Chad Huskins is the EVVY Award-winning author of Zero Star and The Sol Ascendancy.
I got inspired recently to write up a list of the opening lines in novels that have stuck out to me be the most. So here they are, in no particular order, with an explanation of why these are so great.
1. "Hither came Conan, the Cimmerian, black-haired, sullen-eyed, sword in hand, a thief, a reaver, a slayer, with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandaled feet." - Robert E. Howard, The Phoenix on the Sword (the first Conan story)
This one is famous among fans of the "sword and sorcery" genre. It sets the stage perfectly for the story that is about to unravel, a story told by Howard's brutal imagery, his wondrous worlds, and his driving narrative that revealed barbarism as something potentially redemptive in Man, and not something to be shunned or hated. Howard had a strong belief in the masculine, in the iron will to forge one's own path, as Conan does. This opening line basically says, "Here comes a badass, and you'd do well to get out of his way."
2. "It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune, must be in want of a wife." - Jane Austen, Pride & Prejudice
From the masculine, we go to the feminine...and the witty. Like any good opening line should do, Austen's presents a general premise without trying to divulge plot-plot-plot all at once. Some people miss the humor in the opening line, thinking Austen is dead serious. Far from it. She means it in the sense that people have accepted that a single man who is rich must be searching for a wife, particularly in the world she's established. The people in her story (and of the Age she lived in) care for nothing more than to have their daughters married well off, hopefully to the advantage of the rest of the family--i.e., her husband is rich and can help pay everyone's bills.
3. "Call me Ishmael. Some years ago--never mind how long, precisely..." Herman Melville, Moby Dick
Though I don't have the room to thoroughly go through Melville's entire opening, it all stems from this line, which immediately establishes a familiarity between the reader and the narrator. And yet there is also great ambiguity right off the bat, for Melville basically says "Just call me by my first name," doesn't bother with a last name, and then just says "this happened a while back, but it doesn't matter just how long ago." Familiarity coupled with ambiguity...kind of like an old friend you've not seen in a while, returning to tell you about a thing that changed him forever while he was gone. The reader is invited in. We've been invited to the pub, where a lonely man named Ishmael sits, perhaps alone, with ale in hand, to tell us a story. Let's have a seat with him, and hear what he has to say...
4. "It was a bright cold day in April, and the clocks were striking thirteen." - George Orwell, 1984
This one is haunting because...well, we the readers happen to know that that's NOT how clocks work. This begins the story of a world that has gone terribly, terribly wrong. In this book, which famously created the terms "Big Brother" and "double-think," we find ourselves in a world where lies are truth, truth are lies, the government controls the narrative strictly, the freedom of the press has been dismantled, and Big Brother is always watching. If it is not the original dystopian future novel, then it is, without a doubt, the reigning champion by which all others are judged. And from the opening line, we already know that something is wrong...
5. "It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair, we had everything before us, we had nothing before us, we were all going direct to Heaven, we were all going direct the other way – in short, the period was so far like the present period, that some of its noisiest authorities insisted on its being received, for good or for evil, in the superlative degree of comparison only." - Charles Dickens, A Tale of Two Cities
Dickens decided to put the reader into the mood of his setting, but, like he says at the end, the "time" he's referring to is EXACTLY like whatever era the reader happens to be in when they're reading it. He suggests that nothing ever changes, in that all times can be described as the worst, or the best, and that people will often describe whatever era they're living in as both. It depends on where you are in life, what privileges or station you have. These things determine how good or bad you view the current era. And, as he says, the "noisiest authorities" seem intent to only be able to make their arguments for their current period being the "best" or "worst" by using comparisons.
6. "The man in black fled across the desert, and the gunslinger followed." - Stephen King, The Gunslinger
This line cuts right to it. It says "Here's your story." Of course, there's still plenty of mystery. We don't know who either of these men are, or why one is chasing the other, but we're immediately fascinated. An old adage among writers is to "Start your story in the middle." Kind of like how the first Star Wars movie begins with us seeing the Rebel starship already being chased by the Imperial ship. We're learning who Darth Vader is while the story is on the move, almost like we came in the middle of a TV series and missed the whole first half. It's an excellent way to get readers invested right away, and have them salivating for the details that explain why these characters are doing what they're doing. Much better than describing them at length at the beginning, and then getting us to the chase around Chapter 4. Stephen King himself has expressed that he believes this opening line is his most solid work.
