I recently heard that there are an estimated 250 million guns in the United States. There are an estimated 111 million households in America. Using these numbers that would mean there are 2.2 guns for every household in America. That seems like a lot of guns to me. As I began to ponder these numbers I wondered with all of these guns are we a safer nation? Have all of these guns provided us with the security many of us are seeking?
??I began researching the facts concerning gun violence in America in relation to the rest of the industrialized world. What I found was shocking not in what it said about guns but what it said about our culture. With or without guns we live in a violent culture. Confrontation and violence seems to be ingrained in our national psyche. In America, violence appears to be the first remedy to situations both by the government and its people. Do I believe there are too many guns in America? Yes I do, but I don’t believe that the problem for all the violence in America is guns.
I believe in trying to reduce the number of guns not because I believe it will make us less violent of a society but because guns make killing and violence too easy. Guns make killing too quick and too efficient. People kill today without thinking and without remorse and with guns you can do that. Imagine if there were fewer guns killing would become more difficult. Guns make killing too detached. Without guns you would have to face down your intended target and it would be messier.
I want to provide some figures to illustrate but the problem with the NRA and other gun lobbyists is that any talk of restricting guns is immediately met with hyperbole and demagoguery. The problem with not considering the arguments and opinions of others is that you begin to seem irrational and foolish. By the way the armed militia argument being necessary to prevent tyranny is wrong on many levels. We aren’t providing arms to minutemen soldiers but to any idiot that can get one.
Also an armed society has proven to be no safer a democracy than a non armed society. The US has 90 guns for every 100 people making it the most heavily armed country in the world. (1) The second most armed nation is Yemen, that bastion of democracy. Are the people in England, Canada, or Greece more in danger of losing their democracies because they are not as armed as the US?
On the list of murders per capita in the world the United States ranks 24th. We rank higher than any of the industrialized nations except Russia. We trail countries like Columbia, Mexico, and Zimbabwe; not bad company for the richest nation on earth.??· In 2005 there were 30,694 gun deaths in the US. (2) In 1998 gun homicides in the rest of the industrialized world were as follows (3)
373 – Germany?
51 – Canada?
57 – Australia?
19 – Japan?
54 – England?
11,789 – US??
More guns have obviously not made us safer. However guns alone are not the problem. We must begin to adopt ways to reduce the level of violence in our culture and in our society at large. This will be extremely difficult in a society that glamorizes violence and disseminates it through all forms of media. The economic crisis and the election of Barack Obama have led to an increase in the number of requests for background checks for gun purchases. In November they were up 40% over the previous year and in December they were up by 25%. People are feeling less secure about the future and showing this unease by purchasing more guns.
We have made killing too easy in our country and have not addressed the underlying culture of violence. You cannot glorify violence and then have easy access to guns. Somehow we must tone down the aggression and teach our children that violence is not the answer to all of life’s challenges and difficulties.
We must develop a responsible and comprehensive way of reducing the number of guns or none of us will be safe. Just as the drug kingpin Carlos Escobar was held responsible for flooding our streets with dangerous drugs so the gun manufacturers must be held accountable for flooding our streets with guns. We can no longer decide arbitrarily which dangers we seek to address and which ones we don’t. Where there is arbitrary power, there is tyranny.??
Nip the shoots of arbitrary power in the bud, is the only maxim which can ever preserve the liberties of any people.
The Courts and Congress have come to believe there is reason for fear. Enemies are everywhere. Those who wish to do us harm are in our homes. They talk to us on our telephones. Some sashay in through our computers. “Evil doers” are ubiquitous in the United States. Our open society places the public at risk. We, the people, must defend ourselves. Thus, the Supreme Court and Congress have given the government and us the means. The highest judicial body in the nation has made it possible for the common man to protect himself with a pistol; Legislators provided the President ethereal firearms. Indeed, individuals and the Commander-In-Chief were bequeathed more than either had asked for. In 2008, we have entered the Summer of Separation. In the United States we say, “Farewell to privacy. Hello to arms.”
