- Politics and Social Issues»
- Social Issues
The Independent, a media outlet in the United Kingdom, published an article titled, "Liam Neeson interview: Hard man actor on Bono, Ralph Fiennes and his fear of guns" dated September 12, 2014. No doubt, this was the very day many more humans decided to tune Neeson out. In the article, Gill Pringle lists Neeson's movies, such as Taken, Non-Stop, A Walk Among the Tombstones, and a Million Ways to Die in the West. I've seen most of these, but never again will I watch another. I'm through giving another dime to this 'actor'. I'll switch the channel. Enough said.
PARA, USA Handgun cut ties with Neeson
Of course, in many of Neeson's movies, he is portrayed as the good guy and often uses various handguns to get over on the bad guys. But in real life, Neeson, who is also a citizen of the United States, appears a bit concerned about all of its guns. He seems rather shakey on the U.S. Constitution, but he is in bad company. Barack Obama has a lesser grasp upon gun rights as well.
"I'm totally for gun control in the United States" Neeson said...
"I'm totally for gun control in the United States" Neeson said, according to the article in The Independent. Cited in the article was an event called the Dunblane Massacre in Scotland and how in short order, everyone had to give up their protection – their guns. But this is not quite true. Neeson glossed over this point, apparently, just as he attempts to whitewash the entire idea of self-protection. Don't get me wrong, I'm not belittling the death of children – just the fact that Neeson assumes less guns means less violence.
Do you support Neeson's views on Gun Control?
The gun control debate...
In Dunblane, a gunman named Thomas Hamilton killed 16 students on March 13, 1996, then he committed suicide, according to Wikipedia.com. Good riddance to Hamilton, who had apparently been exhibiting bizarre behavior for years – before he decided to kill children. The gun control debate resurfaced in the United Kingdom at the time and over the course of the next few years – not 24 hours as Neeson claimed - most of the cartridge type handguns were made illegal. This ban did not include Northern Ireland, Isle of Man or the Channel Islands. Certain historic muzzle loading weapons or long guns were also exempted. Primary school security was improved as a result of the killings and higher fences were installed.
But didn't the United Kingdom already have tough laws against gun ownership, before the Dunblane Massacre? Yes, they did. In fact, prior to the Dunblane Massacre, there was the Hungerford Massacre. In 1988 a new law then banned entire categories of weapons, to include certain military weapons, but many pistols were unaffected. The United Kingdom has been taking away guns from its citizens for over one hundred years. Then why did Liam Neeson become a U.S. Citizen? Was he afraid of guns – or his own country?
Magically, violent crime would somehow just go away...
Neeson apparently thinks that the Founding Fathers of America never envisioned that the Second Amendment – the right to bear arms - meant that every citizen had a right to own a handgun or perhaps a rifle - or even a shotgun. No, in Neeson's mind, perhaps it is only the right to 'bare' arms. In other words, the entire notion that we should have the right to protect ourselves from bad guys with our guns, is an archaic concept to Neeson. Magically, violent crime would somehow just go away, if we, as Americans, just handed over our handguns. The criminals, naturally, would not comply. Neeson seems to have 'blanked' that part out. It is 'unilateral disarmament' to him. Become one with the victim – or one with the 'Force'? - as Neeson might quip in Star Wars Episode 1: The Phantom Menace. No, Mr. Qui-Gon Jinn (the character he played in that movie) you are the real menace. A menace to our freedom to protect our own necks.
Given all of the United Kingdom's laws against guns, it remains one of the most violent countries in the European Union, topping even the United States. The U.K. categorizes violent crimes differently, however, but even the low side estimates do not show significant differences between violent crimes in the U.S. and violent crimes in the U.K. Some sources detail these rates, such as the blog titled "By the Numbers: Is the UK really 5 times more violent than the US?" on The Skeptical Libertarian website (http://blog.skepticallibertarian.com/2013/01/12/fact-checking-ben-swann-is-the-uk-really-5-times-more-violent-than-the-us/). In other words, the fact that there are less legally owned handguns in the U.K. does not translate into less violence. Not by a long shot.
In an article titled "How Gun Control Made England the Most Violent Country in Europe" published September 24, 2014, Awr Hawkins reported on the 'League of Shame' giving the U.K. the number one spot for violent crimes in the E.U. (See: http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2014/09/24/how-gun-control-made-england-the-most-violent-country-in-europe/)
So the real question should be: why did Neeson take up residence in the United States, if there are so many handguns about? Does he feel safer knowing that the U.S. has less violence than the U.K.? Why did Para USA, the company which manufactures the weapons used in the Taken series, refuse to sign on with Neeson in the future? Is it really just about the water bill in Ireland that ticks Neeson off or again – is it the violence in his abandoned homeland?
It is true. The U.S. does has more violent crime related to guns – because we are allowed to have them. It's going to happen. There are also more car accidents in the U.S. than there are in the U.K. More cars. The U.S. murder rate is 18 times higher than the U.K., but this is an all inclusive figure, guns, knives, etc. But what is telling, regarding the violence levels in the U.K., is the level of overall crime. In other words, in the U.S. my mother can pull out her .22 should an idiot choose to rob her. A mother in the U.K. would be arrested for even possessing a gun. In the mean time, the overall crime rate is three times higher in the U.K. than it is in the U.S. Their mothers are victims. In the U.K. burglars are at a distinct advantage. In the U.S., the robber just does not know if Grandma is packing heat. (Source: http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/United-Kingdom/United-States/Crime).
With all this having been said. I'll watch until next time when Neeson chooses to comment about creating a nation of victims, like those in the U.K. Once he does and if I feel like it, I will chime in. Perhaps, Neeson will theorize about the abolition of the First Amendment next? Oh "shut up!"
No, Mr. Neeson I won't.