7. "The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability of the human mind to correlate all its contents." - H.P. Lovecraft, The Call of Cthulu
H.P. Lovecraft is considered by most people to be the greatest horror writer of all time, and he never even wrote about an ax murderer, or described the sight entrails overly long. No, Lovecraft made a career by inventing a new style of writing--he would describe all the things that the "monster" DIDN'T look like, or would be so vague in his description, and yet all the while summoning imagery, that he encourage the reader to think up something even more dreadful on their own, something that defied all known geometry, physics, and biology. The true horror for Lovecraft was the idea that some things might be forever beyond the ken of Man, and what might happen if a human being witnessed, with their own eyes, the things that they were never meant to see? That's what this opening line is all about. Lovecraft would consider it a "mercy" if the human mind could simply go on not understanding all the horrors it had seen...especially after the narrator of this story reveals to you the truth terrors he has witnessed. He wants to forget. More than anything, he wants to be oblivious again. Ignorance is bliss...
Showing posts with label American Culture. Show all posts
Showing posts with label American Culture. Show all posts
Monday, February 20, 2017
Thursday, February 9, 2017
My Top 10 Favorite Modern Video Games
Chad Huskins is the EVVY Award-winning writer of the new sci-fi novel Zero Star, please support indie writers like us by going to the link:
So, what are the greatest games to play?
We all know that if you include classics such as Super Mario Bros., we could be here until Doomsday debating where it falls on the list of greatest games of all time. Pac-Man, Zelda, Galaga, all of these games are like the Citizen Kane of video games, the progenitors that developed various new concepts--for example, Zelda kind of brought console users RPGs--and therefore will always hold special crowns.
However, in this article I am going to list only the video games I feel are the best out of the "new slew" of games that have come out since PlayStation and the N64 literally changed the way we approached video games, and how video games were primed and ready to keep gamers for life. In other words, the kinds of games that have been around since video games "matured". I'm going to list the best of the best, and explain why I feel they deserve their places on the list.
The criteria I'm going to use is as follows:
- The game must be a GAME and not merely a story you follow along with amazing graphics, its developers must have kept the concept of interactivity in mind and not focused SOLELY on story (though I love a good story), because the difference between a movie and a game is that a game is interactive.
- The game must be tremendous fun and engage the player, not just a time waster.
- The game must have re-playability. This is incredibly important to me, because games cost $60 while going to a movie costs $15 and DVDs cost, at most, $50, and that's with special edition stuff shoved in. Therefore, a game had better be diverse, and present new experiences and challenges with at least ONE additional playthrough.
- The game must not rely on online gameplay to "make its case" for awesomeness. It must be playable by someone that doesn't have access to the Internet. This is because I believe a game should be playable by oneself, not dependent on others logging on with you.
- And finally, the game must not be just for idiots. It doesn't have to be as mind-bendy as Inception, but it has to at least make you think and/or engage the player's imagination, if not with the story then with the gameplay, preferably both. I'm not trying to be elitist, just talking about quality here.
With all that said, let's get to it:
10. Assassin's Creed II
Yes, I am including this game here and not its predecessor because, while the first one was innovative for its time, it still had tremendous flaws that held it back. Flaws such as repetitive investigation steps in order to advance a mission, having to listen to Al Maulim every single time you died or turned your game back on (and not being able to skip through his spiel).
In Assassin's Creed II, though, everything changed. The world grew larger, the story more engaging, and the investigations more involved. There was also more interactivity with the world around you, and tons of puzzles and side quests to keep even the most jaded gamer (me) involved.
The re-playability of this game is obvious: all you have to do is go around and play the game as you see fit, as any sandbox game should be. However, Assassin's Creen II and all in this series still suffer from one little problem, which puts it low on my list, and that is the tendency in these games to guide the player along each mission, essentially "base-touching" on one's way to kill a target. Examples include waypoints that one MUST touch in order to proceed in the story. There were many times that I and my friends found another way into a castle than what the game's developers had intended, but we COULD NOT initiate the target because we HAD to go through the EXACT window that the developers intended for us to go through.
This is a big no-no for me, as I am not allowed to truly figure out these assassinations on my own. I feel like I'm being held by the hand, and if it's truly a sandbox game, then take your hands off of me and let me play.
9. The Incredible Hulk: Ultimate Destruction
Never heard of this game before? You're not alone. But this game was the progenitor to Prototype, Infamous, and other such interactive games where you can run around a city and destroy anyone and everything around you. Obscure as it is, the game is a game changer.
