So the audience is left with a smug sense of the pro-gun bank's folly. Yet just a moment's reflection shows that there is not the slightest danger. To take possession of the gun, the depositor must give the bank thousands of dollars (an unlikely way to start a robbery). He must then produce photo identification (thus making it all but certain that the robber would be identified and caught), spend at least a half hour at the bank (thereby allowing many people to see and identify him), and undergo an FBI background check (which would reveal criminal convictions disqualifying most of the people inclined to bank robbery). A would-be robber could far more easily buy a handgun for a few hundred dollars on the black market, with no identification required.
ein interessanter standpunkt, allerdings war für mich nicht dieses detail an der szene seltsam - sondern dass überhaupt waffen in einer bank ausgeben werden. klar, geschenke beim abschluss eines bauspar-vertrages oä sind üblich, aber waffen?
The supposedly racist nature of white gun owners is reinforced by Bowling's statement that an 1871 law made it illegal for blacks to own guns. No such law existed, although it is true that many gun laws from the late 19th century — such as licensing and registration laws, or bans on inexpensive guns — were selectively enforced in the South so as to deprive blacks of firearms. These are the same kinds of laws that Moore promotes today.
der letzte (ab)satz gefällt mir. irgendwie faszinierend: der text wirft (zur recht
) moore vor, bei seiner kritk an den angst-verbreitenden medien selbst die gleichen mittel zu verwenden. und dann wird wird in dem essay wieder stimmung gemacht...
naja, im endeffekt hat jeder sein publikum.
mfg
wulfman