The Tobacco thing to me is way different. They spent billions of dollars concocting additives to make it addicting, kind of like the pharmaceuticals now.
No advertising or concoction is making people want to buy guns and go shoot up people/places, and please don't say the NRA is.
But... the NRA is.
But anyway, didn't the court make this decision at least partly because of Remington advertising?? And FWIW, the entire American gun culture, among other thing is absolutely what contributes to people going and shooting up people/places, and both the NRA and Remington and other gun manufactures have a vested interest in advancing that gun culture. And frankly, I don't think the gun culture and physical addiction to a substance are as different as you seem to think they are. Both are very difficult to counter if you're caught up in it (no, I do not intend to displace blame on shooters when I say that; there is more than enough blame to go around).
So in your opinion should video games and movies be held accountable? If you go that route I don't see how you can't pass blame and therefore consequences on violent video games and movies that glorify violence. Then where do you stop, just the production company or do you go after the writer, director and actors too? I know it sounds stupid, I just don't know how you could hold Remington liable because they contribute to the culture and ignore what I would consider a much larger factor. Hollywood completely embraces the gun culture when it makes them money (and then protests against it). Many shooters have openly admitted they were inspired by movies, so this is not something I'm making up. Quentin Tarantino probably has as much vested interest in gun culture as Remington. I don't think either are responsible, but if you hold Remington responsible how does that not open the door for suing Hollywood for their influence?
I already said I don't give a flying fuck if a gun company is held accountable whether they technically should be or not. But in my opinion, America is the ONLY country with the problems it has in this context, even though all the other countries have those same video games and movies in their culture, so clearly those are not the culprits at all. It is the crazy gun industry itself and how it fuels the exclusively American gun culture that is the culprit. That is the ongoing factor that's unique to America.
I used to frequent gun shows when I was actively involved with shooting competitions and I will say there are some very enthusiastic people and normal people that go to these things, just like any other club.
From all the people I met over the years attending things like this I never came across someone who I thought would commit mass murder.
There is a gun culture and then mass murderers. People who are enthusiastic about firearms don't like getting lumped in with the mass murderers.
The Tobacco thing to me is way different. They spent billions of dollars concocting additives to make it addicting, kind of like the pharmaceuticals now.
No advertising or concoction is making people want to buy guns and go shoot up people/places, and please don't say the NRA is.
But... the NRA is.
But anyway, didn't the court make this decision at least partly because of Remington advertising?? And FWIW, the entire American gun culture, among other thing is absolutely what contributes to people going and shooting up people/places, and both the NRA and Remington and other gun manufactures have a vested interest in advancing that gun culture. And frankly, I don't think the gun culture and physical addiction to a substance are as different as you seem to think they are. Both are very difficult to counter if you're caught up in it (no, I do not intend to displace blame on shooters when I say that; there is more than enough blame to go around).
So in your opinion should video games and movies be held accountable? If you go that route I don't see how you can't pass blame and therefore consequences on violent video games and movies that glorify violence. Then where do you stop, just the production company or do you go after the writer, director and actors too? I know it sounds stupid, I just don't know how you could hold Remington liable because they contribute to the culture and ignore what I would consider a much larger factor. Hollywood completely embraces the gun culture when it makes them money (and then protests against it). Many shooters have openly admitted they were inspired by movies, so this is not something I'm making up. Quentin Tarantino probably has as much vested interest in gun culture as Remington. I don't think either are responsible, but if you hold Remington responsible how does that not open the door for suing Hollywood for their influence?
Fair point, movies, music, and video games are probably the biggest marketers for guns. That being said, if people truly want gun violence to decrease and banning guns is not obtainable, would they support more strict regulations on these marketers (with the assumption that this is an obtainable approach)? I doubt it...but either way, you are trampling on people’s “rights”.
The Tobacco thing to me is way different. They spent billions of dollars concocting additives to make it addicting, kind of like the pharmaceuticals now.
No advertising or concoction is making people want to buy guns and go shoot up people/places, and please don't say the NRA is.
But... the NRA is.
But anyway, didn't the court make this decision at least partly because of Remington advertising?? And FWIW, the entire American gun culture, among other thing is absolutely what contributes to people going and shooting up people/places, and both the NRA and Remington and other gun manufactures have a vested interest in advancing that gun culture. And frankly, I don't think the gun culture and physical addiction to a substance are as different as you seem to think they are. Both are very difficult to counter if you're caught up in it (no, I do not intend to displace blame on shooters when I say that; there is more than enough blame to go around).
So in your opinion should video games and movies be held accountable? If you go that route I don't see how you can't pass blame and therefore consequences on violent video games and movies that glorify violence. Then where do you stop, just the production company or do you go after the writer, director and actors too? I know it sounds stupid, I just don't know how you could hold Remington liable because they contribute to the culture and ignore what I would consider a much larger factor. Hollywood completely embraces the gun culture when it makes them money (and then protests against it). Many shooters have openly admitted they were inspired by movies, so this is not something I'm making up. Quentin Tarantino probably has as much vested interest in gun culture as Remington. I don't think either are responsible, but if you hold Remington responsible how does that not open the door for suing Hollywood for their influence?
I already said I don't give a flying fuck if a gun company is held accountable whether they technically should be or not. But in my opinion, America is the ONLY country with the problems it has in this context, even though all the other countries have those same video games and movies in their culture, so clearly those are not the culprits at all. It is the crazy gun industry itself and how it fuels the exclusively American gun culture that is the culprit. That is the ongoing factor that's unique to America.
