America's Gun Violence
Comments
-
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.PJ_Soul said:
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.mace1229 said:
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.PJ_Soul said:tempo_n_groove said: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).
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?
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.0 -
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”.mace1229 said:
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.PJ_Soul said:tempo_n_groove said: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).
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?Post edited by PJPOWER on0 -
tempo_n_groove said:
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.PJ_Soul said:
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.mace1229 said:
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.PJ_Soul said:tempo_n_groove said: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).
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?
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 onWith all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata0 -
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 ...jesus greets me looks just like me ....0
-
no. hollywood/entertainment sells fantasy.mace1229 said:
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.PJ_Soul said:tempo_n_groove said: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).
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?
NRA sells fear induced "reality".By The Time They Figure Out What Went Wrong, We'll Be Sitting On A Beach, Earning Twenty Percent.0 -
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.HughFreakingDillon said:
no. hollywood/entertainment sells fantasy.mace1229 said:
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.PJ_Soul said:tempo_n_groove said: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).
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?
NRA sells fear induced "reality".0 -
or that SP-1 in that video game...tempo_n_groove said:
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.HughFreakingDillon said:
no. hollywood/entertainment sells fantasy.mace1229 said:
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.PJ_Soul said:tempo_n_groove said: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).
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?
NRA sells fear induced "reality".
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.0 -
I'm not talking about the guns the NRA is selling. I'm talking about the ideology that they sell.tempo_n_groove said:
or that SP-1 in that video game...tempo_n_groove said:
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.HughFreakingDillon said:
no. hollywood/entertainment sells fantasy.mace1229 said:
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.PJ_Soul said:tempo_n_groove said: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).
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?
NRA sells fear induced "reality".
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.By The Time They Figure Out What Went Wrong, We'll Be Sitting On A Beach, Earning Twenty Percent.0 -
And if assault weapons weren't realistically available to him (in the future), it wouldn't matter either way.tempo_n_groove said:
or that SP-1 in that video game...tempo_n_groove said:
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.HughFreakingDillon said:
no. hollywood/entertainment sells fantasy.mace1229 said:
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.PJ_Soul said:tempo_n_groove said: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).
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?
NRA sells fear induced "reality".
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.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata0 -
They talk about the government "taking your guns".HughFreakingDillon said:
I'm not talking about the guns the NRA is selling. I'm talking about the ideology that they sell.tempo_n_groove said:
or that SP-1 in that video game...tempo_n_groove said:
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.HughFreakingDillon said:
no. hollywood/entertainment sells fantasy.mace1229 said:
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.PJ_Soul said:tempo_n_groove said: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).
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?
NRA sells fear induced "reality".
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.
This is going to happen in my lifetime.0 -
You honestly believe that the government is going to come and take your guns?tempo_n_groove said:
They talk about the government "taking your guns".HughFreakingDillon said:
I'm not talking about the guns the NRA is selling. I'm talking about the ideology that they sell.tempo_n_groove said:
or that SP-1 in that video game...tempo_n_groove said:
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.HughFreakingDillon said:
no. hollywood/entertainment sells fantasy.mace1229 said:
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.PJ_Soul said:tempo_n_groove said: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).
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?
NRA sells fear induced "reality".
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.
This is going to happen in my lifetime.
Honestly?0 -
not a chance.tempo_n_groove said:
They talk about the government "taking your guns".HughFreakingDillon said:
I'm not talking about the guns the NRA is selling. I'm talking about the ideology that they sell.tempo_n_groove said:
or that SP-1 in that video game...tempo_n_groove said:
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.HughFreakingDillon said:
no. hollywood/entertainment sells fantasy.mace1229 said:
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.PJ_Soul said:tempo_n_groove said: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).
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?
NRA sells fear induced "reality".
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.
This is going to happen in my lifetime.By The Time They Figure Out What Went Wrong, We'll Be Sitting On A Beach, Earning Twenty Percent.0 -
I don’t know, AOC might just pay for them to go away, lolHughFreakingDillon said:
not a chance.tempo_n_groove said:
They talk about the government "taking your guns".HughFreakingDillon said:
I'm not talking about the guns the NRA is selling. I'm talking about the ideology that they sell.tempo_n_groove said:
or that SP-1 in that video game...tempo_n_groove said:
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.HughFreakingDillon said:
no. hollywood/entertainment sells fantasy.mace1229 said:
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.PJ_Soul said:tempo_n_groove said: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).