This game is still incredibly fun, listening to the Hulk grunt and rage as he smashes into buses, tears them apart, and then bends them around his hands to create steel boxing gloves. Also, the player is able to unlock numerous kinds of Hulks from all throughout Hulk mythology, including my favorite, Grey Hulk, otherwise known as "Joe Fixit." This Hulk came from an era in the comics when Bruce Banner was able to control the Hulk somewhat, diminishing his strength a little in order to gain more intelligence. This Hulk took on the personality of Joe Fixit and got involved in the underworld a little.
In Ultimate Destruction, the player gets to smash up a city while helicopters rain down hell on you, and you get to listen to Joe Fixit grumbling, "You're messin' up my suit!" and "Extra power to thrusters...er...something!"
The Incredible Hulk: Ultimate Destruction also had a pretty good storyline for a comic book video game, which is much welcome in these types of games where so little time is spent on such matters. Banner has exiled himself in the American badlands, where he's attempting to finally cure himself of the monster. His cabin is destroyed by a missile launched by the NSA and a black ops sector known only as the "Division." The Abomination gets involved eventually, and there are some terrific knockdown, drag-out fights. The story never gets in the way of the fun of smashing up the city and evolving into new Hulk powers.
But despite its fun story, destructible environments, and openness, Ultimate Destruction was relatively short. However, as long as you partake in the re-playability of this game, you can make it last and, in my humble opinion, it's well worth the money spent.
8. Journey
This game is brand new this year, and comes from a relatively obscure company called simply Thatgamecompany. The developers have been behind two other indie games that have defied contemporary video game tropes, starting with Flow, where the player plays as a small, multi-segmented worm or snake-like creature that swims through an aquatic environment, and there are no menus or guidelines, and the game begins immediately.
With Journey, they've created a very similiar experience, where the player exists only as a cloaked stranger, some sort of alien in an alien world, where there is no possibility of communicating with anyone or anything else...unless you use online play, where you can meet one (and only one) other traveler such as yourself. There is no chance of dying in Journey. There are no boss fights or enemies to kill, only exploration and puzzles.
There is no real context for the journey given to the player. All you know is that you exist and you're there. The environment is kind of like the planet Tatooine in Star Wars, all sand and sun, but gorgeously rendered, like you're playing inside a movie made by Miyazaki.
In this modern era where online gaming is dominated by either angry gamers screaming "Hacker!" at one another in Call of Duty-style games, or crying about losing ranks/levels in World of Warcraft, Journey is a welcome respite. It's relaxing, beautiful, mysterious, and another game changer.
It's very short--you can beat it in about 1 1/2 hours--but it has great re-playability, and for only $15 you just can't beat that.
7. Grand Theft Auto...IV...maybe III?
Though the series as a whole has been innovative, re-playable, extremely fun and incredibly interactive, I would mark GTA IV as the first in the series that combined story, interactivity and sandboxing seamlessly, and took it to a whole new level. Each one has gotten better and better, and the developers have made stronger storylines each time, ensuring that we the gamers don't get tired of just running over pimps and stealing cars without some kind of context.
With GTA IV, Rockstar Games made decisions matter within the context of that story and the gameplay. There are tough choices to be made, including choosing between loyalty for a gang member set to change his ways, and another one that's had your back for a long time.
The re-playability speaks for itself: it's a sandbox game, perhaps the original sandbox game, at least in our modern understanding of the genre. It isn't necessary to play online, although they added this feature with this game, and if the gods are good, this series will remain this way, always available as an exhilirating single-player game.
6. Metal Gear Solid 3: Snake Eater
This series probably kick-started the need for good storytelling in video games with the first one on PlayStation, but the original was just getting "revved up" with the concept and its sequel was hampered by a weak sauce main character (I'm sorry, but I just can't stand hearing Raiden whine about how much life sucks all emo-like while he tries to save the world).
With Snake Eater, Hideo Kojima and his company amped it back up with a complex story set in the Cold War, a powerful stealth system set in the wilderness, and some of the most enjoyable boss fights in video game history (the battle with the sniper known only as "The End" is still the focus of a great many video game tall tales amongst me and my friends).
In the fourth installment of this series, the graphics increased, as did the action sequences (some pretty fancy ones, too), but...*sigh*...we got the return of Raiden. Not as a playable character (thank God) but as a whiner in every facet of the story, doing feats so incredible that one has to ask, "Why does anyone need Snake when Raiden can stop an aircraft carrier...WITH HIS ARM?!" His presence weakens the story, and the cut scenes...