I used to frequent gun shows when I was actively involved with shooting competitions and I will say there are some very enthusiastic people and normal people that go to these things, just like any other club.
From all the people I met over the years attending things like this I never came across someone who I thought would commit mass murder.
There is a gun culture and then mass murderers. People who are enthusiastic about firearms don't like getting lumped in with the mass murderers.
That doesn't mean you didn't meet people who might commit mass murder, or some kind of murder. You'd probably never know the difference.
Anyway, the American gun culture is CLEARLY the problem when it comes to gun violence in America, in terms of mass shootings and otherwise. It is the only thing that's distinct to that country, besides the gun violence rates. Suggesting that the gun culture has no relations to the excessive number of mass shootings in America seems pretty naive IMHO. Obviously saying that culture is the problem is not the same as saying everyone with a gun is a potential mass murderer. It's concerns like that that help to prevent meaningful change.
Post edited by PJ_Soul on
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Funny a picture is posted with article on a successful gun program to stop multiple fatalities masacres and it def worked to stop these events and all the gun enthusiast talk about is the picture not showing AR15s unreal ...
The Tobacco thing to me is way different. They spent billions of dollars concocting additives to make it addicting, kind of like the pharmaceuticals now.
No advertising or concoction is making people want to buy guns and go shoot up people/places, and please don't say the NRA is.
But... the NRA is.
But anyway, didn't the court make this decision at least partly because of Remington advertising?? And FWIW, the entire American gun culture, among other thing is absolutely what contributes to people going and shooting up people/places, and both the NRA and Remington and other gun manufactures have a vested interest in advancing that gun culture. And frankly, I don't think the gun culture and physical addiction to a substance are as different as you seem to think they are. Both are very difficult to counter if you're caught up in it (no, I do not intend to displace blame on shooters when I say that; there is more than enough blame to go around).
So in your opinion should video games and movies be held accountable? If you go that route I don't see how you can't pass blame and therefore consequences on violent video games and movies that glorify violence. Then where do you stop, just the production company or do you go after the writer, director and actors too? I know it sounds stupid, I just don't know how you could hold Remington liable because they contribute to the culture and ignore what I would consider a much larger factor. Hollywood completely embraces the gun culture when it makes them money (and then protests against it). Many shooters have openly admitted they were inspired by movies, so this is not something I'm making up. Quentin Tarantino probably has as much vested interest in gun culture as Remington. I don't think either are responsible, but if you hold Remington responsible how does that not open the door for suing Hollywood for their influence?
The Tobacco thing to me is way different. They spent billions of dollars concocting additives to make it addicting, kind of like the pharmaceuticals now.
No advertising or concoction is making people want to buy guns and go shoot up people/places, and please don't say the NRA is.
But... the NRA is.
But anyway, didn't the court make this decision at least partly because of Remington advertising?? And FWIW, the entire American gun culture, among other thing is absolutely what contributes to people going and shooting up people/places, and both the NRA and Remington and other gun manufactures have a vested interest in advancing that gun culture. And frankly, I don't think the gun culture and physical addiction to a substance are as different as you seem to think they are. Both are very difficult to counter if you're caught up in it (no, I do not intend to displace blame on shooters when I say that; there is more than enough blame to go around).
So in your opinion should video games and movies be held accountable? If you go that route I don't see how you can't pass blame and therefore consequences on violent video games and movies that glorify violence. Then where do you stop, just the production company or do you go after the writer, director and actors too? I know it sounds stupid, I just don't know how you could hold Remington liable because they contribute to the culture and ignore what I would consider a much larger factor. Hollywood completely embraces the gun culture when it makes them money (and then protests against it). Many shooters have openly admitted they were inspired by movies, so this is not something I'm making up. Quentin Tarantino probably has as much vested interest in gun culture as Remington. I don't think either are responsible, but if you hold Remington responsible how does that not open the door for suing Hollywood for their influence?
no. hollywood/entertainment sells fantasy.
NRA sells fear induced "reality".
Nobody wants to own a bolt action rifle that the NRA hunting page might promote, you want an AK that Ice Cube is singing about or that bitchin AR15 they were using in the Suicide Squad movie.
The Tobacco thing to me is way different. They spent billions of dollars concocting additives to make it addicting, kind of like the pharmaceuticals now.
No advertising or concoction is making people want to buy guns and go shoot up people/places, and please don't say the NRA is.
But... the NRA is.
But anyway, didn't the court make this decision at least partly because of Remington advertising?? And FWIW, the entire American gun culture, among other thing is absolutely what contributes to people going and shooting up people/places, and both the NRA and Remington and other gun manufactures have a vested interest in advancing that gun culture. And frankly, I don't think the gun culture and physical addiction to a substance are as different as you seem to think they are. Both are very difficult to counter if you're caught up in it (no, I do not intend to displace blame on shooters when I say that; there is more than enough blame to go around).
So in your opinion should video games and movies be held accountable? If you go that route I don't see how you can't pass blame and therefore consequences on violent video games and movies that glorify violence. Then where do you stop, just the production company or do you go after the writer, director and actors too? I know it sounds stupid, I just don't know how you could hold Remington liable because they contribute to the culture and ignore what I would consider a much larger factor. Hollywood completely embraces the gun culture when it makes them money (and then protests against it). Many shooters have openly admitted they were inspired by movies, so this is not something I'm making up. Quentin Tarantino probably has as much vested interest in gun culture as Remington. I don't think either are responsible, but if you hold Remington responsible how does that not open the door for suing Hollywood for their influence?
no. hollywood/entertainment sells fantasy.
