| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/03/2013 01:24:08 PM · #51 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Well, duh... But that's sort of the point, isn't it? We've sort of grown into a culture so inoculated with extreme violence, gunplay, and explosives that these elements have nearly taken over our popular entertainment, and it's pretty hard to "score" if you don't cater to that mindset. It's like a self-fulfilling prophecy. It's absolutely SICK. |
So, to the thinking individual, the PSA looks more like a salve for the conscience of Hollywood rather than something that can make a difference. Now it's somewhat unfair to throw every actor under the bus (note there were actors that the parody video couldn't find footage for), but Hollywood must come to grips with the idea that on this subject they are, on the whole, rotten to the core.
If I were an important leader of NOW and I kept starring in movies that were completely mysogynistic, do you think my power to advocate for women's issues would be compromised? The PSA is Hollywood's attempt to do exactly that. They want to play both sides of the fence (for the money, natch). |
|
|
|
01/03/2013 01:25:32 PM · #52 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
At a fundamental level, I think it's hypocritical, yes. If "celebrities" put their money where their mouths are at, and refused to act these roles, THAT would be meaningful. |
This thread lost track after the second post. Don't we already have a thread where the same people are saying the same things? The question was whether actors (or "hollywood") is hypocritical in their willingness to hop onto a PSA while at the same time feeding into the cult of firearms on the screen. I saw a blog on zite about this two days ago and I felt that it DOES show a level of hypocrisy. I agree with Robert that if an actor suddenly announced they would not star in a role that glorified firearm violence THEN we might take notice. |
Sooo, that leaves them with what employment options? PSA's and PBS? |
You missed an option: STFU.
On the topic of hypocrisy - Hell yes, it's hypocritical, but more to the point, why anyone gives a sh*t what "celebrities" think is just another symptom of what is wrong with our society. I value what they say far less than the opinions posted here (even Shannon's!) ;-) |
|
|
|
01/03/2013 01:31:30 PM · #53 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
why anyone gives a sh*t what "celebrities" think is just another symptom of what is wrong with our society. I value what they say far less than the opinions posted here (even Shannon's!) ;-) |
Exactly. The opinions of celebrities means squat to me. But there are people who look up to them and make decisions based on what their favorite actor thinks. As silly as that sounds. And they are highly visible and can get an opinion heard. It got us talking about it, right?
|
|
|
|
01/03/2013 01:33:14 PM · #54 |
Originally posted by kenskid:
Let's say this:
The US adopts a British like gun policy. On June 1, 2013 all owners of guns must turn in these weapons to their state police. Registered guns will be picked up by the state police if they were not turned in on June 1.
If you are caught with an illegal weapon after June 1, you will face a minimum of 1 year in jail for a first offense and a minimum of 2 years for a second offense.
Will this work? |
After a few cops got shot they might rethink that policy
|
|
|
|
01/03/2013 01:33:36 PM · #55 |
Originally posted by jagar:
Just wondering but who on this site has never touched a gun ? I've seen one but never touched one, as I really don't want to kill anything I suppose I probably never will. In any given hour on the TV we are sure to see one though, sometimes I just feel left out :) |
A good question.
I've lived my life with firearms, owned dozens, shot hundreds.
I honestly suspect that often the anti-gun folks are just lacking exposure - honestly, it really does seem that propensity to dislike of firearms is directly correlated to lack of experience with firearms. |
|
|
|
01/03/2013 01:34:36 PM · #56 |
Originally posted by Yo_Spiff:
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
why anyone gives a sh*t what "celebrities" think is just another symptom of what is wrong with our society. I value what they say far less than the opinions posted here (even Shannon's!) ;-) |
Exactly. The opinions of celebrities means squat to me. But there are people who look up to them and make decisions based on what their favorite actor thinks. As silly as that sounds. And they are highly visible and can get an opinion heard. It got us talking about it, right? |
I'd rather hear more talk about fixing THAT, than gun bans. |
|
|
|
01/03/2013 01:35:18 PM · #57 |
Originally posted by jagar:
Just wondering but who on this site has never touched a gun ? I've seen one but never touched one, as I really don't want to kill anything I suppose I probably never will. In any given hour on the TV we are sure to see one though, sometimes I just feel left out :) |
I live in a huge gun culture...I touch some sort of firearm every day (and I am not a cop)
|
|
|
|
01/03/2013 01:36:18 PM · #58 |
Originally posted by Cory:
I honestly suspect that often the anti-gun folks are just lacking exposure - honestly, it really does seem that propensity to dislike of firearms is directly correlated to lack of experience with firearms. |
I learned to shoot when I was a kid. I've shot pistols, rifles, and shotguns. I haven't touched a gun in about 40 years, though. So I don't fit that profile. |
|
|
|
01/03/2013 01:37:58 PM · #59 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by jagar:
Just wondering but who on this site has never touched a gun ? I've seen one but never touched one, as I really don't want to kill anything I suppose I probably never will. In any given hour on the TV we are sure to see one though, sometimes I just feel left out :) |
A good question.
