couples. Most of the Asian males did not bother responding to the topic, so one of the gals there, who is extremely articulate and well spoken, answered the question - it's the stereotype of Black people out there - the stereotype of the Black man is well known, but Black women are portrayed in the media as loud-mouthed, opinionated, fat-assed, rude bit..., er...persons. Now, I can tell you that that is a total media construct, as I have met more than my fair share of Black women who do not fit that stereotype in the least, starting when I was in high school. In fact, before I met my wife, I went on a couple of casual walks (don't know if I'd consider them dates or not, probably not) with this girl I met at our school named Lorna (interestingly enough, she was from the same town/city my wife is from). She was a really kind-hearted girl. And she was Black. A number of my female friends in school in grade 12 were Black - from Guyana, etc.). I know several Black ladies nowadays who are kindest, loveliest friends that we have. I know the stereotype is not true. Besides, you see these Rosanne Barr and Rosie O'Donnell types and know that loud-mouthed obnoxious women are not unique to Blacks.
(I'M NOT FINISHED THIS POST YET - MORE TO COME)...
But back to Obama - I cringe everytime I hear this guy talk - I swear, he sounds like an enthusiastic snake oil salesman. Speaks in platitudes and generalities, and why not? His experience is sorely lacking - he needs to make up for it in the only way a politician can - by generating revolutionary sound bytes and catch-phrases in order to ignite the imagination of a political audience who is cynical, despondent, and perhaps even ambivalent towards anything political.
But...his recent comments regarding problems in the black community, particularly in the area of absentee fathers and broken homes for black children was quite a welcome breath of fresh air (on Father's Day, no doubt). I mean, this is nothing new - Bill Cosby has been preaching this for years, yet for whatever reason, it seems as if when bright, highly educated Black folks like Cosby or Obama (well, not sure how bright he is, but anyhow) point a finger at the Black community and pours criticism on them for problems that are seriously over-represented in that community, they usually end up having charges of reverse discrimination, being an "Uncle Tom", "race traitor" and such thrown at them. Obama has been receiving some criticism for his words. But you know, I think this is symptomatic of what he is saying - not taking responsibility for one's actions.
You know, in my younger years when I was haplessly idealistic, naively egalitarian, and would rather turn a blind eye to a problem for fear of offending people, I would never have agreed to such a statement as what Obama and Cosby are saying. Hey, it's not just them - look at those loudmouths Louis Farrakkan (sp.) and Jesse Jackson - they all had that Million Man March back in 1995 - wasn't that sort of saying the same thing?
Now, I know what you are thinking - I certainly cannot be painting all Black people with the same brush. Of course I'm not - I do personally have several Black friends who are in strong, committed marriages, who discipline their kids and raise them right, who don't cry racism at the drop of a hat. I am smart enough to know that I cannot simply paint one broad brush on the "Black community" - which, incidentally is a bit of a peculiar term, since those Black folks I know do not associate with any "Black community" - I wonder whether this is more of a media construct than anything else.
But back to the point - Obama is touching primarily on the issues of Black men who disappear after porking their latest Black female, and producing a child. Who of course, ends up growing up without a father, and despite what the liberal media will tell you about the virtues of a strong single mother, let's all cut the bullshit here, shall we? It has been statistically proven over and over again (not to mention this is just basic common sense) that children from single-parent homes are many times more likely to join a gang, father a child at a very young age, or get pregnant at a very young age, get in trouble with the law, drop out of school, and so forth.
What gets me are these Black people who seem to have blinders on who say that single-parent families are not exclusive to the Black race. That is technically true, but my goodness, how can anyone deny the fact that over 50% of Black kids in the U.S. and Canada are not raised in a home where there is a father and mother present? I can you tell this - there is no better confirmation of something I hear than to see it myself. Several weeks ago, my wife (yes, the only one that I have), my kids (yes, I had them with my wife) and I went to a kids' party establishment. For whatever reason, at either of the locations of this establishment that we have frequented, there is a pronounced number of Black kids there (don't know why, can't be bothered to figure it out). Anyhow, it was of no surprise for me to see that only about 35% of these kids came with a mother and father (whether they were married, I wasn't sure). Yet, 90% of the White kids there, around 90% of the East Indian kids, and 95% of the Asian kids had both fathers and mothers present (and the ones that didn't, you could see that the mothers had wedding bands on - yes, I notice these types of things, and no, I wasn't looking for a date).
Now, I work at the corner of a major intersection in Toronto (and by major, I mean major - like, both of these intersecting streets encompass the length and width of the city, if not ore). On one of the streets, about a 10 minute drive Westbound, you will find perhaps the most notorious intersection in Toronto for crime and such. Again, when I was young and stupid, I used to think that that intersection's crime rate was a figment of the press' imagination. I've been there during the day (just driving through, though I've since learned to take severe detours around that intersection - even if it costs me an extra 15 minutes to do so). Let me tell you what I have seen and heard there. 1) I have seen several gangs openly doing drug deals (yes, I know what a gang looks like and what drugs look like). 2) I have heard gunshots during the freaking day - yes, I know what a gunshot sounds like. 3) I have seen all manner of complete lack of respect - ie. two young punks were trying to beat the light in crossing the street and plowed over an old man - which they didn't even bother checking to see if he was OK - he was. 4) it was a harem of single motherhood. Oh, did I mention that everyone in that neighbourhood was Black?
I am sorry, but whatever you may hear about Asians, I can confirm that the rate of children being raised in two-parent homes (and I mean a mother and father, not that gay/lesbian shit that has been all over the press lately) is significantly higher. In fact, in the whole time growing up, I think I only know or one or two Asian families whose mother and father figures divorced. I'm sure it's slightly higher now, based on the poisonous North America anti-marriage culture, but I can bet every dollar in my bank account that it is still nowhere near the epidemic proportions of out-of-wedlock births and single-parent homes that just permeate in the Black community. I'm pretty sure my fellow Asians aren't lining up the jails and penitentiaries. I'm almost certain that a high majority of gun crime in Toronto is not perpetrated by Asians. Heck, I think I'd be comfortable in saying that White folks, who have experienced a high incidence of divorce as this sad scenario continues to rise statistically, are still by and large more likely to be in two-parent homes, as compared to Black folks.
Now, onto a topic that is a favourite of mine: guns. Let's be honest here - who commits most of the gun crimes in the U.S.? Despite the fact that millions of Whites have guns, it's not the Whites perpetrating the crimes (sure, you'll see the Columbines and what not where White people are "featured", but for every reported White crime with a gun, I guarantee there are many more unreported Black crimes with guns. But of course, it is not fashionable to paint Blacks in a negative light nowadays, so the generally left-leaning press tends to ignore it. I find it funny that these "Black leaders" are calling for gun bans and extreme gun control measures, yet the eventual targets of these proposed bans would be mostly law abiding White folks. Consider this as well - you see guys like 50 Cent who, on both his "Get Rich or Die Trying" and "The Massacre" albums - by the way, both albums are pretty good from a music perspective even though the lyrics aren't exactly the more family-oriented - both of these albums feature 50 Cent and his posse holding Tec-9s, 9mm handguns, some assault rifles, and so all, while they are all dressed up in gang regalia. You ever see a White person dressed like this holding all these weapons? We'd probably all laugh at it. But for Black rappers for the most part, this is commonplace - and in a sense, it is almost portrayed as cool, and kids (and adults) buy into this. I remember when I was a teenager, the big controversy was Ice-T's track, "F*ck The Police", which at the time generated great concern among a number of folks. These days, no one would bat an eyelash, as Blacks seem to almost be synonymous with gangs and drive-by shootings, etc. I mean, looking like a pimp is not only in fashion in the Black community, but exudes an air of street credibility, and life experience (forget the fact that the practice is not exactly legal or moral).