NRA sells fear induced "reality".
Nobody wants to own a bolt action rifle that the NRA hunting page might promote, you want an AK that Ice Cube is singing about or that bitchin AR15 they were using in the Suicide Squad movie.
or that SP-1 in that video game...
I had a conversation with a 15 year old about guns that he really shouldn't have known about, sniper rifles and oddball guns. He learned about them through video games. He knew how good they were on how they performed in the games, kind of like cars in Gran Turismo.
The Tobacco thing to me is way different. They spent billions of dollars concocting additives to make it addicting, kind of like the pharmaceuticals now.
No advertising or concoction is making people want to buy guns and go shoot up people/places, and please don't say the NRA is.
But... the NRA is.
But anyway, didn't the court make this decision at least partly because of Remington advertising?? And FWIW, the entire American gun culture, among other thing is absolutely what contributes to people going and shooting up people/places, and both the NRA and Remington and other gun manufactures have a vested interest in advancing that gun culture. And frankly, I don't think the gun culture and physical addiction to a substance are as different as you seem to think they are. Both are very difficult to counter if you're caught up in it (no, I do not intend to displace blame on shooters when I say that; there is more than enough blame to go around).
So in your opinion should video games and movies be held accountable? If you go that route I don't see how you can't pass blame and therefore consequences on violent video games and movies that glorify violence. Then where do you stop, just the production company or do you go after the writer, director and actors too? I know it sounds stupid, I just don't know how you could hold Remington liable because they contribute to the culture and ignore what I would consider a much larger factor. Hollywood completely embraces the gun culture when it makes them money (and then protests against it). Many shooters have openly admitted they were inspired by movies, so this is not something I'm making up. Quentin Tarantino probably has as much vested interest in gun culture as Remington. I don't think either are responsible, but if you hold Remington responsible how does that not open the door for suing Hollywood for their influence?
no. hollywood/entertainment sells fantasy.
NRA sells fear induced "reality".
Nobody wants to own a bolt action rifle that the NRA hunting page might promote, you want an AK that Ice Cube is singing about or that bitchin AR15 they were using in the Suicide Squad movie.
or that SP-1 in that video game...
I had a conversation with a 15 year old about guns that he really shouldn't have known about, sniper rifles and oddball guns. He learned about them through video games. He knew how good they were on how they performed in the games, kind of like cars in Gran Turismo.
I'm not talking about the guns the NRA is selling. I'm talking about the ideology that they sell.
The Tobacco thing to me is way different. They spent billions of dollars concocting additives to make it addicting, kind of like the pharmaceuticals now.
No advertising or concoction is making people want to buy guns and go shoot up people/places, and please don't say the NRA is.
But... the NRA is.
But anyway, didn't the court make this decision at least partly because of Remington advertising?? And FWIW, the entire American gun culture, among other thing is absolutely what contributes to people going and shooting up people/places, and both the NRA and Remington and other gun manufactures have a vested interest in advancing that gun culture. And frankly, I don't think the gun culture and physical addiction to a substance are as different as you seem to think they are. Both are very difficult to counter if you're caught up in it (no, I do not intend to displace blame on shooters when I say that; there is more than enough blame to go around).
So in your opinion should video games and movies be held accountable? If you go that route I don't see how you can't pass blame and therefore consequences on violent video games and movies that glorify violence. Then where do you stop, just the production company or do you go after the writer, director and actors too? I know it sounds stupid, I just don't know how you could hold Remington liable because they contribute to the culture and ignore what I would consider a much larger factor. Hollywood completely embraces the gun culture when it makes them money (and then protests against it). Many shooters have openly admitted they were inspired by movies, so this is not something I'm making up. Quentin Tarantino probably has as much vested interest in gun culture as Remington. I don't think either are responsible, but if you hold Remington responsible how does that not open the door for suing Hollywood for their influence?
no. hollywood/entertainment sells fantasy.
NRA sells fear induced "reality".
Nobody wants to own a bolt action rifle that the NRA hunting page might promote, you want an AK that Ice Cube is singing about or that bitchin AR15 they were using in the Suicide Squad movie.
or that SP-1 in that video game...
I had a conversation with a 15 year old about guns that he really shouldn't have known about, sniper rifles and oddball guns. He learned about them through video games. He knew how good they were on how they performed in the games, kind of like cars in Gran Turismo.
And if assault weapons weren't realistically available to him (in the future), it wouldn't matter either way.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
The Tobacco thing to me is way different. They spent billions of dollars concocting additives to make it addicting, kind of like the pharmaceuticals now.
No advertising or concoction is making people want to buy guns and go shoot up people/places, and please don't say the NRA is.
But... the NRA is.
But anyway, didn't the court make this decision at least partly because of Remington advertising?? And FWIW, the entire American gun culture, among other thing is absolutely what contributes to people going and shooting up people/places, and both the NRA and Remington and other gun manufactures have a vested interest in advancing that gun culture. And frankly, I don't think the gun culture and physical addiction to a substance are as different as you seem to think they are. Both are very difficult to counter if you're caught up in it (no, I do not intend to displace blame on shooters when I say that; there is more than enough blame to go around).
