DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Rant >> Is this hypocrisy?
Pages:   ...
Showing posts 26 - 50 of 1154, (reverse)
AuthorThread
01/03/2013 10:37:05 AM · #26
I think it's important that people educate themselves on what they are trying to ban and their purpose. A hardcore gun control friend of mine sent me this link and has now completely changed her stance on guns.

If people honestly think that banning guns helps with crime rate they need to look at Australia, Britain, or any of our US cities with gun bans in them.

Beyond the point, read the article and at least be educated. He goes into a lot of numbers that will challenge your perception of guns and their purpose.

Link

Message edited by author 2013-01-03 10:37:29.
01/03/2013 10:43:59 AM · #27
Originally posted by Patrick_R:

I think it's important that people educate themselves on what they are trying to ban and their purpose. A hardcore gun control friend of mine sent me this link and has now completely changed her stance on guns.

If people honestly think that banning guns helps with crime rate they need to look at Australia, Britain, or any of our US cities with gun bans in them.

Beyond the point, read the article and at least be educated. He goes into a lot of numbers that will challenge your perception of guns and their purpose.

Link
Really, what about Japan?

edit - I don't know if you've read the article you linked, he doesn't quote a single source. It's all substantiated on anecdotal evidence and personal bias.

Originally posted by biasedauthor:

Gun Free Zones are hunting preserves for innocent people. Period.

Think about it. You are a violent, homicidal madman, looking to make a statement and hoping to go from disaffected loser to most famous person in the world. The best way to accomplish your goals is to kill a whole bunch of people. So where’s the best place to go shoot all these people? Obviously, it is someplace where nobody can shoot back.

Japan had two homicides at the hands of guns in 2006. The entire country is virtually gun free. What's his source? That's right, he doesn't have one.

Message edited by author 2013-01-03 10:49:52.
01/03/2013 10:44:19 AM · #28
Originally posted by heavyj:

My opinion is that there's room for violence in creating art, comedy, action etc. Some go 'overboard' some are very creative, but I still think it all falls within the realm of fiction and that normal people know this.

Yep. Gun violence was at LEAST as "glorified" in the 1950's-1960's in the heyday of the Lone Ranger, Hopalong Cassidy, Bonanza, Gunsmoke, Rawhide, etc. when as many as 26 Westerns aired on prime-time TV.
01/03/2013 10:59:10 AM · #29
I agree that it could be viewed as hypocritical based upon some correlation between Movie violence and these mass killings. And I also agree that as a whole, Hollywood should get together, and essentially preemptively censor certain things out of movies,(make your own list- cigarettes, etc.)

There seems to be an exaggeration of the hypocritical feel- some of those so called "violent clips" are parodies of gun ownership and the proliferation of guns in society! Should we not portray domestic violence in plays or movies for fear we will desensitize people, not show war movies as a society may think that war is more acceptable?

Or perhaps do we need to see the bad things to know just how bad the situation with gun proliferation has become?

There was a really good movie, History of Violence, a few years ago. (I highly recommend that movie to explore issues of violence in our communities, home even school and interpersonal relationships, and some great acting)
01/03/2013 10:59:59 AM · #30
Does tv mimic society or society mimic tv?

That article from someone called counter jihad who's whole life resolves around guns isn't going to be a particularly reasoned a d balanced argument.

We have gun crime here, it's mainly criminal on criminal I don't understand where all the fear is for Americans that if gun control comes about gangs are going to be roaming the street attacking Undefended civilians just not true.

We had a tradegy a few years ago at dunblain and after that we banned hand guns and no more than 3 shot rifles and haven't had any massacres since, how many dead kids does it take to get people to engage in a logical gun debate.

I can't think of anything worse than armed teachers, all my primary school teachers were young or old women, the two professions are mutually exclusive kind carring compassionate ppl educating our kids or trained killers no thanks

I'm sorry but you can't argue that it being harder to get a gun doesn't make it safer

If they can't easily obtain the guns and ammo quickly then there lot less likely to succeed and more time for them to be discovered my family or law enforcement

As for Australia Britain etch what's your point? We have crime yeah but who cares if someone steals my car I'm not going to shoot him for it, it's insured.