The cut scenes in MGS 4 are tooooooooooooooooo looooooooooooong. Way, way too long. I've always enjoyed the colorful characters and story that the MGS series brings to the table, but when a cut scene goes on for 25 minutes, you have to ask yourself, "If they want to make movies, then why are these developers making video games instead?" They forgot the cardinal rule of video gaming: let the player play through the story.
This is why Snake Eater, in my opinion, is still the best of the series. It also has one very key re-playable feature that I and my friends discovered: you can play through the whole game several times with a different experience each time if you start the game with one kind of camouflage and challenge yourself to play through the whole game with that one camo. HINT: The red brick camouflage is the hardest, and the funnest!
5. Batman: Arkham City
Wow! Just...wow! Talk about a fun game. I mean a really, really fun game. A really, really fun game with a story, too? Get right outta town!
Arkham City is the sequel to Arkham Asylum, and while the first was fun, there are no words to describe just how fun City is. Not only are you constantly fighting bad guys in the streets and on rooftops, not only are you using forensic detective work to solve the mysteries, not only are you fighting Batman's greatest enemies, and not only are you constantly solving the Riddler's amazingly fun puzzles, but you're also Batman! And I mean, Batman! Like never before, gliding around the skies, and kicking ass! You are Batman in ways that no other game has ever allowed you to be.
The best part is, you don't even have to be a Batman fan to enjoy this game. Just forget that you're Batman. There is a variegated assortment of challenges for all players, from using new techniques to fighting off multiple opponents to finding innovative solutions to the Riddler's puzzles.
This game had a story but never forgot what it was: a game!
4. Goldeneye
There isn't a gamer under 35 years of age that doesn't have a ton of stories about this one. Yes, it had a story. Yes, it had multiplayer. Yes, it was one of the greatest party games of that era in video gaming. But I mentioned above that I was judging the games on this list on an important criteria: it could be played alone.
Goldeneye followed the story of the movie by the same name, and it did it pretty well considering the time and the graphics available at the time. It introduced modern first-person shooting to millions of console owners, 3D enviornments (not just the old side scrollers), and enemies coming out from behind every corner, literally jumping out at you.
The various levels and various kinds of environments granted it the re-playability, and it ignited the possibilities in future gamers' minds, as well as future game developers (the list of how many modern developers list this as one of their most inspiring games from their youth is endless). This is key, because I feel that all art should inspire the next generation of artists with possibilities, and attempt to lay groundwork for the next up-and-comers to stand on.
3. Mass Effect 2
You're crazy if you don't like this game. There, I said it.
The first Mass Effect was a pretty strong start. Mass Effect 3 was very cool but a bit of a disappointment. But Mass Effect 2 was pure perfection in RPG gameplay.
The series started off with great promise, like Assassin's Creed, but, also like AC, it didn't fully take flight with what gamers wanted and needed out of an RPG series until that second installment. Complex characters, very complex decisions, gorgeous art direction, a vast galaxy to explore...what more could a gamer want?
Mass Effect 2 also had great re-playability thanks to the fact that the player can make different decisions each time, accomplish goals in a different order, and alter the outcome.
2. Shadow of the Colossus
This game is either unknown to you, comes recommended by every friend that's played it, or it's one of your top five games of all time. Much like Journey, Shadow of the Colossus doesn't force a story on you. It presents you with a character and a beautiful world, allowing you to fill in the blanks yourself, and all you do is wander this gorgeous scenery and explore...and, oh yeah, defeat sixteen massive colossi.
This game is nothing but boss fights. There is no leveling, no fighting of underbosses and minions, and no gaining of any new skills besides your "grip gauge" going up and allowing you to climb higher and longer. You use that increased grip to climb each colossus and find its weak points, meanwhile they buck and try to fling you off. Epic music, epic fights, and epic times ensue.
It's simplicity matched with spectacle.
The art and design of this game is stupendous, and quite honestly makes the most powerful argument for video games as an artform. Personally, this one would be at my number one spot, but we'll discuss why it's not down below.
1. The Elders Scrolls V: Skyrim
I know, I know, most of you probably think I'm following the bandwagon, but I'm not. Actually, I would put this a little farther down the list...if it weren't for the criteria I set above. Up above, I said that an important part of this list had to do with re-playability and getting your money's worth out of a game. Welp, you won't ever get much more fun-per-dollar than this one.
Hundreds of hours of gameplay if you want it. That's right, hundreds.