Absorbed in fear, Americans have detached themselves from the original intent of the United States Constitution. We the people have embraced weaponry and rejected our right to privacy. The populace, with assistance from Congress willingly chose to forfeit the Fourth Amendment. authentic freedoms were disemboweled. If the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) stands, and there is no reason to think a Bill signed into law by the President of the United States and each House of Congress would not be fully implemented, the press and the people will no longer have unfettered access to information. Nor can they disseminate data without intense scrutiny. Chris Hedges, a twenty year veteran Foreign Correspondent for The New York Times, speaks to a truth that he lived and now fears will die.
The new FISA Amendments Act nearly eviscerates oversight of government surveillance. It allows the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to review only general procedures for spying rather than individual warrants. The court will not be told specifics about who will be wiretapped, which means the law provides woefully inadequate safeguards to protect innocent people whose communications are caught up in the government’s dragnet surveillance program.
The law, passed under the guise of national security, ostensibly targets people outside the country. There is no question, however, that it will ensnare many communications between Americans and those overseas. Those communications can be stored indefinitely and disseminated, not just to the U.S. government but to other governments.
This law will cripple the work of those of us who as reporters communicate regularly with people overseas, especially those in the Middle East. It will intimidate dissidents, human rights activists, and courageous officials who seek to expose the lies of our government or governments allied with ours. It will hang like the sword of Damocles over all who dare to defy the official versions of events. It leaves open the possibility of retribution and invites the potential for abuse by those whose concern is not with national security but with the consolidation of their own power.
Trepidation has long been a tool for intimidation. A frightened fellow or female will happily adopt a policy or a pistol to relieve apprehension. Perhaps, that it why after the events of September 11, 2001, Americans, panicked and the power elite prospered. As the Twin Towers fell, the people cried out for protection. Congress gleefully approved the Patriot Act; and as a nation, we pursued a course of action that was and is contrary to Constitutional principles. Even early on, Americans said, “Farewell to privacy. Hello to arms.”
As the war thundered on, the public worked to avoid greater anxiety. People purchased more guns for personal safety sake. They feared the government might not be able to shield them from all potential harms. Indeed, this attitude has been ubiquitous in American history. The Wild West outlook often overrides logic or Constitutional law. In America, there have been many Summers of Separation.
When humans think weaponry is the solution, as they do in a country where there are ninety guns per every one hundred U.S. residents, they will grab a pistol when faced with any problem. The availability of petroleum has become a paradox. Prices for fuel and food are high. The cost for shelter is higher. Homes are in foreclosure. Job security is but a myth. Employer provided benefits are elusive. The cost for Health Care coverage is out of reach; yet, the gun that could end it all is close.
Immigration is also an issue that irks many in America. When migrants flee to the States in search of financial freedom, the native-born feel further threatened. The divide between the races causes much resentment. Income inequity offers reason for rage. Economic slavery causes tempers to rise. In 2008, the effect of all these predicaments troubles the populace. The American public is aggravated. Currently, people feel less safe, less strong, and more scared. Millions ponder. Force can seem the great equalizer. Hence, gun ownership is great. The Small Arms Survey, released in August 2007 reveals Americans have a ready arsenal.
The report went on to state that the common folk are better equipped with weaponry than law enforcement or the military might be. Civilians who reside in cities, suburbs, and those who dwell in the countryside possess the vast majority of total firearms owned in the United States. Citizens in a country built on might will use firepower to retain what they believe is their right. If they are refused the privilege to pack heat, Americans will seek recourse by any means.
Special-forces policeman Heller, a resident of Washington District of Columbia certainly did. The lawman, aware that anyone on the street might be armed sought solace in a piece of hardware. Mister Heller applied to register a handgun he wished to keep at home; the District denied his request since, at the time, the District of Columbia forbade civilian handgun ownership. Disgruntled, and prepared for battle, as Americans often are, Officer Heller filed a legal suit. He stated his Second Amendment Rights were violated. The Supreme Court agreed.
A review of the actual Second Amendment which states Americans have the Right to “bear arms in times when a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free State,” or research might have led the Justices to decide otherwise. Nonetheless, in a summer steeped with separation from acumen, the Supreme Court ruled civilian gun ownership is a right.
The Administration, policymakers, and pundits think the decision wise. After all, it is a dangerous world. Americans need to be prepared to fight the ominous foe Fifteen years ago, near half of American households understood this. People built arsenals. Thirty-one percent of adult Americans owned a firearm in 1993. Still, that armory was not enough to protect the citizenry from attack. Years later, the munitions stored, while likely larger, were no better protection.