So in your opinion should video games and movies be held accountable? If you go that route I don't see how you can't pass blame and therefore consequences on violent video games and movies that glorify violence. Then where do you stop, just the production company or do you go after the writer, director and actors too? I know it sounds stupid, I just don't know how you could hold Remington liable because they contribute to the culture and ignore what I would consider a much larger factor. Hollywood completely embraces the gun culture when it makes them money (and then protests against it). Many shooters have openly admitted they were inspired by movies, so this is not something I'm making up. Quentin Tarantino probably has as much vested interest in gun culture as Remington. I don't think either are responsible, but if you hold Remington responsible how does that not open the door for suing Hollywood for their influence?
no. hollywood/entertainment sells fantasy.
NRA sells fear induced "reality".
Nobody wants to own a bolt action rifle that the NRA hunting page might promote, you want an AK that Ice Cube is singing about or that bitchin AR15 they were using in the Suicide Squad movie.
or that SP-1 in that video game...
I had a conversation with a 15 year old about guns that he really shouldn't have known about, sniper rifles and oddball guns. He learned about them through video games. He knew how good they were on how they performed in the games, kind of like cars in Gran Turismo.
I'm not talking about the guns the NRA is selling. I'm talking about the ideology that they sell.
They talk about the government "taking your guns".
The Tobacco thing to me is way different. They spent billions of dollars concocting additives to make it addicting, kind of like the pharmaceuticals now.
No advertising or concoction is making people want to buy guns and go shoot up people/places, and please don't say the NRA is.
But... the NRA is.
But anyway, didn't the court make this decision at least partly because of Remington advertising?? And FWIW, the entire American gun culture, among other thing is absolutely what contributes to people going and shooting up people/places, and both the NRA and Remington and other gun manufactures have a vested interest in advancing that gun culture. And frankly, I don't think the gun culture and physical addiction to a substance are as different as you seem to think they are. Both are very difficult to counter if you're caught up in it (no, I do not intend to displace blame on shooters when I say that; there is more than enough blame to go around).
So in your opinion should video games and movies be held accountable? If you go that route I don't see how you can't pass blame and therefore consequences on violent video games and movies that glorify violence. Then where do you stop, just the production company or do you go after the writer, director and actors too? I know it sounds stupid, I just don't know how you could hold Remington liable because they contribute to the culture and ignore what I would consider a much larger factor. Hollywood completely embraces the gun culture when it makes them money (and then protests against it). Many shooters have openly admitted they were inspired by movies, so this is not something I'm making up. Quentin Tarantino probably has as much vested interest in gun culture as Remington. I don't think either are responsible, but if you hold Remington responsible how does that not open the door for suing Hollywood for their influence?
no. hollywood/entertainment sells fantasy.
NRA sells fear induced "reality".
Nobody wants to own a bolt action rifle that the NRA hunting page might promote, you want an AK that Ice Cube is singing about or that bitchin AR15 they were using in the Suicide Squad movie.
or that SP-1 in that video game...
I had a conversation with a 15 year old about guns that he really shouldn't have known about, sniper rifles and oddball guns. He learned about them through video games. He knew how good they were on how they performed in the games, kind of like cars in Gran Turismo.
I'm not talking about the guns the NRA is selling. I'm talking about the ideology that they sell.
They talk about the government "taking your guns".
This is going to happen in my lifetime.
You honestly believe that the government is going to come and take your guns?
The Tobacco thing to me is way different. They spent billions of dollars concocting additives to make it addicting, kind of like the pharmaceuticals now.
No advertising or concoction is making people want to buy guns and go shoot up people/places, and please don't say the NRA is.
But... the NRA is.
But anyway, didn't the court make this decision at least partly because of Remington advertising?? And FWIW, the entire American gun culture, among other thing is absolutely what contributes to people going and shooting up people/places, and both the NRA and Remington and other gun manufactures have a vested interest in advancing that gun culture. And frankly, I don't think the gun culture and physical addiction to a substance are as different as you seem to think they are. Both are very difficult to counter if you're caught up in it (no, I do not intend to displace blame on shooters when I say that; there is more than enough blame to go around).
So in your opinion should video games and movies be held accountable? If you go that route I don't see how you can't pass blame and therefore consequences on violent video games and movies that glorify violence. Then where do you stop, just the production company or do you go after the writer, director and actors too? I know it sounds stupid, I just don't know how you could hold Remington liable because they contribute to the culture and ignore what I would consider a much larger factor. Hollywood completely embraces the gun culture when it makes them money (and then protests against it). Many shooters have openly admitted they were inspired by movies, so this is not something I'm making up. Quentin Tarantino probably has as much vested interest in gun culture as Remington. I don't think either are responsible, but if you hold Remington responsible how does that not open the door for suing Hollywood for their influence?
no. hollywood/entertainment sells fantasy.
NRA sells fear induced "reality".
Nobody wants to own a bolt action rifle that the NRA hunting page might promote, you want an AK that Ice Cube is singing about or that bitchin AR15 they were using in the Suicide Squad movie.
or that SP-1 in that video game...
I had a conversation with a 15 year old about guns that he really shouldn't have known about, sniper rifles and oddball guns. He learned about them through video games. He knew how good they were on how they performed in the games, kind of like cars in Gran Turismo.
I'm not talking about the guns the NRA is selling. I'm talking about the ideology that they sell.
They talk about the government "taking your guns".
The Tobacco thing to me is way different. They spent billions of dollars concocting additives to make it addicting, kind of like the pharmaceuticals now.