I happened to turn to a radio call-in show on the car ride home from work today, and they interviewed a Black guy from Africa on this. He says that this problem with Blacks is U.S. issue - it's not like that in Africa at all. Is he kidding me? Africa - the place where the largest incidence of A.I.D.S. occurs. No, it's not because African males are bonking monkeys, as urban legend would have it (at least not anymore). Fact of the matter is, in Africa, Blacks encounter the same thing - lots of fatherless children, and the A.I.D.S. virus is passed by men having several women partners (whether by a polygamous "relationship" or wild, heathenistic living. Don't believe me? My wife and I sponsor an adorable little girl in Africa (Rwanda, to be exact). Her father and mother are not married. Where is the father? In jail. Sounds familiar?
Last year, I hired a guy at work from Africa. Aside from the fact that he really didn't do his job properly and we ended letting him go, I got to know him as a person through the number of months he was with us. I found out that he had two kids - ah, that's great, I said. I asked him why they didn't come to Canada with him. He said they are with their mother. I said, "oh, you mean your wife?" He said, "I'm not married". Sound familiar?
I keep in touch with this 46-year-old lady from Alabama, to whom I sold some Michael J. Fox collectibles. She has given me great insight on the American South, and have confirmed some of what I had always thought about the South. She did tell me, interestingly enough, that racism is alive and well there. However, it is her opinion (she she says is echoed by many) that she would never date a Black man. And I mean never. She said where she lives, the Asians there are "hard working and treated like Whites". The Blacks, however, no matter how hard working, are still not regarded well. And I think we're starting to see a subtle backlash now. Growing up, my parents were of the mindset that "you marry your own kind", though they added the caveat that "if you do decide to marry of a different race, please let it be anyone other than Black." Now, I will be the first to admit that Asian have their own hangups and can be one of the more racist groups out there (though as a general rule, Asians never have the balls to actually tell someone else how they feel about their race - ie. Asian parents are not likely to confront their daughter's Black boyfriend and tell him to get lost, at least not explicitly. Anyway, I am mentioning this because I am still seeing this nowadays talking with parents who have teenage kids - there's still an "anyone but Black" mentality out there. But whereas before I was disgusted at this sentiment, now that I look at it objectively, based on my observations, would I be happy with my daughter dating a Black guy, knowing what I know about the rate of out-of-wedlock teenage pregnancies among Black women (or White women who obviously try to be Black)? Probably not. If you are shocked by this, think about what you would do in your situation.
Why is it like this? I am neither a sociologist or anthropologist, so I cannot be definitively sure, but I can say a few things. One, is that similar things beget similar things. It's not really all that different from the oft-mentioned notion that victims of physical or sexual abuse as children, tend to become perpetrators of the same once they become adults. After all, like it or not, we tend to be a product of our environment (and this doesn't even count my belief in the presence of sin as a key factor to why people are all born bad, in my opinion). So the Black child (a boy in particular) who grows up without a father generally does not have certain key elements of manhood passed down to him. What do I mean by this? Well, let me just say that is my belief that while a mother and father both equally impart important life lessons to a child (a boy in this case), a father has a particular role in teaching his son the value of accepting responsibility, honour, treating women properly, etc. Without that father teaching his son about these things (and enforcing them through example), the child grows up without a compass of masculinity. As a result, he seeks the acceptance he probably subconsciously wants from his father, so he will join a gang to get it. Women will be regarded as objects to be used, rather than people to love. Having a child would be considered a collateral event as a result of "hitting it" rather than a responsibility to be accepted.
Now, before you target me a closet racist (or even an overt racist), consider the following: I am really targeting my rant here towards young Black people. With older Black folks, it's a different ballgame. I have a deep respect for Black elders - if you look at Black folks who are 45+ years old, chances are you will see them married with kids, just like the rest of us. I guess I am talking about Black men here. In fact, one of the people on this earth I have the most respect for, is my former boss at work, who of all my bosses I have ever had, took care of my career and job development more than anyone else - he secured fantastic raises for me during the time I worked for him and he really looked out for my well being and best interest, career-wise, as well as peronal-wise. I actually will likely be leaving my company of 11 years and joining him within the next year, as a Network Manager at his establishment (he's the C.E.O., by the way). He also happens to be a born-again Christian, and a mature one at that. And this is one thing I really like about older Black people - there is a deep sense of spirituality that is very strong. I am not entirely sure where there is such a dichotomy between older Blacks and younger Blacks, but that's what I've noticed.
Now, I don't want to give the wrong impression here - a lot of Black folks are equally as concerned about this problem in the "community". I am on an Asian cultural discussion forum and one of the topics one day was why you seldom see Asian male, Black female couples. Most of the Asian males did not bother responding to the topic, so one of the gals there, who is extremely articulate and well spoken, answered the question - it's the stereotype of Black people out there - the stereotype of the Black man is well known, but Black women are portrayed in the media as loud-mouthed, opinionated, fat-assed, rude bit..., er...persons. Now, I can tell you that that is a total media construct, as I have met more than my fair share of Black women who do not fit that stereotype in the least, starting when I was in high school. In fact, before I met my wife, I went on a couple of casual walks (don't know if I'd consider them dates or not, probably not) with this girl I met at our school named Lorna (interestingly enough, she was from the same town/city my wife is from). She was a really kind-hearted girl. And she was Black. A number of my female friends in school in grade 12 were Black - from Guyana, etc.). I know several Black ladies nowadays who are kindest, loveliest friends that we have. I know the stereotype is not true. Besides, you see these Rosanne Barr and Rosie O'Donnell types and know that loud-mouthed obnoxious women are not unique to Blacks.
(I'M NOT FINISHED THIS POST YET - MORE TO COME)...
Friday, January 25, 2008
Rape Is About Sex, Not Power
Haven't had that much time to write blog entries this year - between my wife being 8+ months pregnant and having to work like a dog, logging lots of overtime hours this year, I've been too tired to do anything, even writing and target shooting, both of which I thoroughly enjoy. However, I have a few minutes tonight and have been itching to discuss an issue that has been on my mind, the catalyst of my wanting to examine this issue coming recently in my inadvertent eavesdropping on a conversation while in line at the supermarket.
There are some things in life which over time, you have simply come to believe, whether it is through societal pressure, social conditioning, hearing what at first appears to be a well thought out argument, or simply for the reason that you didn't think it was worthwhile to ponder the other side of the coin. There are not a lot of positions for which I have flip-flopped (and especially more than once), but this is one of them, and I am now back to my original position, that I held more than 25 years ago.
Unfortunately, I learned the tragic meaning of the word "rape" when I was in grade two or so. Of course, it was from fellow students, who probably had no clue what they were talking about, but somehow heard it from their parents or others who probably should have exercised a bit more conversational discretion. Anyhow, I thought it was pretty disturbing that someone (a man) would force themselves sexually onto someone else (a woman). I remember that I was both confused and saddened. Nowadays, the word "rape" has been softened tremendously, with the hyperbolic and vague term "sexual assault", which can mean anything from lightly patting a woman's bottom to full forced intercourse. The word "rape" is almost never heard anymore, especially in media. I am not a sociologist, but as a guy with a half-functioning brain, I can offer some guesses as to why this is, the foremost of the reasons being the constant bantering of feminists over the years that rape (and I will use the word here, not for dramatic effect, but to ensure that the disturbing nature of this act is prominent in your minds) is not about sex, but about power (have a look at those who espouse this argument - they are almost always women, and more than often women with a clear ultra-left, pro-choice, feminist bent. Now, I will confess that for a good many years, about two decades or so, I found that explanation plausible, even during my late twenties, when I made a sharp return to my conventional conservative belief system that I have always had.