01/03/2013 11:01:25 AM · #31
Originally posted by Patrick_R:

Beyond the point, read the article and at least be educated. He goes into a lot of numbers that will challenge your perception of guns and their purpose.

Link

I read the article. Some very valid points, however it is still a very biased piece that uses the statistics and anecdotes that support his argument or he feels he can refute. More guns in more hands isn't a fix, and neither is trying to ban them completely. I'm still not convinced that arming everyone is the only solution.

Message edited by author 2013-01-03 11:03:18.
01/03/2013 11:04:25 AM · #32
I hope the Illinois Legislature passes their most stringent gun bill this month...banning semi-auto pistols and rifles - with NO GRANDFATHER CLAUSE. This means that citizens would have a certian amount of time to turn in these weapons to the State Police or face procecution.
01/03/2013 11:09:23 AM · #33
I honestly question why people in favor of lax gun control advocate an increasingly armed government. If we want to talk about defending against the government and their tyranny, isn't it a bit zany to arm teachers, who could readily take your children hostage? This isn't something I worry over, but if you're so paranoid about the government attacking you, and believing that you can actually defend against the highest funded military in the world with small arms, why would you arm those who spend the most time with your children each day and who belong to the government?

This, btw, is in response to the article posted earlier...
01/03/2013 11:47:02 AM · #34
Originally posted by Patrick_R:

If people honestly think that banning guns helps with crime rate they need to look at Australia, Britain, or any of our US cities with gun bans in them.

OK, the crime rate is higher in Britain and Australia. It's also much higher in Texas and Arizona where there are lax gun laws compared to Connecticut. Obviously there are other factors involved. Note that the violent crime rates in Australia and Britain are similar to the U.S., but HOMICIDES are less than a third of the U.S. rate. Would you rather be the victim of a "crime" or a homicide?
01/03/2013 11:53:20 AM · #35
Originally posted by spiritualspatula:

If we want to talk about defending against the government and their tyranny, isn't it a bit zany to arm teachers, who could readily take your children hostage?

There were two armed deputies at Columbine, which did absolutely nothing to prevent or stop the massacre, and people afraid of government control and/or spending who turn around and advocate more police in schools might as well excuse themselves from the conversation by reason of insanity.
01/03/2013 11:54:37 AM · #36
Originally posted by Patrick_R:

I think it's important that people educate themselves on what they are trying to ban and their purpose. A hardcore gun control friend of mine sent me this link and has now completely changed her stance on guns.

If people honestly think that banning guns helps with crime rate they need to look at Australia, Britain, or any of our US cities with gun bans in them.

Beyond the point, read the article and at least be educated. He goes into a lot of numbers that will challenge your perception of guns and their purpose.

Link

From a blog called "1389 Blog - Counterjihad!" and an article called "An opinion on gun control"....

I have posted this before but here is the link again - It's a university study using actual stats collected from government figures in Oz.... so IMO carries a bit more weight then just another opinion... Linkie (Sydney Uni)
01/03/2013 11:57:10 AM · #37
Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by spiritualspatula:

If we want to talk about defending against the government and their tyranny, isn't it a bit zany to arm teachers, who could readily take your children hostage?

There were two armed deputies at Columbine, which did absolutely nothing to prevent or stop the massacre, and people afraid of government control and/or spending who turn around and advocate more police in schools might as well excuse themselves from the conversation by reason of insanity.


Well, I already know where you stand on that 'point,' Shannon :) I was more curious to hear the explanation for such a party line about-face from the pro side.
01/03/2013 12:06:56 PM · #38
Originally posted by Patrick_R:

I think it's important that people educate themselves on what they are trying to ban and their purpose. A hardcore gun control friend of mine sent me this link and has now completely changed her stance on guns.

If people honestly think that banning guns helps with crime rate they need to look at Australia, Britain, or any of our US cities with gun bans in them.

Beyond the point, read the article and at least be educated. He goes into a lot of numbers that will challenge your perception of guns and their purpose.

Link


Totally agree with the article. Of course, that doesn't mean those who cannot operate on anything other than an emotive level will have the sense to see the truth.
01/03/2013 12:17:19 PM · #39
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?
01/03/2013 12:19:35 PM · #40
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?