The FBI’s Crime in the United States estimated that 66% of the 16,137 murders in 2004 were committed with firearms.
Crimes occurred outside the home, on the streets of any given community and , just as predicted, some transgressions traumatized those within four walls. Few Americans ponder the weightier aspects of artillery in the American home.
Earlier this year (1997), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention published a mind-boggling report showing that the U.S. firearm-related homicide rate for children was 16 times higher than the combined rate for children in 25 other industrialized countries. Meanwhile, the U.S. child rate of firearm related suicide was 11 times higher. . .
Last year, Congress nearly slashed the budget for the CDC’s National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (NCIPC), which collects and monitors firearm injury data and funds related research as part of its mission. As a result of new funding mandates, CDC this year has been forced to dramatically reduce its firearm-related injury research, and CDC-funded gunshot injury surveillance programs will come to an end in several states.
All this comes at a time when gunshot injuries are expected to soon outstrip automobile accidents as the number one cause of injury death in the U.S., costing an estimated $20 billion yearly in medical costs and lost productivity. Surprisingly little medical research monitors the kinds of firearm injuries that occur or the types of guns used. While the CDC samples unshot injury data from 91 hospitals around the country, there is no comprehensive national surveillance system to accurately track how many people are wounded by guns each year..
Surveillance is the sham used to explain what Federal officials think a greater priority. Those who have more power than a weapon might wield understand the statistics on civilian gun wounds would not please or appease Americans. Information on gun injury might shift the fear factor. If the people are to remain focused on foreign forces, then FISA, the Bill that keeps on giving to the politically powerful, will remain safe, and after all, is that not the truer issue. As foreign correspondent Christopher Hedges reminds us . . .
Thankfully, when prized pistols are in question, it is easy to silence voices of dissent. Physicians were not asked to speak before the Supreme Court shot down a ban on gun sales. Had they had the opportunity Americans and the Justices might have heard . . .
Washington (Reuters) – Last month’s Supreme Court ruling striking down a strict gun control law in the U.S. capital will lead to more deaths and accidental injuries, the editors of the New England Journal of Medicine said on Wednesday.
They joined a growing clamor from medical doctors, especially emergency room physicians, who fear a surge of accidental deaths, murders, and suicides if handguns become more easily available than they already are.
The ruling struck down a law in Washington that forbade personal ownership of handguns. The court made explicit, for the first time, that Americans had rights as individuals to own guns.
It won praise from President George W. Bush, Republican presidential candidate John McCain and guns rights advocates (and the presumptive Democratic nominee, Barack Obama)
Justice Antonin Scalia, who voted with the 5-4 majority on the decision, said citizens may prefer handguns for home defense because they “can be pointed at a burglar with one hand while the other hand dials the police.”
Perchance, Justice Scalia would be comforted to know, that with thanks to his cohorts in the Legislative Branch, when a city dweller or a rural resident telephones for assistance, he or she can be comforted by the thought the authorities are very close by. Indeed, public officials may be plugged into the individual’s phone, and computer. In the Summer of Separation, as powerbrokers in one part of Washington said , “Hello To Arms,” those on the other side of the Hill proclaimed, “Farewell To Privacy.”
The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act established thirty years ago was all but rescinded. The court system created to help public officials in a crisis is no longer needed to swiftly serve warrants when an investigation is requested. The Constitution has been compromised.
Lawmakers are already justifying their votes for making major changes to that proven regime by saying that the bill is a reasonable compromise that updates FISA technologically and will make it somewhat harder to spy on Americans abroad. But none of that mitigates the bill’s much larger damage. It would make it much easier to spy on Americans at home, reduce the courts’ powers, and grant immunity to the companies that turned over Americans’ private communications without a warrant.
It would allow the government to bypass the FISA court and collect large amounts of Americans’ communications without a warrant simply by declaring that it is doing so for reasons of national security. It cuts the vital “foreign power” provision from FISA, never mentions counterterrorism and defines national security so broadly that experts think the term could mean almost anything a president wants it to mean.
The President is abundantly pleased. The present Commander-In-Chief is now assured ultimate power. Future potential Chief Executives, one of whom voted to support this conciliatory commitment to telecommunication companies, will forever retain the “right” to be spy on the citizenry. In the Summer of Separation, cognitive and Constitutional dissonance is secure. Congress and the courts assured us of this.
