This is my first post. I figured I would let my guest membership go without posting, but I saw this thing that really ticked me off.
There are ads on the busses here. Lots of ads. I thought I’d seen them all, but no!
Black ad. White lettering.
Top: “Use a gun, do extra time.”
Underneath, police-mugshot style pictures of four unsavory looking scowling guys (one white, one hispanic, two black, if I remember correctly) and under each picture “+5 years.”
Bottom: “Don’t use a gun.”
Glance at ad. Glance back to book. Do double-take. Waitafuckingminute!
Hey! Guys! We know you’re gonna be out stealing cars and holding up convenience stores and whatever it is you criminal set do for fun these days, but remember- if you use a gun doing it, you’ll have to serve extra years! If only these dudes had used knives instead of guns, they’d be serving five fewer years! Be SMART criminals!
Jumping Jesus on a pogo stick! Are we really trying to convey the message that crime is fine as long as guns aren’t involved? Have we just GIVEN UP on a segment of the population (the one that rides certain bus routes, apparently) and assume they’ll be criminals, so we might as well try to minimize the damage? What gives? What is the actual purpose here? Is there any earthly rationale behind the ads? Am I the only one who thinks this is bizzare?
Even worse, one of the sponsors of the thing was apparently Crime Stoppers. An ad that tacitly condones crime is supposed to… Stop crime? Help me here, somebody.
It’s an attempt to keep criminals from using guns when committing crimes. Serious injury and/or death is much less likely if guns aren’t involved.
Apparently you can go to prison just for carrying a gun if you’re a convicted felon. They’ve been running an ad on the radio around here by Johnnie Cochran that’s pretty funny. It says:
"If you get arrested and the arresting officer didn’t read you your rights, a good lawyer can get you out of it.
"If you go to trial and the evidence was obtained without a proper search warrant, a good lawyer can get you out of it.
“But, if you’re a convicted felon and you get caught with a gun…even I can’t get you out of it.”
Dragoness doesn’t like message, “If you rob people, don’t use a gun.” Abstinence only people don’t like message “If you fuck, don’t do it without a condom.”
There’s a similar ad that plays on the radio around here (SF Bay Area)… it goes something like " ‘my name is little Timmy, and when my big brother was convicted of a gun crime, I was convicted to 5 years of walking to school alone, not having anyone to play catch with, etc.’ When you commit a gun crime, your FAMILY pays the price".
Because, like, if you kill someone with a gun, the real tragedy is that you won’t be around to be a positive role model for your little brother.
Kansas City, Kansas is a gritty, tough, ugly, industrial town; like a prsperous version of Gary plopped onto the prairie next to its more glamorous, more intelligent, and more educated sibling of Kansas City, Missouri.
A couple of years ago, when I was living in one of the billboard-free suburban towns of Johnson County, Kansas, I would notice these cryptic billboards in KCK - a silhouette of a rifle, with the text “ONE WILL GET YOU A NICKEL” underneath it. Huh? Turned out to be prison slang; use a gun in a crime, and get an automatic five year sentence. That 's all fine and good, but the billboards were menacing. Imagine living in a community where anti-crime and anti-wife beating billboards stare down at you. Would you feel safe there?
I think a more effective anti-crime billboard would be something implying “Go to jail, and become Tyrone’s personal bitch.”
I think the ad is meant to reach people who have no intention of killing, or even shooting anyone. If you’re willing to take the risk of a murder rap for the privilege of popping a cap in some guy’s ass, the five years extra won’t bother you a bit.
If you’re just trying to get the $600.00 from the liquor store register, and intend the gun to be used just as a “negotiation tool”, the extra five-year sentence might be a factor you would consider.
The risk/reward ratios for the two cases are not exactly analogous.
OK, true story. My family had a couple of foreign exchange students living with us some years ago. They wanted to go shopping, so we took them to the mall, where they were surprised to see the wide selection of rifles, handguns, and ammunition available at the chain sporting goods store.
I explained that there were in fact risks associated with the easy acquisition of weapons, but that we considered it a reasonable price to pay to live in a free society. This was, I shit you not, April 19, 1999. The next day, when I got home from work, I found out that the Columbine school shootings had occurred.
I still feel that the risk is acceptable and reasonable, but was not successful convincing our visitors of that.