I don't have a whole lot that I agree with as far as the Roman Catholic church goes, but I certainly can say that they position on the cause of rape is dead-on. They posit that rape is as a result of lust, and if I can take that further and offer my position on this, I would contend that rape is in fact about sex, and not power.
I can hear the collective hearts of the feminists out there now, beating faster with every word I say here, with clenched teeth and matching fists, shaking their heads in disbelief that I would argue against their conventional wisdom. But you know, I have had some time to think about this and I can no longer find enough substance in their argument for me to subscribe to their position.
Again, I'm not sociologist or criminal pathologist, so while I cannot cite studies for you (all of which can be skewed and biased anyway) or line up a row of expert witnesses, I can say that a belief that rape is about sex and not power makes much more sense for the following reasons.
1) Look at the typical profile of a rapist. Generally lacks social skills and interaction. It's been shown that they have had copious amounts of exposure to pornography (which is about sex, not TV). As a former porn dealer, I can see where that line between fantasy and forcefully acting out what you see in porn can be crossed, though thankfully I've never crossed it. These perpetrators are usually not only social misfits, but have also not had any meaningful sexual relationships. Rapists are usually not married men. So these guys are likely not getting sex from anywhere and with almost all men, they eventually need a sexual outlet somehow (and habitual masturbation is unlikely to meet their needs). Combine that with a lack of social skills and interaction and add in a steady diet of porn, and you have a sex offender in waiting.
2) It eliminates any potential stimuli that may have emanated from the victim. Yes, this is a touchy point, but I want to reiterate that regardless of any sexual stimulus that may be present from a female wearing provocative clothing, it still does not warrant her being violated by an attacker. However, I absolutely will not subscribe to the notion that a woman who wears shorts so short that it looks like underwear, will not attract attention from men. A generally attractive woman wearing a tight halter top on a hot summer day will garner attention from men, and especially men who envision that a woman like that is one who is inviting sexual advances (wanted or not) - hell, that's what it's like in porn, so it must be true, right??? Anyhow, if you say that provocative or revealing clothing has anything to do with it, then it lends some credence to the sexualization argument, but of course, feminists would prefer to argue from a power/lack of power position as it is seems more socially explainable, textbook-wise.
3) If rape is about power, why is it that sex is always used? Those who disagree with me will argue that sex is only a tool, a means by which the ends are met. But you have to ask yourself. If you wanted to overpower and dominate someone, why choose sex? Why not just punch the living crap out of someone? Why not verbally and emotionally humiliate? It could be argued that forcing yourself on someone dominates them and achieves all the above objectives, but if this is the case, why is it that rapists almost always ejaculate? Isn't it enough to simply humiliate the victim sexually? Why do these rapists feel they must "finish"? I believe it is because their objective is not to humiliate and overpower their victim, but instead, find someone on whom they can fulfill their sick fantasies and desires. They basically have a selfish desire for sex and have decided that they must have it, even if it is at the expense of another human being. That is why you see senior citizens and children being raped - both of these groups are vulnerable and conversely are already on the lower end of the power scale. It is not about power - it is about easy access to fulfil the perpetrator's twisted desires. Another case in point - you see gang rapes in prisons among all-male populations. OK, in that case, there is another element in play - homoxexuality, but why are these generally heterosexual guys resorting to forcing homosexual sex on clearly weaker members of the population? Nothing to do with power. Everything to do with their need for sex. I don't like comparing humans to animals and very seldom draw comparisons, but you can look at it from the perspective of animals attacking weaker animals (and I don't think my comparison is too far off, since these criminals are pretty much animals). It is not because they want to exercise their power. It is almost always because they are hungry and need to fulfil their insatiable need for food. They happen to attack a weaker animal because they know that they are more likely to succeed in getting what they want.
Now, all this being said, I will be quick to add that I am not saying that sex crimes (notice from a legal and criminal perspective, these acts are called "sex crimes" and even the term sexual assault is not neutral, as it is indicative of a sexual aspect, so that can hardly be discarded) are devoid of elements of a power struggle or any aspects of domination. Similarly, I am not denying that these perpetrators have a warped, if not incomprehensible view of women and how they relate to women. I am simply arguing that I don't believe that in the minds of the attackers, that wanting to overpower their victim is their primary motivator. Overpowering is a means to end end, which is their forcing someone to meet their own selfish sexual needs. That, in my view, is the catalyst behind all rapes. It would certainly be interesting to read transcripts of interviews with convicted rapists (on their own volition - not controlled interviews by feminist psychologists asking leading questions) to see whether my hypothesis has any merit. I strongly suspect that I am not too far off here in my statements.
There are some things in life which over time, you have simply come to believe, whether it is through societal pressure, social conditioning, hearing what at first appears to be a well thought out argument, or simply for the reason that you didn't think it was worthwhile to ponder the other side of the coin. There are not a lot of positions for which I have flip-flopped (and especially more than once), but this is one of them, and I am now back to my original position, that I held more than 25 years ago.
Unfortunately, I learned the tragic meaning of the word "rape" when I was in grade two or so. Of course, it was from fellow students, who probably had no clue what they were talking about, but somehow heard it from their parents or others who probably should have exercised a bit more conversational discretion. Anyhow, I thought it was pretty disturbing that someone (a man) would force themselves sexually onto someone else (a woman). I remember that I was both confused and saddened. Nowadays, the word "rape" has been softened tremendously, with the hyperbolic and vague term "sexual assault", which can mean anything from lightly patting a woman's bottom to full forced intercourse. The word "rape" is almost never heard anymore, especially in media. I am not a sociologist, but as a guy with a half-functioning brain, I can offer some guesses as to why this is, the foremost of the reasons being the constant bantering of feminists over the years that rape (and I will use the word here, not for dramatic effect, but to ensure that the disturbing nature of this act is prominent in your minds) is not about sex, but about power (have a look at those who espouse this argument - they are almost always women, and more than often women with a clear ultra-left, pro-choice, feminist bent. Now, I will confess that for a good many years, about two decades or so, I found that explanation plausible, even during my late twenties, when I made a sharp return to my conventional conservative belief system that I have always had.
I don't have a whole lot that I agree with as far as the Roman Catholic church goes, but I certainly can say that they position on the cause of rape is dead-on. They posit that rape is as a result of lust, and if I can take that further and offer my position on this, I would contend that rape is in fact about sex, and not power.
I can hear the collective hearts of the feminists out there now, beating faster with every word I say here, with clenched teeth and matching fists, shaking their heads in disbelief that I would argue against their conventional wisdom. But you know, I have had some time to think about this and I can no longer find enough substance in their argument for me to subscribe to their position.
Again, I'm not sociologist or criminal pathologist, so while I cannot cite studies for you (all of which can be skewed and biased anyway) or line up a row of expert witnesses, I can say that a belief that rape is about sex and not power makes much more sense for the following reasons.
1) Look at the typical profile of a rapist. Generally lacks social skills and interaction. It's been shown that they have had copious amounts of exposure to pornography (which is about sex, not TV). As a former porn dealer, I can see where that line between fantasy and forcefully acting out what you see in porn can be crossed, though thankfully I've never crossed it. These perpetrators are usually not only social misfits, but have also not had any meaningful sexual relationships. Rapists are usually not married men. So these guys are likely not getting sex from anywhere and with almost all men, they eventually need a sexual outlet somehow (and habitual masturbation is unlikely to meet their needs). Combine that with a lack of social skills and interaction and add in a steady diet of porn, and you have a sex offender in waiting.