No advertising or concoction is making people want to buy guns and go shoot up people/places, and please don't say the NRA is.
But... the NRA is.
But anyway, didn't the court make this decision at least partly because of Remington advertising?? And FWIW, the entire American gun culture, among other thing is absolutely what contributes to people going and shooting up people/places, and both the NRA and Remington and other gun manufactures have a vested interest in advancing that gun culture. And frankly, I don't think the gun culture and physical addiction to a substance are as different as you seem to think they are. Both are very difficult to counter if you're caught up in it (no, I do not intend to displace blame on shooters when I say that; there is more than enough blame to go around).
So in your opinion should video games and movies be held accountable? If you go that route I don't see how you can't pass blame and therefore consequences on violent video games and movies that glorify violence. Then where do you stop, just the production company or do you go after the writer, director and actors too? I know it sounds stupid, I just don't know how you could hold Remington liable because they contribute to the culture and ignore what I would consider a much larger factor. Hollywood completely embraces the gun culture when it makes them money (and then protests against it). Many shooters have openly admitted they were inspired by movies, so this is not something I'm making up. Quentin Tarantino probably has as much vested interest in gun culture as Remington. I don't think either are responsible, but if you hold Remington responsible how does that not open the door for suing Hollywood for their influence?
no. hollywood/entertainment sells fantasy.
NRA sells fear induced "reality".
Nobody wants to own a bolt action rifle that the NRA hunting page might promote, you want an AK that Ice Cube is singing about or that bitchin AR15 they were using in the Suicide Squad movie.
or that SP-1 in that video game...
I had a conversation with a 15 year old about guns that he really shouldn't have known about, sniper rifles and oddball guns. He learned about them through video games. He knew how good they were on how they performed in the games, kind of like cars in Gran Turismo.
I'm not talking about the guns the NRA is selling. I'm talking about the ideology that they sell.
They talk about the government "taking your guns".
This is going to happen in my lifetime.
not a chance.
I don’t know, AOC might just pay for them to go away, lol
The Tobacco thing to me is way different. They spent billions of dollars concocting additives to make it addicting, kind of like the pharmaceuticals now.
No advertising or concoction is making people want to buy guns and go shoot up people/places, and please don't say the NRA is.
But... the NRA is.
But anyway, didn't the court make this decision at least partly because of Remington advertising?? And FWIW, the entire American gun culture, among other thing is absolutely what contributes to people going and shooting up people/places, and both the NRA and Remington and other gun manufactures have a vested interest in advancing that gun culture. And frankly, I don't think the gun culture and physical addiction to a substance are as different as you seem to think they are. Both are very difficult to counter if you're caught up in it (no, I do not intend to displace blame on shooters when I say that; there is more than enough blame to go around).
So in your opinion should video games and movies be held accountable? If you go that route I don't see how you can't pass blame and therefore consequences on violent video games and movies that glorify violence. Then where do you stop, just the production company or do you go after the writer, director and actors too? I know it sounds stupid, I just don't know how you could hold Remington liable because they contribute to the culture and ignore what I would consider a much larger factor. Hollywood completely embraces the gun culture when it makes them money (and then protests against it). Many shooters have openly admitted they were inspired by movies, so this is not something I'm making up. Quentin Tarantino probably has as much vested interest in gun culture as Remington. I don't think either are responsible, but if you hold Remington responsible how does that not open the door for suing Hollywood for their influence?
no. hollywood/entertainment sells fantasy.
NRA sells fear induced "reality".
Nobody wants to own a bolt action rifle that the NRA hunting page might promote, you want an AK that Ice Cube is singing about or that bitchin AR15 they were using in the Suicide Squad movie.
or that SP-1 in that video game...
I had a conversation with a 15 year old about guns that he really shouldn't have known about, sniper rifles and oddball guns. He learned about them through video games. He knew how good they were on how they performed in the games, kind of like cars in Gran Turismo.
I'm not talking about the guns the NRA is selling. I'm talking about the ideology that they sell.
They talk about the government "taking your guns".
This is going to happen in my lifetime.
not a chance.
I don’t know, AOC might just pay for them to go away, lol
It’s funny how gun enthusiast believe that the big government is going to take away their weapons yet don’t believe that we have a president who’s showing all signs that he will not transfer power over if he was to loose in 2020 instead will incite violence against anyone opposing him !!!
The Tobacco thing to me is way different. They spent billions of dollars concocting additives to make it addicting, kind of like the pharmaceuticals now.
No advertising or concoction is making people want to buy guns and go shoot up people/places, and please don't say the NRA is.
But... the NRA is.
But anyway, didn't the court make this decision at least partly because of Remington advertising?? And FWIW, the entire American gun culture, among other thing is absolutely what contributes to people going and shooting up people/places, and both the NRA and Remington and other gun manufactures have a vested interest in advancing that gun culture. And frankly, I don't think the gun culture and physical addiction to a substance are as different as you seem to think they are. Both are very difficult to counter if you're caught up in it (no, I do not intend to displace blame on shooters when I say that; there is more than enough blame to go around).
So in your opinion should video games and movies be held accountable? If you go that route I don't see how you can't pass blame and therefore consequences on violent video games and movies that glorify violence. Then where do you stop, just the production company or do you go after the writer, director and actors too? I know it sounds stupid, I just don't know how you could hold Remington liable because they contribute to the culture and ignore what I would consider a much larger factor. Hollywood completely embraces the gun culture when it makes them money (and then protests against it). Many shooters have openly admitted they were inspired by movies, so this is not something I'm making up. Quentin Tarantino probably has as much vested interest in gun culture as Remington. I don't think either are responsible, but if you hold Remington responsible how does that not open the door for suing Hollywood for their influence?
no. hollywood/entertainment sells fantasy.
