Jordan King Lacroix

Gun control: An Australian’s response to Tucker Carlson

Screen Shot 2015-10-06 at 7.12.11 am

After Tucker Carlson’s comments on Australia’s gun control policy, Jordan King-Lacroix has fired back with his response.

 

I didn’t want to write this response. I still don’t. But I’m going to. I want to talk to you about gun control, America.

I think the assertations of Obama and Colbert are right; it’s all become routine. A massacre happens, people cry out in shock, disbelief and fear, democrats come out and say gun control and appropriate screening is needed and mental health services need funding.

Republicans and NRA-advocates say that more guns will solve the problem, that if only the teachers/students/church parishioners/cinema workers had guns, then this tragedy could have been avoided.

I want to talk about a few of these ideas. Not because I want to, but because I feel you need to hear it.

First, I want to tell you about our gun control. We like it. And, wouldn’t you know it, our civil liberties weren’t trampled. Hell didn’t break loose in the form of roaming gangs of resilient, gun-toting criminals preying upon a weak, unarmed populous.

Not that gun violence isn’t a thing of the past here – no way – but it’s a lot harder to find. Which makes stories like what happened at the Lindt Cafe and, more recently, that of the 15 year old boy who shot dead a police finance officer in Parramatta, all the more stark.

We are yet to know where that boy got that gun. But, if a criminal is intent on finding one, of course he can.

Second, the fact that mental health services need funding is as obvious to me as it must be to anyone who has one knows, or is the family of someone who has one, or works in the industry, forced to cut corners or cut loose patients that need more help. This is also a problem.

Do you know why this Oregon guy – whose name I won’t mention, and whose father said not to focus on – went on this spree?

Because some teachers gave him bad grades and no girls wanted to be his girlfriend.

It could be argued that a stronger mental health structure could have eliminated the particular course that he took.

I want to talk about the “more guns, more safety” rhetoric of the NRA folks. And I don’t want to do it, because I’m tired of it. But you need to be able to see the difference that the rest of us do.

If you want to buy a handgun, okay, fine. Own a handgun. Ignoring the obvious fact most massacres appear to happen in open carry states, if that’s the law in your country/county/state, then okay, I guess that’s how things go; take advantage.

What I am not okay with is your infatuation with the automatic rifle. One of those giant “tactical” machine types. Grenades. Explosive, incendiary rounds. Don’t try and bullshit me and say these are for hunting, or for protection. If you claim you need that to hunt, you are a terrible hunter. Or you’re hunting something you shouldn’t be. Something endangered. Or something human shaped, something with a wallet. If it’s designed with military intent, then it’s a weapon you don’t need. You presumably got it because you think they’re cool and awesome. You like seeing things go boom and, to be frank, it probably makes your genitals rigid or moist. Sorry to be crass, but I’ll be f!cked if that isn’t true.

Now to tackle the crux of the “if those [PEOPLE] had guns, then this [TRAGEDY] could have been avoided” argument.

Woo. This is a doozy. And, let me tell you, to a certain extent, I understand your logic here. If this was the fucking Wild West, maybe. We all like to figure ourselves to be the protagonists of our own stories; the fantasy of taking down that gun-toting maniac who walked into my home/bar/school/cinema and tried to shot up the place…the hero of the day.

Now, I want you to imagine that you are that cinema worker. I want you to imagine that you work behind the popcorn counter and you make minimum wage. Due to new regulations, you have received a gun to go with your uniform and you have had a weekend training course to teach you how to fire it. Let’s say you even get a yearly refresher course to go with that, all expenses paid. Great, right?

Now I want you to imagine that during the screening of a film, an unhinged individual comes in and starts firing.

You would drop into firing stance and take the shooter out. Right? I know that I wouldn’t. Not because I wouldn’t want to, and not necessarily because I couldn’t, but because I wasn’t aren’t trained to do so, and nor should you be. Everything you know, would have heard or have been taught has been on paper. And paper targets. Would you be able to lay your life down for this moment? Would you be able to tackle the crippling fear for your fifteen minutes in the sun, to do fulfil your responsibility, as the NRA reinforces?

Well in regards to the applied NRA logic, let me paraphrase a story from a good family friend. And to that friend, I’m sorry, but I need to use it.

Let’s call this friend Armand. Armand is a gun owner. A guns rights advocate. One day, Armand was at home and he heard his neighbours’ home being broken in to.

Or, more accurately (from my recollection of this story), he heard their shouting.

According to the NRA, Armand would have bravely grabbed his weapon and headed over to heroically save the day. Armand is, after all, very practiced and trained with his weapons. He knows how to shoot, and has open and concealed carry permits. So, what did Armand do?

Yes, he ran over to help, to see what was going on.

Did Armand bring his gun?

No, he did not.

In his words, “It was the one situation I remember being in where I could have used my personal firearm. And I didn’t. I completely forgot I had it. The drive to go and help overtook the memory of the gun.”

So, do you take the shot?

Probably not.

The logic is basically flawed, formed on the assertions of those who may have never lived the situations they claim to have the solutions for. The Wild West is long gone, the Duke is never coming back. This is the modern world. It’s over.

While we may not have freedoms you extol in your most familiar definitions, we do have freedom of not facing the numbing horror of mass murder.

Comedian Dana Gould sums it up well. “The sad fact is, Sandy Hook marked the end of the gun debate in America. Once we decided that the slaughter of children was an acceptable price to pay to maintain our radical misinterpretation of the 2nd Amendment, it was over. See you next slaughter.”

 

Jordan King Lacroix

Jordan King-Lacroix was born in Montreal, Canada but moved to Sydney, Australia when he was 8 years old. He has achieved a Bachelor of Arts from the University of Sydney and McGill University, Canada, as well as a Masters of Creative Writing from the University of Sydney.

Related posts

  • KG

    Well, the guns are not, ” the automatic rifle. One of those giant “tactical” machine types. Grenades. Explosive, incendiary rounds.” But they never need to stick to the truth stop them.

    These guns use standard, relatively small caliber ammunition, smaller than most hunting rifles or the same as many hunting rifles. This is why the laws proposed are so objectionable. They will affect many fine guns and people due to this sloppy defining or weaponry.

Top