I love a good thriller and thrillers usually involve violence. What I don't like is the portrayal of violence as the universal answer to any problem. If I read a book or watch a film that uses violence to sort the job out, I feel cheated. I think of it as lazy and unimaginative writing.
Violence creates problems, it doesn't solve them.
Take a comment I once saw posted on the Glock website. (For those of you who don't have an interest in handguns, I will explain. Glock make pistols that are the weapon of choice for many law enforcement agencies. British police use them, for example.) A customer asked why the Glock 19 only held fifteen bullets in its magazine. The answer was a good one. If fifteen rounds from a Glock hasn't solved your problem then maybe you chose the wrong solution.
My complaint is that books and films choose the Glock solution too often when it is inappropriate and unsatisfactory.
Most of us don't have the option to visit violent retribution on evildoers. As any sane American will testify, nor does having a gun protect you. (Unless someone shoots you and the bullet hits your gun and bounces off, I suppose)
My protagonist in Due Diligence, Jenny Parker, is an ordinary person. She's just like you and I. Vulnerable. No institution to back her up. She doesn't have the option to fight fire with fire. That would not only get her arrested. It would be also be pointless and ineffective. She has to find other ways to survive. She has to use her wits.
I find that so much more satisfying to write and to read.
As for the magazine capacity of a Glock 19, I find it hard to stuff more than ten rounds into the magazine before the spring gets too stiff for my thumb.
(I hasten to add that my experience of handguns has been limited to a legal range in the US while conducting research. Sometimes it's necessary to obtain first hand experience even if you disapprove of what you're trying out.)
photo credit: subtlemd CZ 85B 9mm via photopin (license)