NRA sells fear induced "reality".
Nobody wants to own a bolt action rifle that the NRA hunting page might promote, you want an AK that Ice Cube is singing about or that bitchin AR15 they were using in the Suicide Squad movie.
or that SP-1 in that video game...
I had a conversation with a 15 year old about guns that he really shouldn't have known about, sniper rifles and oddball guns. He learned about them through video games. He knew how good they were on how they performed in the games, kind of like cars in Gran Turismo.
I'm not talking about the guns the NRA is selling. I'm talking about the ideology that they sell.
They talk about the government "taking your guns".
This is going to happen in my lifetime.
not a chance.
I don’t know, AOC might just pay for them to go away, lol
I'm not talking about the guns the NRA is selling. I'm talking about the ideology that they sell.
They talk about the government "taking your guns".
This is going to happen in my lifetime.
not a chance.
If you want SERIOUS gun reform then yes, you will have to confiscate/ban them.
I don't see any other way that would make people happy about gun control other than what has happened in other countries. Which is an all out ban.
New Zealand is talking about doing a semi auto ban. I'm not sure if that would grandfather the current ones or they give them up but I do know that many people would be happy with that here.
There is a wave of younger generation that has no need for firearms and could care less about the 2nd amendment so yes, I do see this happening in my lifetime.
I'm not talking about the guns the NRA is selling. I'm talking about the ideology that they sell.
They talk about the government "taking your guns".
This is going to happen in my lifetime.
not a chance.
If you want SERIOUS gun reform then yes, you will have to confiscate/ban them.
I don't see any other way that would make people happy about gun control other than what has happened in other countries. Which is an all out ban.
New Zealand is talking about doing a semi auto ban. I'm not sure if that would grandfather the current ones or they give them up but I do know that many people would be happy with that here.
There is a wave of younger generation that has no need for firearms and could care less about the 2nd amendment so yes, I do see this happening in my lifetime.
Personally, I think that ship has sailed in the US, but I do see politicians “attempting” to do so as a grandstanding political ploy. Many states are having a hard time getting citizens or Sheriffs to even comply with any kind of legislation regarding gun control. In theory, yes, a total gun ban like seen in Australia would reduce gun violence. In reality, getting something like that passed in the US with its systems of checks and balances and with the supreme law of the land permitting citizen to be armed, it would be a different animal. I imagine the wheels will keep on spinning. A great example, though, would be for gun control pushers to go out and buy as many as possible and sell them back for $100 through buyback programs. Lead by example, right?
I'm not talking about the guns the NRA is selling. I'm talking about the ideology that they sell.
They talk about the government "taking your guns".
This is going to happen in my lifetime.
not a chance.
If you want SERIOUS gun reform then yes, you will have to confiscate/ban them.
I don't see any other way that would make people happy about gun control other than what has happened in other countries. Which is an all out ban.
New Zealand is talking about doing a semi auto ban. I'm not sure if that would grandfather the current ones or they give them up but I do know that many people would be happy with that here.
There is a wave of younger generation that has no need for firearms and could care less about the 2nd amendment so yes, I do see this happening in my lifetime.
I don't gamble, other than the stock market, but I'd wager and unopened Benny it will not happen in your lifetime. Banning of certain types of guns yes maybe. But the Government coming to take them? Not going to happen. That is full on alex jones conspiracy theory bull.
The Tobacco thing to me is way different. They spent billions of dollars concocting additives to make it addicting, kind of like the pharmaceuticals now.
No advertising or concoction is making people want to buy guns and go shoot up people/places, and please don't say the NRA is.
But... the NRA is.
But anyway, didn't the court make this decision at least partly because of Remington advertising?? And FWIW, the entire American gun culture, among other thing is absolutely what contributes to people going and shooting up people/places, and both the NRA and Remington and other gun manufactures have a vested interest in advancing that gun culture. And frankly, I don't think the gun culture and physical addiction to a substance are as different as you seem to think they are. Both are very difficult to counter if you're caught up in it (no, I do not intend to displace blame on shooters when I say that; there is more than enough blame to go around).
So in your opinion should video games and movies be held accountable? If you go that route I don't see how you can't pass blame and therefore consequences on violent video games and movies that glorify violence. Then where do you stop, just the production company or do you go after the writer, director and actors too? I know it sounds stupid, I just don't know how you could hold Remington liable because they contribute to the culture and ignore what I would consider a much larger factor. Hollywood completely embraces the gun culture when it makes them money (and then protests against it). Many shooters have openly admitted they were inspired by movies, so this is not something I'm making up. Quentin Tarantino probably has as much vested interest in gun culture as Remington. I don't think either are responsible, but if you hold Remington responsible how does that not open the door for suing Hollywood for their influence?
no. hollywood/entertainment sells fantasy.
NRA sells fear induced "reality".
Nobody wants to own a bolt action rifle that the NRA hunting page might promote, you want an AK that Ice Cube is singing about or that bitchin AR15 they were using in the Suicide Squad movie.
or that SP-1 in that video game...