2) It eliminates any potential stimuli that may have emanated from the victim. Yes, this is a touchy point, but I want to reiterate that regardless of any sexual stimulus that may be present from a female wearing provocative clothing, it still does not warrant her being violated by an attacker. However, I absolutely will not subscribe to the notion that a woman who wears shorts so short that it looks like underwear, will not attract attention from men. A generally attractive woman wearing a tight halter top on a hot summer day will garner attention from men, and especially men who envision that a woman like that is one who is inviting sexual advances (wanted or not) - hell, that's what it's like in porn, so it must be true, right??? Anyhow, if you say that provocative or revealing clothing has anything to do with it, then it lends some credence to the sexualization argument, but of course, feminists would prefer to argue from a power/lack of power position as it is seems more socially explainable, textbook-wise.
3) If rape is about power, why is it that sex is always used? Those who disagree with me will argue that sex is only a tool, a means by which the ends are met. But you have to ask yourself. If you wanted to overpower and dominate someone, why choose sex? Why not just punch the living crap out of someone? Why not verbally and emotionally humiliate? It could be argued that forcing yourself on someone dominates them and achieves all the above objectives, but if this is the case, why is it that rapists almost always ejaculate? Isn't it enough to simply humiliate the victim sexually? Why do these rapists feel they must "finish"? I believe it is because their objective is not to humiliate and overpower their victim, but instead, find someone on whom they can fulfill their sick fantasies and desires. They basically have a selfish desire for sex and have decided that they must have it, even if it is at the expense of another human being. That is why you see senior citizens and children being raped - both of these groups are vulnerable and conversely are already on the lower end of the power scale. It is not about power - it is about easy access to fulfil the perpetrator's twisted desires. Another case in point - you see gang rapes in prisons among all-male populations. OK, in that case, there is another element in play - homoxexuality, but why are these generally heterosexual guys resorting to forcing homosexual sex on clearly weaker members of the population? Nothing to do with power. Everything to do with their need for sex. I don't like comparing humans to animals and very seldom draw comparisons, but you can look at it from the perspective of animals attacking weaker animals (and I don't think my comparison is too far off, since these criminals are pretty much animals). It is not because they want to exercise their power. It is almost always because they are hungry and need to fulfil their insatiable need for food. They happen to attack a weaker animal because they know that they are more likely to succeed in getting what they want.
Now, all this being said, I will be quick to add that I am not saying that sex crimes (notice from a legal and criminal perspective, these acts are called "sex crimes" and even the term sexual assault is not neutral, as it is indicative of a sexual aspect, so that can hardly be discarded) are devoid of elements of a power struggle or any aspects of domination. Similarly, I am not denying that these perpetrators have a warped, if not incomprehensible view of women and how they relate to women. I am simply arguing that I don't believe that in the minds of the attackers, that wanting to overpower their victim is their primary motivator. Overpowering is a means to end end, which is their forcing someone to meet their own selfish sexual needs. That, in my view, is the catalyst behind all rapes. It would certainly be interesting to read transcripts of interviews with convicted rapists (on their own volition - not controlled interviews by feminist psychologists asking leading questions) to see whether my hypothesis has any merit. I strongly suspect that I am not too far off here in my statements.
Monday, December 10, 2007
Right to Bear Arms
I've talked with a number of people in the past year or so about the whole topic of the right to bear arms, as embedded in the U.S. constitution. This is something that is not entrenched in the Canadian constitution (Charter of Rights and Freedoms), but to all the anti-gun naysayers, out there, a recent tragic example shows why this is so needed for our U.S. neighbours, and dare I say it, in Canada as well.
You may have read about the tragic shootings at the missionary center as well as a megachurch in Colorado yesterday. The story seems to be evolving to detail a disgruntled former adherent or member who decided to take out his frustration on others, killing innocent lives in the process. Now, I know what you may say - if they had banned guns, no one would be hurt. But let's live in reality here - to say that banning guns will create an atmosphere of non-violent behaviour and curb people killing one another is like saying that prohibition in the 1920s curbed the distribution, consumption, and trade of alcohol. Quite the opposite, history will tell us.
What ended up happening yesterday was a female member of the church, who happened to have been armed (yes, it does seem kind of weird that someone would go to church armed, but I digress), confronted the gunman, and eventually shot and killed him. Could you imagine what would have happened had she not had a weapon at her disposal? It is almost guaranteed that there would have been many more deaths at the hands of this twisted psycho. Look at the Virginia Tech massacre - a supposedly gun-free zone, and the carnage inflicted on there. You would have to be dumb to not reflect on how different things would have turned out had students and teachers been able to carry firearms to defend oneself.
I will agree, people carrying firearms is not the ideal solution for discouraging gun violence. But it is better than nothing. Passing more restrictive gun laws will only cause those who abide by them to be hand-cuffed - it will do nothing to prevent criminals from stealing or smuggling guns, and it certainly will not change the climate in some segments of society, which seem to place a lesser premium on the value of life. In those cases, the key is to provide a positive home environment which is not condusive to the child and young adult being left by themselves and feeling alienated and bored. The key to reducing violent behaviour, in my view, is for children to grow up in loving, stable families, not this single-parent stuff which is so prevalent. Kids from these types of environments are more likely to join similar kids and form gangs and use guns as a show of manhood and intimidation, rather than as a tool for protection, hunting for food, or sport enjoyment. But of course, we don't live in such an environment, and as much as we would like to see it change, societal trends show that this is unlikely to happen. So now you have people on the street who are angry with the world (as is often the case with these mass murder shooters), feel betrayed, feel knocked down and the only way for them to deal with this anger is to grab a gun and start shooting people. The gun is the the problem. Violent behaviour and a violent culture is. As long as that permeates throughout our society, people have a right to not be intimidated by those who obviously want to wreak havoc on their lives - people have a right to live their lives and not be subject to, or have their lives threatened by these increassingly angry, mentally unstable individuals who happen to have access to a firearm with ill intentions.
You may have read about the tragic shootings at the missionary center as well as a megachurch in Colorado yesterday. The story seems to be evolving to detail a disgruntled former adherent or member who decided to take out his frustration on others, killing innocent lives in the process. Now, I know what you may say - if they had banned guns, no one would be hurt. But let's live in reality here - to say that banning guns will create an atmosphere of non-violent behaviour and curb people killing one another is like saying that prohibition in the 1920s curbed the distribution, consumption, and trade of alcohol. Quite the opposite, history will tell us.
What ended up happening yesterday was a female member of the church, who happened to have been armed (yes, it does seem kind of weird that someone would go to church armed, but I digress), confronted the gunman, and eventually shot and killed him. Could you imagine what would have happened had she not had a weapon at her disposal? It is almost guaranteed that there would have been many more deaths at the hands of this twisted psycho. Look at the Virginia Tech massacre - a supposedly gun-free zone, and the carnage inflicted on there. You would have to be dumb to not reflect on how different things would have turned out had students and teachers been able to carry firearms to defend oneself.
I will agree, people carrying firearms is not the ideal solution for discouraging gun violence. But it is better than nothing. Passing more restrictive gun laws will only cause those who abide by them to be hand-cuffed - it will do nothing to prevent criminals from stealing or smuggling guns, and it certainly will not change the climate in some segments of society, which seem to place a lesser premium on the value of life. In those cases, the key is to provide a positive home environment which is not condusive to the child and young adult being left by themselves and feeling alienated and bored. The key to reducing violent behaviour, in my view, is for children to grow up in loving, stable families, not this single-parent stuff which is so prevalent. Kids from these types of environments are more likely to join similar kids and form gangs and use guns as a show of manhood and intimidation, rather than as a tool for protection, hunting for food, or sport enjoyment. But of course, we don't live in such an environment, and as much as we would like to see it change, societal trends show that this is unlikely to happen. So now you have people on the street who are angry with the world (as is often the case with these mass murder shooters), feel betrayed, feel knocked down and the only way for them to deal with this anger is to grab a gun and start shooting people. The gun is the the problem. Violent behaviour and a violent culture is. As long as that permeates throughout our society, people have a right to not be intimidated by those who obviously want to wreak havoc on their lives - people have a right to live their lives and not be subject to, or have their lives threatened by these increassingly angry, mentally unstable individuals who happen to have access to a firearm with ill intentions.