I've lived my life with firearms, owned dozens, shot hundreds.
I honestly suspect that often the anti-gun folks are just lacking exposure - honestly, it really does seem that propensity to dislike of firearms is directly correlated to lack of experience with firearms. |
My ex-wife was a good example of this...When we 1st moved in together she wanted my weapons out of the house. That is until I taught her how to use them and also self defence tactics...She became a damn good shot. I would not have wanted to try to rob her
|
|
|
|
01/03/2013 01:40:32 PM · #60 |
Originally posted by kenskid:
You're the Governor of the state - You can get ANY law passed. What is your Gun Law that will stop school shootings? |
High school civics: a governor cannot get ANY bill passed (much to the chagrin of Jan Brewer) and, with the possible exception of Hawaii, any legislation would have to be national for what should be obvious reasons (see Chicago). |
|
|
|
01/03/2013 01:42:32 PM · #61 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by jagar:
Just wondering but who on this site has never touched a gun ? I've seen one but never touched one, as I really don't want to kill anything I suppose I probably never will. In any given hour on the TV we are sure to see one though, sometimes I just feel left out :) |
A good question.
I've lived my life with firearms, owned dozens, shot hundreds.
I honestly suspect that often the anti-gun folks are just lacking exposure - honestly, it really does seem that propensity to dislike of firearms is directly correlated to lack of experience with firearms. |
Don't dislike them as such, just don't need them and I also feel totally safe without them, that's probably because I know I am safer.
|
|
|
|
01/03/2013 01:42:32 PM · #62 |
Ok...you're a legislator of a state.....and can pass ANY law....forget the 2nd Amendment....what is your law?
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by kenskid:
You're the Governor of the state - You can get ANY law passed. What is your Gun Law that will stop school shootings? |
High school civics: a governor cannot get ANY bill passed (much to the chagrin of Jan Brewer) and, with the possible exception of Hawaii, any legislation would have to be national for what should be obvious reasons (see Chicago). |
Message edited by author 2013-01-03 13:43:20. |
|
|
|
01/03/2013 01:43:36 PM · #63 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
I learned to shoot when I was a kid. I've shot pistols, rifles, and shotguns. I haven't touched a gun in about 40 years, though. So I don't fit that profile. |
Similar here, and having guns available for dissuasion or defense is more Hollywood fantasy than real-world reality. |
|
|
|
01/03/2013 01:47:29 PM · #64 |
Originally posted by Cory:
honestly, it really does seem that propensity to dislike of firearms is directly correlated to lack of experience with firearms. |
IMO this is really offensive... |
|
|
|
01/03/2013 01:50:20 PM · #65 |
Originally posted by Cory:
I honestly suspect that often the anti-gun folks are just lacking exposure - honestly, it really does seem that propensity to dislike of firearms is directly correlated to lack of experience with firearms. |
This shows a total lack of knowledge of "anti-gun" folks. |
|
|
|
01/03/2013 01:50:22 PM · #66 |
Originally posted by kenskid:
Ok...you're a legislator of a state.....and can pass ANY law....forget the 2nd Amendment....what is your law? |
Seriously, take a high school civics class. A state legislature cannot pass ANY law either. The 2nd Amendment is federal, and, with the possible exception of Hawaii, any legislation would have to be national for what should be obvious reasons (see Chicago). Your inept understanding of government aside, no law will stop school shootings for the same reason no law will stop traffic deaths or rape. They can only reduce the likelihood. Posted weeks ago:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Mandatory trigger locks, a national gun registry that can be cross referenced against violent felons and mental patients, safe storage requirements, licenses and a minimum standard of safety training like we have for car owners, shunning all recognition of perpetrators, help for the mentally ill (the polar opposite of cutting social services), rewards for reporting illegal firearms, licensed sales only, ban assault rifles and high capacity magazines, journalistic integrity standards for broadcast to reduce hatred and paranoia (intentionally lies can be expressed, but cannot be labeled news)... There are no shortage of ideas that can make a difference while preserving the right to gun ownership, only a shortage of the political courage to make it happen. |
Message edited by author 2013-01-03 13:58:52. |
|
|
|
01/03/2013 01:50:27 PM · #67 |
Originally posted by Cory:
I honestly suspect that often the anti-gun folks are just lacking exposure - honestly, it really does seem that propensity to dislike of firearms is directly correlated to lack of experience with firearms. |
For the record, I grew up in a country town where almost everyone had guns for livestock, pest control e.t.c. - kids grew up with 22's, that sort of deal. I have packed my own shot gun shells..... To be fair no one I knew had semi-auto, high caliber assault weapons with high capacity magazines, so maybe that rules me out from having an opinion. People using guns for a legitimate purpose just don't need that sort of weapon in my view.