So much to see, do, and experience. It just never ends. It just...never...ends.
I flipflopped with putting Skyrim at number one or number two, since it's sometimes hard to play, depending on whether you got it on computer, Xbox, or PlayStation, becuase of lag and bugs. Sometimes the game suffers from extreme lag, to the point that PS3 players find it absolutely unplayable. It's been somewhat fixed since then, thanks to downloadable patches, but trust me, it can still have problems that hamper gameplay.
But I still put this game ahead of my personal favorite, Shadow of the Colossus, because of its re-playability, which is absolutely unmatched in modern gaming.
Follow me on Facebook and Twitter: Twitter account @ChadRyanHuskins
Check out my suspense-thriller Psycho Save Us
Saturday, December 15, 2012
American Confliction about Guns and Violence
First and foremost, if you want to help the victims and the families of those in Newtown, Connecticut, and you do not wish to read any sort of opinion piece, then go to this site to help and don't bother yourself with my words: http://www.nbcconnecticut.com/news/local/How-to-Help-Victims-of-Newtown-School-Shooting-183635951.html
(Regardless of what my opinion is, or what "side" you're on, I think we can all agree that these people need our support, so click on the link above if you wish to help.)
I'm conflicted. I see and hear what happens in our country, from Aurora, Colorado, to the horrors at Sandy Hook Elementary School, and then I think back to Columbine and to the countless number of random shootings we hear about in workplaces, schools, and homes, and then I have to wonder: What's going on here? What's wrong with us?
Another question pops up, of course: How do we stop this from happening?
Immediately, the brain races to one undeniable fact. People have always been killing each other, there have always been "crazies" or the mentally ill, and this is nothing new. This is the part of us that tells us that gun control will do nothing to stop this, that people will just start using knives or pitchforks if they have to. And this is true; the truly deranged will find a way, and criminal minds will make due with what they have.
Then the mind races over to another fact: guns make it easier for mass killings to occur. Twenty children and eight teachers are now dead because a man possessed a powerful tool that allowed him, and ONLY HIM, to kill almost thirty people. Without that power, he might've killed between two and five before being subdued or before everyone had run screaming beyond his reach.
The gun gave him this power, and that much can never be argued otherwise, not even by a man like myself that has in my possession a license to conceal and carry. It's a fact, and I cannot run from it, so I won't. It would be detrimental to personal growth to do so. I will face it, and see where it leads me.
Some people, including many of my friends, argue that more guns are the answer, not fewer. They argue that if someone had had a gun in that instance--such as a teacher or a specially-trained security officer hired to protect the school around the clock--then it would have negated the gunman's advantage, diminishing the kill count. Perhaps this is true, but we have to face another fact: most people don't want to walk around with a gun on their hip. Teachers don't want to lug it around in their purses or in an ankle holster, and more importantly they don't want a gun within reach of an angry or frustrated child at school who might lunge for their teacher's or security officer's gun if they feel threatened or bullied.
So, the teachers aren't going to carry guns, and you can forget trying to make them. So, if they're not going to arm themselves, the only logical answer seems to be to disarm everyone, right?
But then our minds race to the Second Amendment, our right to bear arms, and we know that fundamentally this isn't possible. Or is it? Certainly repeal has never happened in the Bill of Rights, which is where the Second Amendment is currently tucked safely away, but Prohibition was an amendment of another kind that got repealed, so it's not completely unprecedented.
But then the mind races to another fact. A right to bear arms is what makes it so that Americans could fight back against its own government, should the government ever become something as abominable as Nazi Germany, but any reasonable human being knows we're far, far from that, regardless of the name "Hitler" being endlessly flung at George W. Bush or Barack Obama.
And a right to bear arms also enables citizens to fight back against a foreign power, should they ever attempt to invade us, which some argue is a powerful reason to keep it. (Not only would a foreign power have to contend with our military, but with a citizenry well armed, and with intent, and practice in using them.)
But then the mind races to yet another fact at the other end of the spectrum. Times change. The United Nations provides a stabilizing platform that didn't exist before 1945, after the last major war that could have destroyed all of us. Are we really afraid of other nations attacking us now, and do we really believe that our Allies would not help us if that happened?
The fact is, we aren't who we were when the Second Amendment was implemented. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, just nine years after England finally recognized the independence of the United States, when fears that our fledgling nation might not withstand another major war like the Revolutionary War were still rampant; and so, an armed citizenry seemed the appropriate measure. However, with the singular exception of Pearl Harbor, we've never been invaded by a major power, and even at Pearl Harbor it was at our remotest state, Hawaii, which demonstrated why it might not be our right to bear arms that kept Japan from coming farther in to the U.S., and it might not even have been a fear of our military might.