Thursday, June 21, 2007
Why I Believe in Capital Punishment
It's been said that capital punishment or state-sanctioned executions are barbaric and it is a shame that countries like the United States still have provisions in many of its States for the use of executions for crimes such as capital murder. This has cropped up in the last year or so with headlines which talk about lethal injections which have gone awry to other "botched executions". While I'm sure you have your opinions, I certainly have mine, and to summarize, I think that society in general (especially the more liberal-leaning segments as of late) put the wrong focus on things. Unfortunately, beyond-a-shadow-of-a-doubt-found-guilty criminals seem to be a social experiment with the softer segment of our society who somehow believe evil can be rehabilitated. Worse are those who choose to use the Bible to tout the fact that everyone should be given a second chance. While spiritually this is true, and I suppose practically it may be true as well, the fact of the matter is, consequences have actions. This is clearly seen in Scripture with those who choose certain paths reap the consequences of those paths. The cause and effect relationship is quite prevalent here. The thief on the cross may have believed in Christ on his death-bed, but he wasn't spared the punishment for his crime. Despite David being a crucial person in the lineage of Christ, David was still human and David sinned with Bathsheba, and there were tragic consequences as a result. Repentance may make things right with God, but God still allows you to face the result of your actions. There are a number of proverbs which deal with cause and effect. And the old adage "you play with fire, you get burned" is quite accurate.
So, this takes us to the issue of those who have been found by a court of law to be guilty of murder, child rape, etc. Yes, I know, I know, it has been shown (especially in Canada) some cases where people were incarcerated for decades, only to be found innocent later. And society does tend to find people guilty when charged, rather than presume their innocence until proven otherwise. But I'd say that there is less on the line in Canada, since it's not someone living or dying that we're talking about - they just lock them up for "life" (and "life" in Canada is considered about 25 years) , unless you're talking about a case like Paul Bernardo (if you haven't heard of him, look him up on the internet - he was found guilty of truly heinous crimes - and there is videotape proof of his crimes, which thankfully has since been destroyed or locked up somewhere). Bernardo has shown a pattern and tendency to be a predator - I don't believe that he will ever change. Someone is not right in his head. Even if it was psychological, does that make it right that we should just lock him up and pay for his food and such? My, what nice treatment he gets, even if he is confined to a 6 x 8 cell for 23.5 out of 24.0 hours per day, in isolation in Kingston Pen. Too bad his victims, Leslie Mahaffy and Kristen French, both teenagers, were not afforded the same courtesy. And his ex-wife's sister (also a teen) was not given the same basic minimum human treatment. I say, let's fry Paul Bernardo's ass now.
I've also heard the argument that "what if someone is executed who is innocent?" Has that happened in the U.S., the current world champion of capital punishment? Not to my knowledge. And...the case that was closest to this occurring (in Virginia, I think)...after the guy was executed (and he swore up and down that he was innocent right up until the point he was lethally injected or electrocuted, or whatever they did to him), forensic DNA researchers confirmed that yes, he was guilty. This was, of course, after tons of left-leaning organizations petitioned for the commuting of his sentence.
How many more convicted criminals (we're talking murders and rapists here) were released after serving time, only to reoffend? I'm telling you, there is no rehabilitation for these people. You can cut their nuts off, chop their arms off, yank out their legs by their feet, but their hearts will still be wicked, and they'll think of some other way to hurt someone. Now, I know what you will tell me - Jesus can save these people. Absolutely he can. But just like the reckless person who was promiscuous before accepting Christ, and had previously contracted HIV, faith in Christ will not change what consequences you bring forth. The Bible says you sow what you reap. How true is that? Years ago, shortly before I was married, I followed a case on the news of a lady in Texas (I think) - Tanya Faye Tucker, or something like that - she was a convicted murderer, and she gave her life to Christ. While I don't know her heart, I have seen her in interviews and there is something about her which I believe shows a genuine conversion and newfound faith in the Lord. But guess what - they executed her anyway, and in talking with my Christian friends at the time, they were horrified that I thought that the State made the right decision. Recently, there was a guy in Tennessee, I think, who killed a cop back in the early 80s when he was young and stupid. He also became saved, and his life was changed and lots of people attested to this (this was the guy who for his last meal, wanted pizzas delivered to other inmates in other jails). He also was executed. I support that execution, since, as a believer, he is not beyond the laws of the land.
The only executions that I would support is for criminals found guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt in cases of murder or child rape. I would not support, for instance, what Saudi Arabia has as its criteria for executions, or recently in Iran, where you can be put to death for possession of pornography. I think essentially, for me, it comes down to the old eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth scenario, so my philosophy is life for a life. You murder someone in cold blood - off to the gallows with you - I don't care how you try to justify it. The vast majority of people in this world do not commit murder in their lifetime. You victimize a child sexually - off to the gas chamber with you - I don't care how abused you were as a child or how you cannot control yourself. You, my friend, are, as they say, SOL.
Cruel and unusual punishment during executions - botched executions, etc: Well, this is a tougher one. I agree with humane executions - at one point, I favoured letting a death row inmate incur the wrath of the family of the victim (so if they choose to shoot you like you shot their family member, that was fine with me...or strangulation or whatever else). But that just breeds a sense of vengeance, and vengeance is probably not a good reason for the state to execute someone. Executions should be done simply because it is just, and that there are dire consequences for crimes like first degree murder. Still, does it matter if they can't find the vein or if the prisoner suffers somewhat? They'll be dead in a short time anyway, so who cares? Again, they didn't afford any courtesy to their victims, so there ya go.
Other stuff: For those who make the deterrent argument, that it is not a deterrent. I haven't drawn firm conclusions to this point as of yet, but I will say that I believe the "executions are not a deterrent argument" to be a red herring, since I suspect that those who argue against capital punishment would still do so if there was conclusive proof that it was a deterrent, and that more lives can be spared. Similarly, the same people that play the race card, saying that there is a disproportionate amount of crime committed by poor black men is, are, I suspect, putting on a smokescreen, since they would still be against the death penalty if it was 100% white men on death row. Anyway, I am not sure whether there are any deterrent effects in capital punishment, but it doesn't play into my arguments anyway. I am undecided on this point only because I know from experience that severe fines and so forth do have a deterrent effect (ie. speeding tickets, etc.); however, the U.S. has had capital punishment for a while now, and they seem to be as homicidal of a country as ever - but then again, they have a much larger populace than most countries and also have a large number of poor people. But again, deterrence has never been part of my argument, so there's no point in working out my thoughts here on the subject.
This argument can go on forever...but there's my 2 cents.