See this is the problem with that line... Do I not understand because I've never shot up a class of kids? It's a nonsense strawman and just a way to diminish the objection from the other side. |
|
|
|
01/03/2013 01:51:07 PM · #68 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by jagar:
Just wondering but who on this site has never touched a gun ? I've seen one but never touched one, as I really don't want to kill anything I suppose I probably never will. In any given hour on the TV we are sure to see one though, sometimes I just feel left out :) |
A good question.
I've lived my life with firearms, owned dozens, shot hundreds.
I honestly suspect that often the anti-gun folks are just lacking exposure - honestly, it really does seem that propensity to dislike of firearms is directly correlated to lack of experience with firearms. |
I've held and shot a number of guns including 22's, AK-47, long range high caliper rifles, hell even potato guns. I agree with John, I don't dislike guns, but have never felt a need for them and actually feel safer without them. |
|
|
|
01/03/2013 02:01:18 PM · #69 |
Error posting...see other post
Originally posted by robs:
Originally posted by Cory:
I honestly suspect that often the anti-gun folks are just lacking exposure - honestly, it really does seem that propensity to dislike of firearms is directly correlated to lack of experience with firearms. |
For the record, I grew up in a country town where almost everyone had guns for livestock, pest control e.t.c. - kids grew up with 22's, that sort of deal. I have packed my own shot gun shells..... To be fair no one I knew had semi-auto, high caliber assault weapons with high capacity magazines, so maybe that rules me out from having an opinion. People using guns for a legitimate purpose just don't need that sort of weapon in my view.
See this is the problem with that line... Do I not understand because I've never shot up a class of kids? It's a nonsense strawman and just a way to diminish the objection from the other side. |
Message edited by author 2013-01-03 14:04:41. |
|
|
|
01/03/2013 02:03:53 PM · #70 |
Typical...just the response I thought you'd post. No answer and can't stand being challenged and you resort to insults. No one would have thought less of you if you would have said "I don't have an answer"
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by kenskid:
Ok...you're a legislator of a state.....and can pass ANY law....forget the 2nd Amendment....what is your law? |
Seriously, take a high school civics class. A state legislature cannot pass ANY law either. The 2nd Amendment is federal, and, with the possible exception of Hawaii, any legislation would have to be national for what should be obvious reasons (see Chicago). Your inept understanding of government aside, no law will stop school shootings for the same reason no law will stop traffic deaths or rape. They can only reduce the likelihood. Posted weeks ago:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Mandatory trigger locks, a national gun registry that can be cross referenced against violent felons and mental patients, safe storage requirements, licenses and a minimum standard of safety training like we have for car owners, shunning all recognition of perpetrators, help for the mentally ill (the polar opposite of cutting social services), rewards for reporting illegal firearms, licensed sales only, ban assault rifles and high capacity magazines, journalistic integrity standards for broadcast to reduce hatred and paranoia (intentionally lies can be expressed, but cannot be labeled news)... There are no shortage of ideas that can make a difference while preserving the right to gun ownership, only a shortage of the political courage to make it happen. |
|
|
|
|
|
01/03/2013 02:06:24 PM · #71 |
Typical...just the response I thought you'd post. You didn't even read his reply, he did have an answer, he just got tired of writing it over and over again so he quoted his own comment.