It'll work to ensure that the prison industry has a record-breaking decade of profits.
01/03/2013 12:32:10 PM · #41
It is very simplistic to believe that passing more gun laws will result in less crime. There are currently 20,000+ gun laws on the books. Laws are for law-abiding citizens. People who commit crimes are not law abiding citizens.

While other countries with stiffer gun laws have less gun violence, their citizens continue to commit mass murders by other means: sarin in Japan (12 dead); knife mass murders in Seoul (5 dead), Tokyo (7 dead by car or knife), Daegu (198 dead) by fire, etc. And in the US, the biggest mass murders didn't involve guns: Timothy McVey bombing in Oklahoma (168 dead); 9/11 (3,000+ dead) by airplane; If people choose to kill, they will find a way, with or without guns.

To have a proper discussion on this subject, we must consider several other factors besides gun control. The OP question addresses one of the other issues, which is our entertainment (movies, TV, video games, etc.) being primarily based in violence.

Mental illness is also a very major issue, as without an exception, the individuals committing these crimes have been found to be unstable, disaffected, angry, and/or marginalized in some way. It is not thousands of people we have running around committing mass murders. It is a very small handful of people with mental issues.

Finally, we cannot ignore the media's role in this issue, which is to glorify the murderers by giving them their 15 minutes of fame and a place in history. As many have pointed out, we can remember the names of many of these criminals but rarely a single one of their victims.

None of these factors alone is the cause of our violence, but combined, I think they are. It is possible that the last issue is the most responsible for creating mass murderers, since as has been pointed out, we've had a gun-adoring culture since the creation of our country. We have always had people with mental issues. What we have not had is this ceaseless, mindless reporting on the criminals, nor a 24/7 availability of information, giving these individuals a soapbox and a memorable last hurrah.
01/03/2013 12:41:43 PM · #42
Originally posted by tanguera:



None of these factors alone is the cause of our violence, but combined, I think they are. It is possible that the last issue is the most responsible for creating mass murderers, since as has been pointed out, we've had a gun-adoring culture since the creation of our country. We have always had people with mental issues. What we have not had is this ceaseless, mindless reporting on the criminals, nor a 24/7 availability of information, giving these individuals a soapbox and a memorable last hurrah.


ding ding.
01/03/2013 12:52:16 PM · #43
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.
01/03/2013 12:54:30 PM · #44
I predict that no actor or actress will adopt the "no gun violence" policy.

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.
01/03/2013 12:55:00 PM · #45
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?
01/03/2013 01:01:24 PM · #46
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?

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.

01/03/2013 01:14:18 PM · #47
we need more kung fu and ninja movies.
01/03/2013 01:17:10 PM · #48
Originally posted by tanguera:

It is very simplistic to believe that passing more gun laws will result in less crime.

The example of, well, every other 1st world nation on earth, proves conclusively otherwise.

Originally posted by tanguera:

There are currently 20,000+ gun laws on the books. Laws are for law-abiding citizens. People who commit crimes are not law abiding citizens.

Every crime, by definition, means breaking the law. Do we not recognize the value of laws against murder and rape even if the murderers and rapists ignore them?

Originally posted by tanguera:

While other countries with stiffer gun laws have less gun violence, their citizens continue to commit mass murders by other means...

Sure... and, thanks to a lack of readily available guns, FAR less frequently and with fewer casualties than here.

Originally posted by tanguera:

And in the US, the biggest mass murders didn't involve guns: Timothy McVey bombing in Oklahoma (168 dead); 9/11 (3,000+ dead) by airplane; If people choose to kill, they will find a way, with or without guns..

All mass murders by alternate means in U.S. history probably don't add up to an average year of gun homicides, and countries that have tackled gun control have not seen a big rise in alternate methods.

Originally posted by tanguera:

To have a proper discussion on this subject, we must consider several other factors besides gun control. The OP question addresses one of the other issues, which is our entertainment (movies, TV, video games, etc.) being primarily based in violence.

Do you really think we have less movie, TV and video game violence than the home country of martial arts flicks, Nintendo and Playstation? Less than when practically the only shows on TV were Westerns and war movies?