So, this takes us to the issue of those who have been found by a court of law to be guilty of murder, child rape, etc. Yes, I know, I know, it has been shown (especially in Canada) some cases where people were incarcerated for decades, only to be found innocent later. And society does tend to find people guilty when charged, rather than presume their innocence until proven otherwise. But I'd say that there is less on the line in Canada, since it's not someone living or dying that we're talking about - they just lock them up for "life" (and "life" in Canada is considered about 25 years) , unless you're talking about a case like Paul Bernardo (if you haven't heard of him, look him up on the internet - he was found guilty of truly heinous crimes - and there is videotape proof of his crimes, which thankfully has since been destroyed or locked up somewhere). Bernardo has shown a pattern and tendency to be a predator - I don't believe that he will ever change. Someone is not right in his head. Even if it was psychological, does that make it right that we should just lock him up and pay for his food and such? My, what nice treatment he gets, even if he is confined to a 6 x 8 cell for 23.5 out of 24.0 hours per day, in isolation in Kingston Pen. Too bad his victims, Leslie Mahaffy and Kristen French, both teenagers, were not afforded the same courtesy. And his ex-wife's sister (also a teen) was not given the same basic minimum human treatment. I say, let's fry Paul Bernardo's ass now.
I've also heard the argument that "what if someone is executed who is innocent?" Has that happened in the U.S., the current world champion of capital punishment? Not to my knowledge. And...the case that was closest to this occurring (in Virginia, I think)...after the guy was executed (and he swore up and down that he was innocent right up until the point he was lethally injected or electrocuted, or whatever they did to him), forensic DNA researchers confirmed that yes, he was guilty. This was, of course, after tons of left-leaning organizations petitioned for the commuting of his sentence.
How many more convicted criminals (we're talking murders and rapists here) were released after serving time, only to reoffend? I'm telling you, there is no rehabilitation for these people. You can cut their nuts off, chop their arms off, yank out their legs by their feet, but their hearts will still be wicked, and they'll think of some other way to hurt someone. Now, I know what you will tell me - Jesus can save these people. Absolutely he can. But just like the reckless person who was promiscuous before accepting Christ, and had previously contracted HIV, faith in Christ will not change what consequences you bring forth. The Bible says you sow what you reap. How true is that? Years ago, shortly before I was married, I followed a case on the news of a lady in Texas (I think) - Tanya Faye Tucker, or something like that - she was a convicted murderer, and she gave her life to Christ. While I don't know her heart, I have seen her in interviews and there is something about her which I believe shows a genuine conversion and newfound faith in the Lord. But guess what - they executed her anyway, and in talking with my Christian friends at the time, they were horrified that I thought that the State made the right decision. Recently, there was a guy in Tennessee, I think, who killed a cop back in the early 80s when he was young and stupid. He also became saved, and his life was changed and lots of people attested to this (this was the guy who for his last meal, wanted pizzas delivered to other inmates in other jails). He also was executed. I support that execution, since, as a believer, he is not beyond the laws of the land.
The only executions that I would support is for criminals found guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt in cases of murder or child rape. I would not support, for instance, what Saudi Arabia has as its criteria for executions, or recently in Iran, where you can be put to death for possession of pornography. I think essentially, for me, it comes down to the old eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth scenario, so my philosophy is life for a life. You murder someone in cold blood - off to the gallows with you - I don't care how you try to justify it. The vast majority of people in this world do not commit murder in their lifetime. You victimize a child sexually - off to the gas chamber with you - I don't care how abused you were as a child or how you cannot control yourself. You, my friend, are, as they say, SOL.
Cruel and unusual punishment during executions - botched executions, etc: Well, this is a tougher one. I agree with humane executions - at one point, I favoured letting a death row inmate incur the wrath of the family of the victim (so if they choose to shoot you like you shot their family member, that was fine with me...or strangulation or whatever else). But that just breeds a sense of vengeance, and vengeance is probably not a good reason for the state to execute someone. Executions should be done simply because it is just, and that there are dire consequences for crimes like first degree murder. Still, does it matter if they can't find the vein or if the prisoner suffers somewhat? They'll be dead in a short time anyway, so who cares? Again, they didn't afford any courtesy to their victims, so there ya go.
Other stuff: For those who make the deterrent argument, that it is not a deterrent. I haven't drawn firm conclusions to this point as of yet, but I will say that I believe the "executions are not a deterrent argument" to be a red herring, since I suspect that those who argue against capital punishment would still do so if there was conclusive proof that it was a deterrent, and that more lives can be spared. Similarly, the same people that play the race card, saying that there is a disproportionate amount of crime committed by poor black men is, are, I suspect, putting on a smokescreen, since they would still be against the death penalty if it was 100% white men on death row. Anyway, I am not sure whether there are any deterrent effects in capital punishment, but it doesn't play into my arguments anyway. I am undecided on this point only because I know from experience that severe fines and so forth do have a deterrent effect (ie. speeding tickets, etc.); however, the U.S. has had capital punishment for a while now, and they seem to be as homicidal of a country as ever - but then again, they have a much larger populace than most countries and also have a large number of poor people. But again, deterrence has never been part of my argument, so there's no point in working out my thoughts here on the subject.
This argument can go on forever...but there's my 2 cents.
Thursday, May 24, 2007
Guns Are Not The Problem with Violent Crime
Yesterday, Toronto experienced its first inside-a-school shooting fatality of a student. The initial reports are that it was caused by some fireworks that went awry and hit one of the students, and as a result, the hit student chased down the other student and shot him to death on school premises.
Toronto's left-wing mayor, David Miller, got on the airwaves and re-iterated the need to ban handguns, as a way to curb violent crime.
Unfortunately, such pat answers to deep stemming societal problems may sound good to liberal voters who are looking for someone or something to blame, but unfortunately, that is not the root of the problem.
Miller says that guns are only made to kill people. That is incorrect. Guns are used for shooting in biathlons in the Olympics. There is a large contingent of law-abiding sport shooters out there, who would never even accidentally point it at a person. These people have gone through the legal process to procure a gun, be trained on how to use it (and its associated safety features) and take steps to make sure that it does not fall into the wrong hands. And guess what, it is not the legal, law abiding gun owners who are the problem. Guns have been around for years, and gun crime has not been at the forefront of our news until maybe the last decade or so.
Here's the problem as I see it, and I will be quite candid here. Look at where the locations most of the shootings take place. With very few exceptions, it tends to be in the rougher areas of town, in the ghettos, in the housing projects, in the poorer areas of town. Case in point? The area in which this school shooting happened yesterday is very near the Jane/Finch intersection, known for its lower income, higher incidence of single mothers, and higher crime rates. You can't debate me on this one - there are copious police statistics that show this. I certainly don't blame the victim for what happened to him, but let's have a closer look here. The victim in yesterday's shooting was reported in the papers today, as having "gotten in trouble" in the past, despite some of his schoolmates who also report that he was a fun kid (of course, people will try to put a positive spin on people - ever notice no one ever says "yeah, that guy was a gangster, mistreated everyone - glad he's dead". From the indications in the paper, he was from a home with a single mom. Which obviously means there is no Dad in the house, no father figure, no male parent able to steer him in the right direction. What was this kid doing, setting off fireworks during the school day at an off-limits construction site?
I am willing to bet one month's salary - yours, not mine, that the unknown shooter came from a similar family - no Dad in the house, mother who works her butt off at a job to provide for her and her child(ren) - which by the way, is very respectable, though it should really be the deadbeat dad who should not have walked out on the family and instead provide for his kids. The shooter has probably had a history of being in trouble, and is probably not a straight-A student.
Part of the problem is poverty. Don't believe me? Look at the tony parts of your city and try to correlate how much crime happens in those parts based on reports, the news, etc. Now look at your poorer areas of the city and correlate how much crime happens there. I am willing to bet that the poorer areas experience more crime? Why? Usually single moms who work, the kids have nowhere to go, no Dad to hang out with, so they establish themselves with a crowd (often not a great one, whose members all come from similar families). They get into trouble, resolve conflict with violence, end up in trouble with the law. Drop out of school. Never really get a job - hang out with others who are in the same boat. Have way too much time on their hands. Commits more crimes. Gets some girl pregnant - takes off on the girl and doesn't have the balls to take responsibility. Cycle repeats.