Originally posted by kenskid:
Typical...just the response I thought you'd post. No answer and can't stand being challenged and you resort to insults. No one would have thought less of you if you would have said "I don't have an answer"
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by kenskid:
Ok...you're a legislator of a state.....and can pass ANY law....forget the 2nd Amendment....what is your law? |
Seriously, take a high school civics class. A state legislature cannot pass ANY law either. The 2nd Amendment is federal, and, with the possible exception of Hawaii, any legislation would have to be national for what should be obvious reasons (see Chicago). Your inept understanding of government aside, no law will stop school shootings for the same reason no law will stop traffic deaths or rape. They can only reduce the likelihood. Posted weeks ago:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Mandatory trigger locks, a national gun registry that can be cross referenced against violent felons and mental patients, safe storage requirements, licenses and a minimum standard of safety training like we have for car owners, shunning all recognition of perpetrators, help for the mentally ill (the polar opposite of cutting social services), rewards for reporting illegal firearms, licensed sales only, ban assault rifles and high capacity magazines, journalistic integrity standards for broadcast to reduce hatred and paranoia (intentionally lies can be expressed, but cannot be labeled news)... There are no shortage of ideas that can make a difference while preserving the right to gun ownership, only a shortage of the political courage to make it happen. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
01/03/2013 02:09:54 PM · #72 |
Ok....so where do the insults fit in? Why not just paste the link to your 'law' after reading my post?
Originally posted by bhuge:
Typical...just the response I thought you'd post. You didn't even read his reply, he did have an answer, he just got tired of writing it over and over again so he quoted his own comment.
Originally posted by kenskid:
Typical...just the response I thought you'd post. No answer and can't stand being challenged and you resort to insults. No one would have thought less of you if you would have said "I don't have an answer"
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by kenskid:
Ok...you're a legislator of a state.....and can pass ANY law....forget the 2nd Amendment....what is your law? |
Seriously, take a high school civics class. A state legislature cannot pass ANY law either. The 2nd Amendment is federal, and, with the possible exception of Hawaii, any legislation would have to be national for what should be obvious reasons (see Chicago). Your inept understanding of government aside, no law will stop school shootings for the same reason no law will stop traffic deaths or rape. They can only reduce the likelihood. Posted weeks ago:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Mandatory trigger locks, a national gun registry that can be cross referenced against violent felons and mental patients, safe storage requirements, licenses and a minimum standard of safety training like we have for car owners, shunning all recognition of perpetrators, help for the mentally ill (the polar opposite of cutting social services), rewards for reporting illegal firearms, licensed sales only, ban assault rifles and high capacity magazines, journalistic integrity standards for broadcast to reduce hatred and paranoia (intentionally lies can be expressed, but cannot be labeled news)... There are no shortage of ideas that can make a difference while preserving the right to gun ownership, only a shortage of the political courage to make it happen. |
|
|
|
Message edited by author 2013-01-03 14:11:23. |
|
|
|
01/03/2013 02:10:59 PM · #73 |
Lol this one got off topic in 2 posts. Not bad. Of course it's hypocritical. Glorifying guns and murder then calling for a ban the very thing that's made them rich is hypocritical by nature.
And in case anyone wants any real facts on this stuff try here... totally neutral site that just throws out numbers, backs them up with references and states when the number in question could be iffy...
//www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp
I was very surprised by a lot of the data. |
|
|
|
01/03/2013 02:11:14 PM · #74 |
Originally posted by kenskid:
Error posting...see other post |
Not sure if that same response was for me or not but I tried to suggest two things above that IMO would help..... Baning private sales should cause no issues for proponents of guns, in fact they should be right behind that given responsible ownership (but I suspect not) and the the restriction set at a reasonable level of ammunition should also not cause too much of a problem... maybe with a court request for more so the few legit uses above the limit can be vetted.
Originally posted by robs:
I firmly believe the ONLY possible path is restriction on ammunition.... EVEN Israel has a restriction on how many bullets civilians are allowed to own.
I also believe that private sales of guns need to be ban and all sales be funneled thru a licensed gun dealer so that both side of the txn are from registered owners (it's a pretty small step that MIGHT be possible).
|
|
|
|
|
01/03/2013 02:12:19 PM · #75 |
Back to the OP's actual topic...
Originally posted by mike_311:
i dont know. There has always been a correlation to violence on tv and video games and violence in society however no scientific link has ever been established. |
Violent crime rates have been dropping consistently since the middle ages, believe it or not (yes, there are studies showing this). There was a bump from the late 60's to the early 90's, but since the early 90's, the violent crime rate has continued it's long term trend downward. The link between violent movies and crime seems specious, since movies are at least as violent now as they were in the 70's and 80's, yet the violent crime rate is dropping.
The bump from the late 60's to the early 90's could be attributed (among other things) to the fact that the baby boomers were young adults at the time. Statistically, most violent crime is committed by people in their 20's, and the baby boom generation is a sizable demographic bubble. |
|