Congress cast aside the Fourth Amendment, The Supreme Court rescinded the essence of the Second Amendment. Our countrymen are now be free to carry a gun, and chat on an open line with the trigger cocked. Former President of the United States, Franklin Delano Roosevelt told us “Only Thing We Have to Fear Is Fear Itself.” Perhaps, the prominent predecessor could not have predicted a day when citizens would be convinced to embrace fretfulness, to forego freedom, and to sing, “Farewell to privacy. Hello to Arms.”
I’ve never been a big backer of gun rights, especially when it comes to handguns. I don’t like them personally, and, in the America I grew up in, didn’t see the need for the average citizen to have them. Still, I’ve known lots of people who enjoy hunting, or who get the same warm fuzzy going to a gun show that I get at a comic-book convention. To each there own, I thought.
But my views have started to evolve during the Bush reign, and I found myself having a different reaction to last week’s Supreme Court decision than I think I would have seven years ago. As this week’s toon makes clear, I’m having “Second Amendment Second Thoughts” [Archive No. 0825].
The night was young, and yet, the messages were old. The top-tier Democratic hopefuls huddled together around a round table. The stage was prepared and the performance would be unparalleled. Each character in this play reveled in an accepted reality. Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, or Barack Obama, are “right” for the country. No one else could compare to this cast of characters. In truth, the three were one. The dramatic debate was cordial and quaint. The candidates were polite, prim, and extremely proper. The production was well-managed. No one was scolded. Regrets were expressed. Geniality grew as the hopefuls promised to do no harm to the others.
It was easy to be calm. The setting was comfortable. Candidates were able to comfortably sit in chairs. The dialogue was intended to seem spontaneous. There was no rehearsal, supposedly. As the Presidential aspirants interacted amicably, spoke, the audience wondered; would they join hands and hum kumbaya.
The only possible opposition to the message of unified-status-quo was strategically eliminated from the panel. Corps and the Courts barred the only voice-of-change from what MSNBC billed as a Democratic Candidate Debate. General Electric owned and operated, MSNBC refused to allow Presidential aspirant Dennis Kucinich to participate in this televised assemblage. Apparently, according to Donald Campbell, a Las Vegas lawyer who represented NBC Universal, “The Federal Communication Commission [FCC] broadcast rules do not apply to cable TV networks.”
Given this statement, unexpectedly, Americans have an answer to what has long been a source of confusion. The cable news channels need not broadcast in the interest of the people. An audience, the source for sales, is captive. For producers, favoritism is fine. Viewers, who have long claimed the candidate they will cast a ballot for, are absent from the air, now, we know why. Only those, the writers considered crucial were part of the plot. Extras, or unelectables, as defined by the network Directors, need not apply.
Attorney Donald Campbell proclaimed, to force MSNBC to include the people’s entrant, Dennis Kucinich, or not air the debate if the Congressman from Ohio did not appear, would amount to “prior restraint.” Legal legend, Campbell declared to allow Presidential aspirant Kucinich to take the stage would be a tantamount to a “clear and unequivocal” violation of the First Amendment. Campbell pleaded with the Justices, and requested they consider the right to a free press. The Nevada Supreme Court Jurors conferred and concluded Campbell was correct.
Individual liberties, and the ‘public’s right to know’ may be legally abridged if cable corporate Chief Executives needs are involved. in 2008, exceptions and exclusions dominate the Democratic debates as does obfuscation.
Americans might have heard in the past, on the few occasions when they were afforded an opportunity, Congressman Kucinich is committed to bring the all the troops home from Iraq months after he enters the Oval Office. Not only will President Kucinich establish a policy of truth and reconciliation, Commander-In-chief Kucinich will lead with a refined resolution.
The US announces it will end the occupation, close military bases and withdraw. The insurgency has been fueled by the occupation and the prospect of a long-term presence as indicated by the building of permanent bases. A US declaration of an intention to withdraw troops and close bases will help dampen the insurgency which has been inspired to resist colonization and fight invaders and those who have supported US policy. Furthermore this will provide an opening where parties within Iraq and in the region can set the stage for negotiations towards peaceful settlement.