In short, we're really, really far away from our enemies.
Was it fear of an armed citizenry that kept Japan from coming closer? Certainly our two vast oceans, the Pacific and the Atlantic, which separate us greatly from other lands, deserve some of the credit. After all, a sustained attack against an enemy on the other side of the planet isn't a smart tactic, even for the boldest of generals.
So the mind has to ask itself, once it has weighed all of this data, "Why are we so afraid of stricter gun laws, or even just a change to the Second Amendment?" It's not "unconstitutional" to change an amendment--as I said, we did it with Prohibition and almost everyone is happy about that, so we know for a fact that it's permissable. So why are we so resistant?
The mind argues back: "We had even less gun laws in the 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s (which is true, for the most part), but we never heard of anything like these rashes of school shootings and workplace shootings back then! So, it's got to be the people! It's not the guns! The people have changed! It's them, it's not the guns!"
Well, if that's the case, then we've just accepted the fact that we've changed, that we're different than we were before, and that maybe, just maybe, something is transforming America. Some unseen force, or else a series of events and cultural distortions (which is far more likely, in my opinion), have changed us. We're angrier, more violent. Whether it's the politics, the economy, the population growth creating greater competition, poverty, TV and video games glorifying violence, lack of education or other socio-economic problems, we're obviously a changed people.
Maybe we need the guns controlled more.
But then quickly our mind races to Mexico, which has intense gun laws, yet look at all its violence. It's as the pro-gun advocates say: "The good guys don't have them, because they're busy obeying the law, and therefore only the bad guys have them." Yes, this is true, the mind argues back, but the guns are typically used by thugs against other thugs, cartels, and cops who at least have access to tactics, training and body armor. The guns in Mexico aren't used anywhere near as much in school shootings. (To get a look at all the major school shootings in the world from 1996 to present, and to see the OVERWHELMING majority of those that take place in America, check out this site: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0777958.html)
"So what's wrong with America?" we ask ourselves. "Why does this happen so frequently here?"
People may point to strange sources, such as saying that it's a lack of "God" in homes or schools, that a secular society has created this problem, but the data clearly doesn't support that theory, either. America has only about 10 - 14% of its population as agnostic or atheist, and the overwhelming majory of Americans show themselves to be far more religious than people in other countries like Britain, where this sort of thing is so much more of a rarity.
So why America? Why us? Why does this happen to such severity here, and so often? It's gotten to the point that it's a guaranteed bet that not 6 months will go by before we hear about this again, this time at a college, or another movie theater, or a church, or a high school.
The last lingering question that leaves us conflicted is this one: Would we rather keep the Second Amendment EXACTLY as it is now, knowing full-well that a direct repercussion is that this is going to happen again, or would we rather do something that we may feel is drastic, such as removing or at least "amending the amendment"? Would you rather keep your right to bear arms, if it means 6 months from now another 30 innocent children are going to be killed again, or that 40 theater-goers are going to be destroyed, or that 20 college kids are going to lose their lives? Are you not even open to the discussion that something needs to be done?
Maybe the pro-gun advocates are right. Maybe the world is changing, and we do need to protect ourselves more and more. But maybe the enemy we have to protect ourselves from is the enemy from within.
I own a gun, and I have a license to conceal and carry. I teach self-defense, and I believe it's important to know. I'm even certified to teach Combat Handgun Combatives. I know that I'm never going to use my gun to hurt an innocent person, but I no longer know what's on the mind of the other gun owners, such as the man who shot House Represenative Gabrielle Giffords, or the Virginia Tech shooter.
In short, just because you know that you're not going to use guns for ill, can you say the same for others? We can try to say, "Blame it on the parents," but that doesn't make it so that parents are instantly going to become better parents. We can say, "The families of these shooters ought to have known and reported to the police that their brother was acting fishy, before he went out to kill all those people," but that's neither practical nor realistic, even in the slightest sense. No one has a crystal ball, no one can tell if their wife or husband is suddenly going to go bonkers three months from now and kill their whole family.
But the mind still argues: "People have been killing senators and family members and children since time began. Hell, Julius Caesar was killed by a host of fellow politicians, friends and even family! Guns didn't do all of that."