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?
NRA sells fear induced "reality".
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.
This is going to happen in my lifetime.
0 -
The Gun New Deal?PJPOWER said:
I don’t know, AOC might just pay for them to go away, lolHughFreakingDillon said:
not a chance.tempo_n_groove said:
They talk about the government "taking your guns".HughFreakingDillon said:
I'm not talking about the guns the NRA is selling. I'm talking about the ideology that they sell.tempo_n_groove said:
or that SP-1 in that video game...tempo_n_groove said:
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.HughFreakingDillon said:
no. hollywood/entertainment sells fantasy.mace1229 said:
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.PJ_Soul said:tempo_n_groove said: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).
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?
NRA sells fear induced "reality".
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.
This is going to happen in my lifetime.By The Time They Figure Out What Went Wrong, We'll Be Sitting On A Beach, Earning Twenty Percent.0 -
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 !!!jesus greets me looks just like me ....0
-
Ha, that sounds about right!HughFreakingDillon said:
The Gun New Deal?PJPOWER said:
I don’t know, AOC might just pay for them to go away, lolHughFreakingDillon said:
not a chance.tempo_n_groove said:
They talk about the government "taking your guns".HughFreakingDillon said:
I'm not talking about the guns the NRA is selling. I'm talking about the ideology that they sell.tempo_n_groove said:
or that SP-1 in that video game...tempo_n_groove said:
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.HughFreakingDillon said:
no. hollywood/entertainment sells fantasy.mace1229 said:
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.PJ_Soul said:tempo_n_groove said: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).
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?
NRA sells fear induced "reality".
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.
This is going to happen in my lifetime.0 -
Bentleyspop said:
You honestly believe that the government is going to come and take your guns?tempo_n_groove said:
They talk about the government "taking your guns".HughFreakingDillon said:
I'm not talking about the guns the NRA is selling. I'm talking about the ideology that they sell.
This is going to happen in my lifetime.
Honestly?
If you want SERIOUS gun reform then yes, you will have to confiscate/ban them.HughFreakingDillon said:
not a chance.tempo_n_groove said:
They talk about the government "taking your guns".HughFreakingDillon said:
I'm not talking about the guns the NRA is selling. I'm talking about the ideology that they sell.
This is going to happen in my lifetime.
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.0 -
One can only hope, lol.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata0 -
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?tempo_n_groove said:Bentleyspop said:
You honestly believe that the government is going to come and take your guns?tempo_n_groove said:
They talk about the government "taking your guns".HughFreakingDillon said:
I'm not talking about the guns the NRA is selling. I'm talking about the ideology that they sell.
This is going to happen in my lifetime.
Honestly?
If you want SERIOUS gun reform then yes, you will have to confiscate/ban them.HughFreakingDillon said:
not a chance.tempo_n_groove said:
They talk about the government "taking your guns".HughFreakingDillon said:
I'm not talking about the guns the NRA is selling. I'm talking about the ideology that they sell.
This is going to happen in my lifetime.
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.Post edited by PJPOWER on0 -
I don't gamble, other than the stock market, but I'd wager and unopened Benny it will not happen in your lifetime.tempo_n_groove said:Bentleyspop said:
You honestly believe that the government is going to come and take your guns?tempo_n_groove said:
They talk about the government "taking your guns".HughFreakingDillon said:
I'm not talking about the guns the NRA is selling. I'm talking about the ideology that they sell.
This is going to happen in my lifetime.
Honestly?
If you want SERIOUS gun reform then yes, you will have to confiscate/ban them.HughFreakingDillon said:
not a chance.tempo_n_groove said:
They talk about the government "taking your guns".HughFreakingDillon said:
I'm not talking about the guns the NRA is selling. I'm talking about the ideology that they sell.
This is going to happen in my lifetime.
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.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 148.8K Pearl Jam's Music and Activism
- 110K The Porch
- 274 Vitalogy
- 35K Given To Fly (live)
- 3.5K Words and Music...Communication
- 39.1K Flea Market
- 39.1K Lost Dogs
- 58.7K Not Pearl Jam's Music
- 10.6K Musicians and Gearheads
- 29.1K Other Music
- 17.8K Poetry, Prose, Music & Art
- 1.1K The Art Wall
- 56.8K Non-Pearl Jam Discussion
- 22.2K A Moving Train
- 31.7K All Encompassing Trip
- 2.9K Technical Stuff and Help