Our future President Dennis Kucinich, believes we must recognize the plight of the people of Iraq. Americans cannot ignore the truth; we went to war on false premises. This fact alone affects the battle. For too long citizens of this “free” democratic homeland deny the realities on the ground. Circumstances ensure there is no hope of a military resolution. As occupiers, we provoke more discord than bring peace. A President Kucinich avows the United States must own its responsibility, and accept our actions caused the chaos. A diplomatic process, adherence to international law will achieve stability in Iraq. When Americans work towards a reverent resolution in Iraq, our troops will be able to return home with dignity.
This philosophy and plan contrasts with the Three-Are-One Plan. What Americans heard was, as Fact Check characterized it, “Iraqi Theatre,” absurd, and lackluster. Nonetheless, this, we are told is want Americans want, regardless of the polls that state the general public wants out of this futile war.
Once again, the candidates all made sweeping claims about their plans to withdraw troops from Iraq. Obama and Edwards promised to “get our troops out” by the end of 2009, while Clinton promised to begin withdrawing troops within 60 days and promised to have “nearly all the troops out” by the end of 2009. But under questioning, all three conceded that troops could be in Iraq for years:
Obama: I will end the war as we understand it in combat missions. But that we are going to have to protect our embassy. We’re going to have to protect our civilians. We’re engaged in humanitarian activity there. We are going to have to have some presence that allows us to strike if al Qaeda is creating bases inside of Iraq.
Clinton: Well, I think that what Barack is what John and I also meant at that same time, because, obviously, we have to be responsible, we have to protect our embassy, we do need to make sure that, you know, our strategic interests are taken care of.
Edwards: I just want to say, it is dishonest to suggest that you’re not going to have troops there to protect the embassy. That’s just not the truth. It may be great political theater and political rhetoric, but it’s not the truth.
As far as we can tell, there isn’t much daylight between the Iraq policies of Clinton, Edwards and Obama. The biggest difference we noticed: Edwards would station some combat troops in Kuwait and bring them into Iraq whenever they were needed to counter terrorist activity. Clinton and Obama would keep about the same number of troops for precisely the same mission, but they would station those troops in Iraq. We leave it to our readers to determine how significant that difference is.
There is a distinction between combat troops and embassy guards. But the candidates drew this distinction only when pressed. The fact is all of them would have Americans in uniform stationed in Iraq indefinitely, and all of them leave open the possibility that U.S. combat troops will be fighting limited engagements in Iraq for years, whether they are stationed in Iraq or Kuwait. That leaves us agreeing with Edwards: There was definitely some political theater going on.
After this performance, the actors did not stand; nor did they take their bows. These artistes are professional entertainers. Clinton, Edwards, and Obama need no props. They can deliver a monologue without a script. These three are truly practiced. They know their craft.
Cater to the corporate sponsors. Cackle in a charming manner. Be charismatic. Present a commanding presence. Remember, the public likes it when you are cute. Cry, if you must, but be cautious. True emotions can distract or create distance between you and the audience. Strut your stuff, but whatever you do, do not subscribe to the “extreme” positions, mainstream candidate Congressman Kucinich does.
Speaking of arsenals, MSNBC Correspondents, and employees of parent company General Electric turn to the topic of guns. The Presidential players sing the song conventionally Conservative, Constitutional constructionist wish to hear. Guns? Grab me by the barrel and I am yours.
Russert: The leading cause for death among young black men is guns — death, homicide. Mayor Bloomberg of New York, you all know him, he and 250 mayors have started the campaign, Mayors Against Illegal Guns.
Senator Clinton, when you ran for the Senate in 2000, you said that everyone who wishes to purchase a gun should have a license, and that every handgun sale or transfer should be registered in a national registry. Will you try to implement such a plan?
Clinton: Well, I am against illegal guns, and illegal guns are the cause of so much death and injury in our country. I also am a political realist and I understand that the political winds are very powerful against doing enough to try to get guns off the street, get them out of the hands of young people.
The law in New York was as you state, and the law in New York has worked to a great extent.
Clinton: I don’t want the federal government preempting states and cities like New York that have very specific problems.
So here’s what I would do. We need to have a registry that really works with good information about people who are felons, people who have been committed to mental institutions like the man in Virginia Tech who caused so much death and havoc. We need to make sure that that information is in a timely manner, both collected and presented.