Yes, men also shot and killed Presidents Lincoln, Garfield, McKinley, and Kennedy, and all of those assassinations happened well before our time. World leaders have also been targets, and will always be. This is part of the risks they knowingly take on when they enter into office. But no child enters into elementary school knowingly taking on the risk of being slaughtered in a hail of gunfire. Well, perhaps they do in countries we deem "below" our status.
And if that's so, what does it say about us?
Follow me on Twitter: @ChadRyanHuskins
Follow me on Facebook, and my fan page "Pscyho Series by Chad Huskins"
Visit my website: www.forestofideas.com
(Regardless of what my opinion is, or what "side" you're on, I think we can all agree that these people need our support, so click on the link above if you wish to help.)
I'm conflicted. I see and hear what happens in our country, from Aurora, Colorado, to the horrors at Sandy Hook Elementary School, and then I think back to Columbine and to the countless number of random shootings we hear about in workplaces, schools, and homes, and then I have to wonder: What's going on here? What's wrong with us?
Another question pops up, of course: How do we stop this from happening?
Immediately, the brain races to one undeniable fact. People have always been killing each other, there have always been "crazies" or the mentally ill, and this is nothing new. This is the part of us that tells us that gun control will do nothing to stop this, that people will just start using knives or pitchforks if they have to. And this is true; the truly deranged will find a way, and criminal minds will make due with what they have.
Then the mind races over to another fact: guns make it easier for mass killings to occur. Twenty children and eight teachers are now dead because a man possessed a powerful tool that allowed him, and ONLY HIM, to kill almost thirty people. Without that power, he might've killed between two and five before being subdued or before everyone had run screaming beyond his reach.
The gun gave him this power, and that much can never be argued otherwise, not even by a man like myself that has in my possession a license to conceal and carry. It's a fact, and I cannot run from it, so I won't. It would be detrimental to personal growth to do so. I will face it, and see where it leads me.
Some people, including many of my friends, argue that more guns are the answer, not fewer. They argue that if someone had had a gun in that instance--such as a teacher or a specially-trained security officer hired to protect the school around the clock--then it would have negated the gunman's advantage, diminishing the kill count. Perhaps this is true, but we have to face another fact: most people don't want to walk around with a gun on their hip. Teachers don't want to lug it around in their purses or in an ankle holster, and more importantly they don't want a gun within reach of an angry or frustrated child at school who might lunge for their teacher's or security officer's gun if they feel threatened or bullied.
So, the teachers aren't going to carry guns, and you can forget trying to make them. So, if they're not going to arm themselves, the only logical answer seems to be to disarm everyone, right?
But then our minds race to the Second Amendment, our right to bear arms, and we know that fundamentally this isn't possible. Or is it? Certainly repeal has never happened in the Bill of Rights, which is where the Second Amendment is currently tucked safely away, but Prohibition was an amendment of another kind that got repealed, so it's not completely unprecedented.
But then the mind races to another fact. A right to bear arms is what makes it so that Americans could fight back against its own government, should the government ever become something as abominable as Nazi Germany, but any reasonable human being knows we're far, far from that, regardless of the name "Hitler" being endlessly flung at George W. Bush or Barack Obama.
And a right to bear arms also enables citizens to fight back against a foreign power, should they ever attempt to invade us, which some argue is a powerful reason to keep it. (Not only would a foreign power have to contend with our military, but with a citizenry well armed, and with intent, and practice in using them.)
But then the mind races to yet another fact at the other end of the spectrum. Times change. The United Nations provides a stabilizing platform that didn't exist before 1945, after the last major war that could have destroyed all of us. Are we really afraid of other nations attacking us now, and do we really believe that our Allies would not help us if that happened?
The fact is, we aren't who we were when the Second Amendment was implemented. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, just nine years after England finally recognized the independence of the United States, when fears that our fledgling nation might not withstand another major war like the Revolutionary War were still rampant; and so, an armed citizenry seemed the appropriate measure. However, with the singular exception of Pearl Harbor, we've never been invaded by a major power, and even at Pearl Harbor it was at our remotest state, Hawaii, which demonstrated why it might not be our right to bear arms that kept Japan from coming farther in to the U.S., and it might not even have been a fear of our military might.
In short, we're really, really far away from our enemies.
Was it fear of an armed citizenry that kept Japan from coming closer? Certainly our two vast oceans, the Pacific and the Atlantic, which separate us greatly from other lands, deserve some of the credit. After all, a sustained attack against an enemy on the other side of the planet isn't a smart tactic, even for the boldest of generals.