I had a conversation with a 15 year old about guns that he really shouldn't have known about, sniper rifles and oddball guns. He learned about them through video games. He knew how good they were on how they performed in the games, kind of like cars in Gran Turismo.
I'm not talking about the guns the NRA is selling. I'm talking about the ideology that they sell.
They talk about the government "taking your guns".
This is going to happen in my lifetime.
I personally don't think it will happen in my life time. But it is funny to me every time someone belittles the idea that it might happen. If they scroll back through this thread and you will see dozens of comments like "it worked for Australia, it could work for us." Its just funny that people call for it, then make fun of those who "Fear the big gub'ment taking your guns." It is perfectly reasonable to see that it could happen, I just don't think it will.
The Tobacco thing to me is way different. They spent billions of dollars concocting additives to make it addicting, kind of like the pharmaceuticals now.
No advertising or concoction is making people want to buy guns and go shoot up people/places, and please don't say the NRA is.
But... the NRA is.
But anyway, didn't the court make this decision at least partly because of Remington advertising?? And FWIW, the entire American gun culture, among other thing is absolutely what contributes to people going and shooting up people/places, and both the NRA and Remington and other gun manufactures have a vested interest in advancing that gun culture. And frankly, I don't think the gun culture and physical addiction to a substance are as different as you seem to think they are. Both are very difficult to counter if you're caught up in it (no, I do not intend to displace blame on shooters when I say that; there is more than enough blame to go around).
So in your opinion should video games and movies be held accountable? If you go that route I don't see how you can't pass blame and therefore consequences on violent video games and movies that glorify violence. Then where do you stop, just the production company or do you go after the writer, director and actors too? I know it sounds stupid, I just don't know how you could hold Remington liable because they contribute to the culture and ignore what I would consider a much larger factor. Hollywood completely embraces the gun culture when it makes them money (and then protests against it). Many shooters have openly admitted they were inspired by movies, so this is not something I'm making up. Quentin Tarantino probably has as much vested interest in gun culture as Remington. I don't think either are responsible, but if you hold Remington responsible how does that not open the door for suing Hollywood for their influence?
no. hollywood/entertainment sells fantasy.
NRA sells fear induced "reality".
Nobody wants to own a bolt action rifle that the NRA hunting page might promote, you want an AK that Ice Cube is singing about or that bitchin AR15 they were using in the Suicide Squad movie.
or that SP-1 in that video game...
I had a conversation with a 15 year old about guns that he really shouldn't have known about, sniper rifles and oddball guns. He learned about them through video games. He knew how good they were on how they performed in the games, kind of like cars in Gran Turismo.
I'm not talking about the guns the NRA is selling. I'm talking about the ideology that they sell.
They talk about the government "taking your guns".
This is going to happen in my lifetime.
I personally don't think it will happen in my life time. But it is funny to me every time someone belittles the idea that it might happen. If they scroll back through this thread and you will see dozens of comments like "it worked for Australia, it could work for us." Its just funny that people call for it, then make fun of those who "Fear the big gub'ment taking your guns." It is perfectly reasonable to see that it could happen, I just don't think it will.
The reasons why it would be fantastic if it happened are the same reasons why most of us think it won’t happen.
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
There are several reasons it wouldn't happen, but the biggest one is cost. I rarely hear anyone talk about the cost of a buyback program. If it is not voluntary, but mandatory then it isn't right to only offer $100 a gun, it would have to be the fair market value. And it is not uncommon for guns to cost $1000 or more. The $5.5 billion that many laughed at to build the wall is probably what a buyback program would cost. Who here wants to donate a ten thousands dollars to support this?
0
Options
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 40,772
There are several reasons it wouldn't happen, but the biggest one is cost. I rarely hear anyone talk about the cost of a buyback program. If it is not voluntary, but mandatory then it isn't right to only offer $100 a gun, it would have to be the fair market value. And it is not uncommon for guns to cost $1000 or more. The $5.5 billion that many laughed at to build the wall is probably what a buyback program would cost. Who here wants to donate a ten thousands dollars to support this?
Statistics show that about 43% of American households have at least one gun and I'm guessing that's low. So think about how many people would have to be hired to go out and confiscate all those guns. Basically half the country would be confiscating guns from the other half and nothing else would get done.
So the logical thing to do is to start by banning assault rifles and then, even more importantly, work on making life better (and by better I don't mean just being able to buy more stuff) so that people will be happier and feel safer and then maybe opt not to buy yet another goddamn gun in the first place.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
I'm not talking about the guns the NRA is selling. I'm talking about the ideology that they sell.
They talk about the government "taking your guns".
This is going to happen in my lifetime.
not a chance.
If you want SERIOUS gun reform then yes, you will have to confiscate/ban them.
I don't see any other way that would make people happy about gun control other than what has happened in other countries. Which is an all out ban.
New Zealand is talking about doing a semi auto ban. I'm not sure if that would grandfather the current ones or they give them up but I do know that many people would be happy with that here.
There is a wave of younger generation that has no need for firearms and could care less about the 2nd amendment so yes, I do see this happening in my lifetime.
I don't gamble, other than the stock market, but I'd wager and unopened Benny it will not happen in your lifetime. Banning of certain types of guns yes maybe. But the Government coming to take them? Not going to happen. That is full on alex jones conspiracy theory bull.
Not literally banging on your door and taking them but essentially banning a gun is taking it away from you so that is what I mean by "taking your guns" so it's not an Alex Jones reference.
So in my view, banning a type of weapon is "taking your guns".