Now, what's this have to do with guns? These people get their guns (in almost all cases illegally through theft or smuggling) and now they feel like a big man, just like the gangsters in the rap videos in the movies. They have someone piss them off. Clap! Clap! Clap! Take that, punk. Ghetto justice 101.
The other part of the problem is society's general predisposition to violence, and I don't mean just guns on TV and movies and video games. Cowboy and Western movies, Rambo, Terminator and such have been around forever. The 80s was not an era of major gun crime. I should know, because I went to elementary and high shool in the 80s and no one had a gun that I was aware of. I seldom heard of school shootings - actually, I can't recall one. You just didn't get a gun and take it to school those days - you punched each other out after school to solve problems - never was a gun used. Not to say that punching each other out is a great way to resolve conflict, but at least people did not even consider using a firearm.
Part of the problem is media-caused. Look at the willingness to show barbaric videos on TV, like the dead bodies of Saddam Hussein's sons. Hell, the video of the execution of Saddam was in high demand - why? This just de-sensitizes people. There seems to be a fascination on lethal injection lately. Why does the media need to discuss this? Look at the Virginia Tech shootings - all the fascination was on the shooter, his background - they even aired the video where he is ranting like crazy? Why give this the time of day? When al queda or some other terrorist groups beheaded captives and recorded it all by video feed, demand to see this on the internet was high. Why? The September 11 tragedy - planes into the World Trade Centre being played out over and over again on TV - this was an act of violence - why did the media feel it was necessary to run this over and over again, under the guise of some journalistic venture?
Guns are not the problem. The September 11 terrorists used planes to strike their violence and fear. Should we ban planes? Should we ban farm fertilizer and Ryder trucks just because Timothy McVeigh used both on the Oklahoma City bombings in 1995? Should you ban any kind of knife, since fatal stabbings seem to abound in this day and age? How about ropes of all kind, since people have used that to strangle others. Should you ban the car, as people use it as a weapon for road rage? OK, so the argumement may go that knives and ropes and cow crap and moving trucks serve a primary purpose and people use these items in a tertiary purpose when committing crimes, whereas guns are only made to kill. My issue with this argument is that if you ban guns overall in society, criminals will still be able to get them (just like when they banned alcohol during Prohibition) illegally. Now the law-abiding citizens have no way to defend themselves if needed. Law abiding gun owners can't hunt for food. Law abiding gun owners cannot participate in shooting sports. Banning guns will also give the people who have a pre-disposition to violence another way to kill their victims. Banning guns is not the solution.
The solution is tackling the issue of poverty, anger in particularly young men, the lack of focus on people's mental health, and the media's constant barrage of scenes of violence. Do I think that Hollywood should absorb any of the blame for its music and movies? Absolutely. You leave an impressionable young kid that the only way to fix a problem is to use a gun. The gun is not the problem - showing people on TV and movies and in videos shooting each other senselessly is the problem (this came out abundantly clear when my wife and I, back in 1992-1993 went to see Natural Born Killers in the theatre. It was the first movie I have ever walked out of in disgust - the wanton and senseless violence in that movie was unbelieveable. Not forcing young men to take responsibility for the girls that they impregnate and the subsequent child that is born is the problem. The fact that sleeping around seems to be fashionable in the media is the problem, as that does not teach cause and effect (and the value of people and relationships, especially committed ones like marriage).
Having teachers who are forced by school boards to sit on their hands, and not be allowed to properly discipline a child in his/her care is a problem. As a result of that, the kids don't respect teachers, since they have never developed a healthy fear of authority. If my son ever shows me disrespect, he will get five hard whacks across his ass, no questions asked. If parents weren't so afraid of children's aid and took the time out to properly discipline their kids (and I don't mean using freaking time outs, and such garbage), you'd be surprised by how kids will react. No, they will not hate you. Putting structure in kids' lives is very welcome. How do I know this? I run my Wednesday night kids group (grades 5/6 under a lot of structure. The kids don't get away with anything. I yell at them occasionally but also praise them when they do well (which is most of the time). Now, I never worry about these kids, since they all have a good Mom and a good Dad at home, who already teaches them all this stuff. So my job is pretty easy, but I see the results of good parenting from parents who take the time to discipline their own kids, teach respect, teach values, and teach morals.
The media's lack of focus on those who do good work and provide positive examples in these rougher areas, but instead focussing its energies on profiling criminals and Hollywood bad boys and bad girls is also part of the problem. Not giving these kids a positive outlet for their energies is a problem (one thing our church does really well is the youth outreach to neighbourhood kids - they have a safe environment which they embrace to hang out and have fun).
I want to address one final issue, one that people oftentimes criticize. Violent video games. I can see both points on this one. Have I played shoot 'em up games? Yes. Do I go around shooting people? No. Why? Because I am a grown adult and know what is a game and what is reality. I also am no longer in the teenage or young adult stage where I feel peer pressure and the need to belong or conform. Would I let my kid play the same games? Absolutely not. Why? Because he is impressionable. If he is a teen, I would not have any games like that on my computer - he is under enough pressure at school and with friends as it is. If he gets picked on in school, the last thing I want him to play is a shooting video game. I think this is a distinction that is lost on most people who call for all shooting video games to be banned. I think that, just like movies, there are some games that should not be viewed by any minors at all. Now, there is a side issue about the fact that they can go to their friend's house and watch or play the game. I never said my argument was bulletproof. That's just what I would do.
Ultimately, what can we do with our kids to steer them in the right direction so they don't resort to guns to shoot others? One is to set a good example at home. I impart a non-violent way of life to my son. I don't hit my wife during conflicts, I don't hit other people during conflicts. My wife does the same thing. My son sees my and my wife's example. So far, it's working - he does not retaliate when he is wronged (in general, he doesn't). I will not allow my son to be exposed to any video game that even has a hint of violence (right now, we are playing a game where we capture monkeys with nets). My brother got my son a V-Smile (from Vtech) that allows him to play very educational video games. My wife and I do not discuss violent news items in front of our son. We don't let him hang out with other boys and girls who exhibit violent behaviour (this has been tougher, but I'm pretty firm on this). I will always be there for my boy - I can't guarantee how he'll turn out, but at least he has a good running start in the right direction).
Toronto's left-wing mayor, David Miller, got on the airwaves and re-iterated the need to ban handguns, as a way to curb violent crime.
Unfortunately, such pat answers to deep stemming societal problems may sound good to liberal voters who are looking for someone or something to blame, but unfortunately, that is not the root of the problem.
Miller says that guns are only made to kill people. That is incorrect. Guns are used for shooting in biathlons in the Olympics. There is a large contingent of law-abiding sport shooters out there, who would never even accidentally point it at a person. These people have gone through the legal process to procure a gun, be trained on how to use it (and its associated safety features) and take steps to make sure that it does not fall into the wrong hands. And guess what, it is not the legal, law abiding gun owners who are the problem. Guns have been around for years, and gun crime has not been at the forefront of our news until maybe the last decade or so.
Here's the problem as I see it, and I will be quite candid here. Look at where the locations most of the shootings take place. With very few exceptions, it tends to be in the rougher areas of town, in the ghettos, in the housing projects, in the poorer areas of town. Case in point? The area in which this school shooting happened yesterday is very near the Jane/Finch intersection, known for its lower income, higher incidence of single mothers, and higher crime rates. You can't debate me on this one - there are copious police statistics that show this. I certainly don't blame the victim for what happened to him, but let's have a closer look here. The victim in yesterday's shooting was reported in the papers today, as having "gotten in trouble" in the past, despite some of his schoolmates who also report that he was a fun kid (of course, people will try to put a positive spin on people - ever notice no one ever says "yeah, that guy was a gangster, mistreated everyone - glad he's dead". From the indications in the paper, he was from a home with a single mom. Which obviously means there is no Dad in the house, no father figure, no male parent able to steer him in the right direction. What was this kid doing, setting off fireworks during the school day at an off-limits construction site?