So the mind has to ask itself, once it has weighed all of this data, "Why are we so afraid of stricter gun laws, or even just a change to the Second Amendment?" It's not "unconstitutional" to change an amendment--as I said, we did it with Prohibition and almost everyone is happy about that, so we know for a fact that it's permissable. So why are we so resistant?
The mind argues back: "We had even less gun laws in the 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s (which is true, for the most part), but we never heard of anything like these rashes of school shootings and workplace shootings back then! So, it's got to be the people! It's not the guns! The people have changed! It's them, it's not the guns!"
Well, if that's the case, then we've just accepted the fact that we've changed, that we're different than we were before, and that maybe, just maybe, something is transforming America. Some unseen force, or else a series of events and cultural distortions (which is far more likely, in my opinion), have changed us. We're angrier, more violent. Whether it's the politics, the economy, the population growth creating greater competition, poverty, TV and video games glorifying violence, lack of education or other socio-economic problems, we're obviously a changed people.
Maybe we need the guns controlled more.
But then quickly our mind races to Mexico, which has intense gun laws, yet look at all its violence. It's as the pro-gun advocates say: "The good guys don't have them, because they're busy obeying the law, and therefore only the bad guys have them." Yes, this is true, the mind argues back, but the guns are typically used by thugs against other thugs, cartels, and cops who at least have access to tactics, training and body armor. The guns in Mexico aren't used anywhere near as much in school shootings. (To get a look at all the major school shootings in the world from 1996 to present, and to see the OVERWHELMING majority of those that take place in America, check out this site: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0777958.html)
"So what's wrong with America?" we ask ourselves. "Why does this happen so frequently here?"
People may point to strange sources, such as saying that it's a lack of "God" in homes or schools, that a secular society has created this problem, but the data clearly doesn't support that theory, either. America has only about 10 - 14% of its population as agnostic or atheist, and the overwhelming majory of Americans show themselves to be far more religious than people in other countries like Britain, where this sort of thing is so much more of a rarity.
So why America? Why us? Why does this happen to such severity here, and so often? It's gotten to the point that it's a guaranteed bet that not 6 months will go by before we hear about this again, this time at a college, or another movie theater, or a church, or a high school.
The last lingering question that leaves us conflicted is this one: Would we rather keep the Second Amendment EXACTLY as it is now, knowing full-well that a direct repercussion is that this is going to happen again, or would we rather do something that we may feel is drastic, such as removing or at least "amending the amendment"? Would you rather keep your right to bear arms, if it means 6 months from now another 30 innocent children are going to be killed again, or that 40 theater-goers are going to be destroyed, or that 20 college kids are going to lose their lives? Are you not even open to the discussion that something needs to be done?
Maybe the pro-gun advocates are right. Maybe the world is changing, and we do need to protect ourselves more and more. But maybe the enemy we have to protect ourselves from is the enemy from within.
I own a gun, and I have a license to conceal and carry. I teach self-defense, and I believe it's important to know. I'm even certified to teach Combat Handgun Combatives. I know that I'm never going to use my gun to hurt an innocent person, but I no longer know what's on the mind of the other gun owners, such as the man who shot House Represenative Gabrielle Giffords, or the Virginia Tech shooter.
In short, just because you know that you're not going to use guns for ill, can you say the same for others? We can try to say, "Blame it on the parents," but that doesn't make it so that parents are instantly going to become better parents. We can say, "The families of these shooters ought to have known and reported to the police that their brother was acting fishy, before he went out to kill all those people," but that's neither practical nor realistic, even in the slightest sense. No one has a crystal ball, no one can tell if their wife or husband is suddenly going to go bonkers three months from now and kill their whole family.
But the mind still argues: "People have been killing senators and family members and children since time began. Hell, Julius Caesar was killed by a host of fellow politicians, friends and even family! Guns didn't do all of that."
Yes, men also shot and killed Presidents Lincoln, Garfield, McKinley, and Kennedy, and all of those assassinations happened well before our time. World leaders have also been targets, and will always be. This is part of the risks they knowingly take on when they enter into office. But no child enters into elementary school knowingly taking on the risk of being slaughtered in a hail of gunfire. Well, perhaps they do in countries we deem "below" our status.
And if that's so, what does it say about us?
Follow me on Twitter: @ChadRyanHuskins
Follow me on Facebook, and my fan page "Pscyho Series by Chad Huskins"
Visit my website: www.forestofideas.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)