Originally posted by tanguera:

Mental illness is also a very major issue, as without an exception, the individuals committing these crimes have been found to be unstable, disaffected, angry, and/or marginalized in some way. It is not thousands of people we have running around committing mass murders. It is a very small handful of people with mental issues.

Mass murders and the mentally ill represent a small handful of gun homicides, the vast majority of which are committed by spouses, employees, neighbors, etc.– often to the great surprise of people who knew them. Traffic laws were not put in place to prevent spectacular NASCAR crashes.

Originally posted by tanguera:

Finally, we cannot ignore the media's role in this issue, which is to glorify the murderers by giving them their 15 minutes of fame and a place in history. As many have pointed out, we can remember the names of many of these criminals but rarely a single one of their victims.

While I have no problem with anonymizing criminals, I seriously doubt any but the copycats are doing this for the fame. It's not like they'll be around to collect an Oscar or Guinness certificate. We remember the mass murderers more than victims simply because of the scale of their crimes– the same reason most people couldn't name a single victim of Hitler or Stalin- and thousands of gun murders in this country don't make more than local news. With extremely few exceptions, infamy is a result, not a goal.

Message edited by author 2013-01-03 13:20:21.
01/03/2013 01:18:45 PM · #49
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 :)

01/03/2013 01:22:31 PM · #50
You're the Governor of the state - You can get ANY law passed. What is your Gun Law that will stop school shootings?

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by tanguera:

It is very simplistic to believe that passing more gun laws will result in less crime.

The example of, well, every other 1st world nation on earth, proves conclusively otherwise.

Originally posted by tanguera:

There are currently 20,000+ gun laws on the books. Laws are for law-abiding citizens. People who commit crimes are not law abiding citizens.

Every crime, by definition, means breaking the law. Do we not recognize the value of laws against murder and rape even if the murderers and rapists ignore them?

Originally posted by tanguera:

While other countries with stiffer gun laws have less gun violence, their citizens continue to commit mass murders by other means...

Sure... and, thanks to a lack of readily available guns, FAR less frequently and with fewer casualties than here.

Originally posted by tanguera:

And in the US, the biggest mass murders didn't involve guns: Timothy McVey bombing in Oklahoma (168 dead); 9/11 (3,000+ dead) by airplane; If people choose to kill, they will find a way, with or without guns..

All mass murders by alternate means in U.S. history probably don't add up to an average year of gun homicides, and countries that have tackled gun control have not seen a big rise in alternate methods.

Originally posted by tanguera:

To have a proper discussion on this subject, we must consider several other factors besides gun control. The OP question addresses one of the other issues, which is our entertainment (movies, TV, video games, etc.) being primarily based in violence.

Do you really think we have less movie, TV and video game violence than the home country of martial arts flicks, Nintendo and Playstation? Less than when practically the only shows on TV were Westerns and war movies?

Originally posted by tanguera:

Mental illness is also a very major issue, as without an exception, the individuals committing these crimes have been found to be unstable, disaffected, angry, and/or marginalized in some way. It is not thousands of people we have running around committing mass murders. It is a very small handful of people with mental issues.

Mass murders and the mentally ill represent a small handful of gun homicides, the vast majority of which are committed by spouses, employees, neighbors, etc.– often to the great surprise of people who knew them. Traffic laws were not put in place to prevent spectacular NASCAR crashes.

Originally posted by tanguera:

Finally, we cannot ignore the media's role in this issue, which is to glorify the murderers by giving them their 15 minutes of fame and a place in history. As many have pointed out, we can remember the names of many of these criminals but rarely a single one of their victims.

While I have no problem with anonymizing criminals, I seriously doubt any but the copycats are doing this for the fame. It's not like they'll be around to collect an Oscar or Guinness certificate. We remember the mass murderers more than victims simply because of the scale of their crimes– the same reason most people couldn't name a single victim of Hitler or Stalin- and thousands of gun murders in this country don't make more than local news. With extremely few exceptions, infamy is a result, not a goal.
Pages:   ...
Current Server Time: 01/27/2021 10:09:02 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2021 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Proudly hosted by Sargasso Networks. Current Server Time: 01/27/2021 10:09:02 AM EST.