I am willing to bet one month's salary - yours, not mine, that the unknown shooter came from a similar family - no Dad in the house, mother who works her butt off at a job to provide for her and her child(ren) - which by the way, is very respectable, though it should really be the deadbeat dad who should not have walked out on the family and instead provide for his kids. The shooter has probably had a history of being in trouble, and is probably not a straight-A student.
Part of the problem is poverty. Don't believe me? Look at the tony parts of your city and try to correlate how much crime happens in those parts based on reports, the news, etc. Now look at your poorer areas of the city and correlate how much crime happens there. I am willing to bet that the poorer areas experience more crime? Why? Usually single moms who work, the kids have nowhere to go, no Dad to hang out with, so they establish themselves with a crowd (often not a great one, whose members all come from similar families). They get into trouble, resolve conflict with violence, end up in trouble with the law. Drop out of school. Never really get a job - hang out with others who are in the same boat. Have way too much time on their hands. Commits more crimes. Gets some girl pregnant - takes off on the girl and doesn't have the balls to take responsibility. Cycle repeats.
Now, what's this have to do with guns? These people get their guns (in almost all cases illegally through theft or smuggling) and now they feel like a big man, just like the gangsters in the rap videos in the movies. They have someone piss them off. Clap! Clap! Clap! Take that, punk. Ghetto justice 101.
The other part of the problem is society's general predisposition to violence, and I don't mean just guns on TV and movies and video games. Cowboy and Western movies, Rambo, Terminator and such have been around forever. The 80s was not an era of major gun crime. I should know, because I went to elementary and high shool in the 80s and no one had a gun that I was aware of. I seldom heard of school shootings - actually, I can't recall one. You just didn't get a gun and take it to school those days - you punched each other out after school to solve problems - never was a gun used. Not to say that punching each other out is a great way to resolve conflict, but at least people did not even consider using a firearm.
Part of the problem is media-caused. Look at the willingness to show barbaric videos on TV, like the dead bodies of Saddam Hussein's sons. Hell, the video of the execution of Saddam was in high demand - why? This just de-sensitizes people. There seems to be a fascination on lethal injection lately. Why does the media need to discuss this? Look at the Virginia Tech shootings - all the fascination was on the shooter, his background - they even aired the video where he is ranting like crazy? Why give this the time of day? When al queda or some other terrorist groups beheaded captives and recorded it all by video feed, demand to see this on the internet was high. Why? The September 11 tragedy - planes into the World Trade Centre being played out over and over again on TV - this was an act of violence - why did the media feel it was necessary to run this over and over again, under the guise of some journalistic venture?
Guns are not the problem. The September 11 terrorists used planes to strike their violence and fear. Should we ban planes? Should we ban farm fertilizer and Ryder trucks just because Timothy McVeigh used both on the Oklahoma City bombings in 1995? Should you ban any kind of knife, since fatal stabbings seem to abound in this day and age? How about ropes of all kind, since people have used that to strangle others. Should you ban the car, as people use it as a weapon for road rage? OK, so the argumement may go that knives and ropes and cow crap and moving trucks serve a primary purpose and people use these items in a tertiary purpose when committing crimes, whereas guns are only made to kill. My issue with this argument is that if you ban guns overall in society, criminals will still be able to get them (just like when they banned alcohol during Prohibition) illegally. Now the law-abiding citizens have no way to defend themselves if needed. Law abiding gun owners can't hunt for food. Law abiding gun owners cannot participate in shooting sports. Banning guns will also give the people who have a pre-disposition to violence another way to kill their victims. Banning guns is not the solution.
The solution is tackling the issue of poverty, anger in particularly young men, the lack of focus on people's mental health, and the media's constant barrage of scenes of violence. Do I think that Hollywood should absorb any of the blame for its music and movies? Absolutely. You leave an impressionable young kid that the only way to fix a problem is to use a gun. The gun is not the problem - showing people on TV and movies and in videos shooting each other senselessly is the problem (this came out abundantly clear when my wife and I, back in 1992-1993 went to see Natural Born Killers in the theatre. It was the first movie I have ever walked out of in disgust - the wanton and senseless violence in that movie was unbelieveable. Not forcing young men to take responsibility for the girls that they impregnate and the subsequent child that is born is the problem. The fact that sleeping around seems to be fashionable in the media is the problem, as that does not teach cause and effect (and the value of people and relationships, especially committed ones like marriage).
Having teachers who are forced by school boards to sit on their hands, and not be allowed to properly discipline a child in his/her care is a problem. As a result of that, the kids don't respect teachers, since they have never developed a healthy fear of authority. If my son ever shows me disrespect, he will get five hard whacks across his ass, no questions asked. If parents weren't so afraid of children's aid and took the time out to properly discipline their kids (and I don't mean using freaking time outs, and such garbage), you'd be surprised by how kids will react. No, they will not hate you. Putting structure in kids' lives is very welcome. How do I know this? I run my Wednesday night kids group (grades 5/6 under a lot of structure. The kids don't get away with anything. I yell at them occasionally but also praise them when they do well (which is most of the time). Now, I never worry about these kids, since they all have a good Mom and a good Dad at home, who already teaches them all this stuff. So my job is pretty easy, but I see the results of good parenting from parents who take the time to discipline their own kids, teach respect, teach values, and teach morals.
The media's lack of focus on those who do good work and provide positive examples in these rougher areas, but instead focussing its energies on profiling criminals and Hollywood bad boys and bad girls is also part of the problem. Not giving these kids a positive outlet for their energies is a problem (one thing our church does really well is the youth outreach to neighbourhood kids - they have a safe environment which they embrace to hang out and have fun).
I want to address one final issue, one that people oftentimes criticize. Violent video games. I can see both points on this one. Have I played shoot 'em up games? Yes. Do I go around shooting people? No. Why? Because I am a grown adult and know what is a game and what is reality. I also am no longer in the teenage or young adult stage where I feel peer pressure and the need to belong or conform. Would I let my kid play the same games? Absolutely not. Why? Because he is impressionable. If he is a teen, I would not have any games like that on my computer - he is under enough pressure at school and with friends as it is. If he gets picked on in school, the last thing I want him to play is a shooting video game. I think this is a distinction that is lost on most people who call for all shooting video games to be banned. I think that, just like movies, there are some games that should not be viewed by any minors at all. Now, there is a side issue about the fact that they can go to their friend's house and watch or play the game. I never said my argument was bulletproof. That's just what I would do.
Ultimately, what can we do with our kids to steer them in the right direction so they don't resort to guns to shoot others? One is to set a good example at home. I impart a non-violent way of life to my son. I don't hit my wife during conflicts, I don't hit other people during conflicts. My wife does the same thing. My son sees my and my wife's example. So far, it's working - he does not retaliate when he is wronged (in general, he doesn't). I will not allow my son to be exposed to any video game that even has a hint of violence (right now, we are playing a game where we capture monkeys with nets). My brother got my son a V-Smile (from Vtech) that allows him to play very educational video games. My wife and I do not discuss violent news items in front of our son. We don't let him hang out with other boys and girls who exhibit violent behaviour (this has been tougher, but I'm pretty firm on this). I will always be there for my boy - I can't guarantee how he'll turn out, but at least he has a good running start in the right direction).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)