Runaway Jury and Jury Consultants
I recently watched the movie "Runaway Jury". An excellent movie that you should go and see. For those who haven't, the movie is about "jury consultants", people who are employed to choose sympathetic jurors and convince jurors to vote the way of their employer. In the movie, a gun company is sued by a woman whose husband was killed by one of their weapons. The gun industry employs a ruthless "jury consultant" to swing the case their way, but two people decide to try and take control of the jury for themselve and make the other pay.
This movie probably cuts extremely close to reality. I'm sure such "consultants" exist, but I don't think that there are many who are going to work for free. Money is power, and these consultants ensure that money remain supreme above the will of the people.
It's probably the same thing in legislatures. Powerful lobbyists with the money behind them act to ensure the legislators swing their way. Why else would Congress fail to pass a seemingly "no-duh" act that would give the FDA the right to order a recall of spoiled meat? Why else would Congress let the Assault Weapons Ban lapse?
If you need a firearm, I'm not sure why you'd need one that can fire 100 rounds a minute. Deers in M1A4s, perhaps? There's only two reasons you'd want one: you're a criminal, or you have a fetish for firearms. Either way, it's not something you need. Join the military if you want an assault rifle.
It's embarrasing that I know more about American politics and government than Australian.
posted by TheLoneAmigo @ 1:10 pm
5 comments
5 Comments:
"Why else would Congress let the Assault Weapons Ban lapse?"
Actually, if you look at the Assault Weapons Ban, you'll see that it's quite absurd. Many of the weapons are banned simply because "they look fierce" as opposed to their performance. Others are banned because they have a folding stock, regardless of their performance. Still others are banned because of the characteristics of the scope on the weapon.
The AWB was useless. It did absolutely nothing to protect anyone (unless you are afraid of being beaten to death with a folding stock). :)
Right. Okay. Well, why don't they pass an actual ban on assault weapons?
I really don't know for sure, as I haven't studied the topic much.
I do know this though: If a ban on assault weapons is passed, I can guarantee you that many criminals will still find ways to get their hands on them. The ban will not restrict criminal activity, it will only weaken the average citizen.
Also: A bullet's a bullet. It doesn't matter what weapon's firing it, it'll still kill you. Ban assault weapons all you want, it's not really stopping gun-related crimes. It's just changing the weapons that are used.
As for a ban on assault weapons, I really don't know if I'd support it or oppose it. It's a murky issue for me, but I don't want to make the average Joe more vulnerable to crime.
How interesting. Meanwhile over here, the average Joe, using your average gun, in your average case of self defence, would end up in one of our very average jails.
Ok, my thoughts:
As Neo said, it was totally useless. Why don't they pass an actual ban on assault weapons? Well, that would be totally absurd and just as useless. Even more so than the one that recently expired. Who even owns them except for gun enthusiasts? I'm all for people having whatever firearms they want. If someone wants to be paranoid and keep an uzi in his trenchcoat for fear of being mugged, so be it. It's a constitutional right for heaven's sake.
I personally think people should just screw gun control laws and focus on passing laws against something much more dangerous, like drinking and driving. Here in Kentucky, this is all they do: If it's your first offense, you get a fine. Second offense, you get... (guess what?) another fine. Only if it's your third offense do you get the real punishment. And you'll never guess what horrible penalty that is... you lose your freakin' license. Wow. That hurts. Sorry, but I don't think that's a stiff enough penalty. I was almost killed because a drunk driver. I am still without a car because of it, and I may not get any money from the insurance company, either. It's a mess.
More people are killed each year due to drunk drivers than firearms. So let's ban cars. Or beer. Yeah, that was sarcastic. Oh well. The problem lies with the individual, not with what weapon they posess. And a car can be used as a weapon.
Sorry for getting *way* off topic. Just my thoughts. Anyway, cool blog, TLA. God bless!
Ryan
BTW TLA, purely out of curiosity, how old are you?
Start Ranting
<< Home