We do need to crack down on illegal gun dealers. This is something that I would like to see more of.
And we need to enforce the laws that we have on the books. I would also work to reinstate the assault weapons ban. We now have, once again, police deaths going up around the country, and in large measure because bad guys now have assault weapons again. We stopped it for awhile. Now they’re back on the streets.
So there are steps we need to take that we should do together. You know, I believe in the Second Amendment. People have a right to bear arms. But I also believe that we can common-sensically approach this.
Russert: But you’ve backed off a national licensing registration plan?
Ahhh, the audience applauds. We witness one of those moments of regret. A subdued Clinton, in character shows her inner strength. She is strong enough to admit she was [once] wrong, or at least, did not act in accordance with what the producers or the public relations persons say the people prefer. The moderator, the narrator, or the demigod for political dialogue then turns his attention to another in the cast.
Russert: Senator Obama, when you were in the state senate, you talked about licensing and registering gun owners. Would you do that as president?
Obama: I don’t think that we can get that done. But what I do think we can do is to provide just some common-sense enforcement. One good example — this is consistently blocked — the efforts by law enforcement to obtain the information required to trace back guns that have been used in crimes to unscrupulous gun dealers.
That’s not something that the NRA has allowed to get through Congress. And, as president, I intend to make it happen.
But here’s the broader context that I think is important for us to remember. We essentially have two realities, when it comes to guns, in this country. You’ve got the tradition of lawful gun ownership, that all of us saw, as we travel around rural parts of the country.
And it is very important for many Americans to be able to hunt, fish, take their kids out, teach them how to shoot.
And then you’ve got the reality of 34 Chicago public school students who get shot down on the streets of Chicago.
We can reconcile those two realities by making sure the Second Amendment is respected and that people are able to lawfully own guns, but that we also start cracking down on the kinds of abuses of firearms that we see on the streets.
We began this performance with the notion of Amendments. It seems apt that we return to the discussion of Rights. On stage, the actors address issues of public interest, while they work to avoid any offer of information in the interest of the common good.
Russert: Senator Edwards, Democrats used to be out front for registration and licensing of guns. It now appears that there’s a recognition that it’s hard to win a national election with that position. Is that fair?
Edwards: I think that’s fair, but I haven’t changed my position on this. I’m against it. Having grown up where I did in the rural South, everyone around me had guns, everyone hunted. And I think it is enormously important to protect people’s Second Amendment rights.
I don’t believe that means you need an AK-47 to hunt. And I think the assault weapons ban, which Hillary spoke about just a minute ago, as president of the United States, I’ll do everything in my power to reinstate it. But I do think we need a president who understands the sportsmen, hunters who use their guns for lawful purposes have a right to have their Second Amendment rights looked after.
Might we again ask of Rights, the Bill of Rights, Constitutional Amendments, and how the Courts apply these to weapons-maker General Electric, the owner, and operator of Microsoft-NBC. Could we consider the courts determination and how the same rules affect the outcome as it relates to citizen, Congressman, and Presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich. The words freedom and justice for all come to mind. In a country where all men are created equal, perchance, the interest of Corporate Chiefs supersedes those of the common folk.
Were we to review Act I, Scenes II, II, or IV we would see how similar the cast of characters are on issues such as Energy, Health Care, Immigration and more. However, this Playbill is just as the Producers prefer, concise. After all, conventional wisdom, which is all the network wishes to present, is American audiences have short attention spans. This too, maybe by design.
Perchance, critics might pose the better question. Why are Americans willing to accept theatre of the absurd? Citizens tune in and channel the “advisable” perceptions. The “majority” of people consider Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John Edwards as separate candidates, the super stars, amongst the dramatis personae. Audience members focus on placement and how a Presidential hopeful moves across the stage. Intonations inspire. Cadence counts. Most Americans ignore that there is little variance in the actors’ script. Personalities may not be identical. However, essentially, the three are one.
As Americans look at the Presidential aspirants declared viable, we laugh, we clap, we cheer, and we jeer. Once we choose the candidate-of-change, and place that person in the Oval Office, might we realize as we could have during this “debate,” there is little difference? Will citizens ask for a refund? This premiere performance might help us to understand, the price of this ticket may be far too costly.