I'm not talking about the guns the NRA is selling. I'm talking about the ideology that they sell.
They talk about the government "taking your guns".
This is going to happen in my lifetime.
not a chance.
If you want SERIOUS gun reform then yes, you will have to confiscate/ban them.
I don't see any other way that would make people happy about gun control other than what has happened in other countries. Which is an all out ban.
New Zealand is talking about doing a semi auto ban. I'm not sure if that would grandfather the current ones or they give them up but I do know that many people would be happy with that here.
There is a wave of younger generation that has no need for firearms and could care less about the 2nd amendment so yes, I do see this happening in my lifetime.
I don't gamble, other than the stock market, but I'd wager and unopened Benny it will not happen in your lifetime. Banning of certain types of guns yes maybe. But the Government coming to take them? Not going to happen. That is full on alex jones conspiracy theory bull.
Not literally banging on your door and taking them but essentially banning a gun is taking it away from you so that is what I mean by "taking your guns" so it's not an Alex Jones reference.
So in my view, banning a type of weapon is "taking your guns".
There are several reasons it wouldn't happen, but the biggest one is cost. I rarely hear anyone talk about the cost of a buyback program. If it is not voluntary, but mandatory then it isn't right to only offer $100 a gun, it would have to be the fair market value. And it is not uncommon for guns to cost $1000 or more. The $5.5 billion that many laughed at to build the wall is probably what a buyback program would cost. Who here wants to donate a ten thousands dollars to support this?
Statistics show that about 43% of American households have at least one gun and I'm guessing that's low. So think about how many people would have to be hired to go out and confiscate all those guns. Basically half the country would be confiscating guns from the other half and nothing else would get done.
So the logical thing to do is to start by banning assault rifles and then, even more importantly, work on making life better (and by better I don't mean just being able to buy more stuff) so that people will be happier and feel safer and then maybe opt not to buy yet another goddamn gun in the first place.
Would the half that gets to confiscate the guns get danger pay. I can not imagine what could go wrong by trying to confiscate guns from people that have plenty of ammo and are pissed that they are having their guns confiscated...lol
Give Peas A Chance…
0
Options
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 40,772
There are several reasons it wouldn't happen, but the biggest one is cost. I rarely hear anyone talk about the cost of a buyback program. If it is not voluntary, but mandatory then it isn't right to only offer $100 a gun, it would have to be the fair market value. And it is not uncommon for guns to cost $1000 or more. The $5.5 billion that many laughed at to build the wall is probably what a buyback program would cost. Who here wants to donate a ten thousands dollars to support this?
Statistics show that about 43% of American households have at least one gun and I'm guessing that's low. So think about how many people would have to be hired to go out and confiscate all those guns. Basically half the country would be confiscating guns from the other half and nothing else would get done.
So the logical thing to do is to start by banning assault rifles and then, even more importantly, work on making life better (and by better I don't mean just being able to buy more stuff) so that people will be happier and feel safer and then maybe opt not to buy yet another goddamn gun in the first place.
Would the half that gets to confiscate the guns get danger pay. I can not imagine what could go wrong by trying to confiscate guns from people that have plenty of ammo and are pissed that they are having their guns confiscated...lol
I guess the trick is to just ask nicely.
Seriously though, there are just too many gun owners who literally see it as their God-given right to possess fire arms and most of whom are no way just going to hand over their fire arms. No, the answer is very complicated and complex- more education, build safer communities, stronger background checks and registration including gun safety courses, banning of automatic weapons. Even just one of those is a big goal. Unfortunately, I don't see how this gun issue will ever be resolved.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
Bartenders, the NRA, Remington, Hollywood... the responsibility for offences committed by stupid people lies with the stupid people committing them. 100%.
The blame society has empowered the morons. “It wasn’t your fault. It was... hmmm... his.” F**k that.
That being said... we need to safeguard ourselves from stupid people. It makes zero sense to give the general public access to outstanding weaponry designed for killing things.
Comments
From all the people I met over the years attending things like this I never came across someone who I thought would commit mass murder.
There is a gun culture and then mass murderers. People who are enthusiastic about firearms don't like getting lumped in with the mass murderers.
NRA sells fear induced "reality".
www.headstonesband.com
I had a conversation with a 15 year old about guns that he really shouldn't have known about, sniper rifles and oddball guns. He learned about them through video games. He knew how good they were on how they performed in the games, kind of like cars in Gran Turismo.
www.headstonesband.com
This is going to happen in my lifetime.
Honestly?
www.headstonesband.com
www.headstonesband.com
I don't see any other way that would make people happy about gun control other than what has happened in other countries. Which is an all out ban.
New Zealand is talking about doing a semi auto ban. I'm not sure if that would grandfather the current ones or they give them up but I do know that many people would be happy with that here.
There is a wave of younger generation that has no need for firearms and could care less about the 2nd amendment so yes, I do see this happening in my lifetime.
Banning of certain types of guns yes maybe.
But the Government coming to take them? Not going to happen.
That is full on alex jones conspiracy theory bull.
So in my view, banning a type of weapon is "taking your guns".
This New Zealand gun owner voluntarily gave up his semi-automatic firearm. Here's why. https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/18/world/new-zealand-gun-surrender-trnd/index.html
The blame society has empowered the morons. “It wasn’t your fault. It was... hmmm... his.” F**k that.
That being said... we need to safeguard ourselves from stupid people. It makes zero sense to give the general public access to outstanding weaponry designed for killing things.