MovieChat Forums > Liberty Stands Still (2002) Discussion > gun control

gun control

posted 21 years ago by wavemaninawe
43 replies | jump to latest

I just finished watching LSS for the second time and I can say that I found it as satisfying as I did at the first viewing.
It’s interesting to see how this movie upset so many people. That is usually a sign that it has struck a nerve somewhere. If it was just a plain bad movie I doubt that it would have caused as much tension as it apparently did. Just add a tad bit of controversy to whatever plot and be surprised by the results.

Note: my following comment is probably a plot spoiler.

Joe/Alex (the sniper) suffered a personal loss of the very worst kind and as any other survivor wants to hold someone responsible for the death of his daughter. As he mentioned, his first impulse was to kill the kid who shot her or to kill the boy’s father who taught him gun-safety (if there is such a thing). Apparently he stopped to think and look at the big picture, to see what really caused the death of his daughter. In the long run everyone does come to the same conclusion that it isn’t the guns that kill people. Neither would I say that individual people kill people. It’s the combination of the two and more. The world isn’t black or white. Never has been. Might never be.
It seems to me like that kind of trauma will either make you hide deeper behind even more fear and scream for even easier access to weapons since you have to protect yourself from other maniacs with weapons. Or you wake up and realize that you’re a part of the problem. Joe did the latter and went on a final mission.
I got the impression that he wanted to make people on a national level realize that the whole idea of the second amendment is wrong. Sure he could have wrote a letter to the president or appeared on national television/radio to preach but seriously; who would have cared? So he had to make an example and make it where it mattered. The chairman of the NRA could have been a possibility. Although not likely. The sales manager and partner of the biggest gun manufacturer in the country was another option. Probably a more receptive target since to her it was just business.
He had to make Liberty (the manager) experience a shooting and the resulting death firsthand to make her understand the consequences of her work. Hence the sacrificial lambs. I don’t think he felt a need to punish the crooked cop or the exploitive reporter specifically but he knew that someone had to die to get the point across and he chose two obviously corrupt people instead of someone innocent. He did however hold Victor accountable and had a personal score to settle with him.
In the end Liberty had her moment of clarity and went on, hopefully to initiate an official debate and make a difference. Joe believed that she would. A realistic approach to the matter? I don’t know for certain. I’ve never been shot at with live ammo and I’ve never watched someone die in front of me (and certainly not BECAUSE of me). However I do believe that an experience like that will make a person reconsider and maybe even change and that’s why I think the movie made sense.
I don’t consider Joe to be a good guy. He had most likely done his share of killing in the line of duty, for purposes far from admirable. I don’t think that his ends justified his means but I do sympathize with his cause. The second amendment is a stupid law that should never have been brought into effect. I think that condoning public use of assault weapons will do anything BUT ensure safety. It’s contradiction in it’s essence.

Joe: Many of the fathers of the constitution had slaves, but they wrote a document about freedom. Go figure! So you see, things are meant to change; we're all grown up now.

I agree that the movie had a anti-gun message that was totally blatant and in-your-face. Skogland didn’t seem to want any subtlety about it and that doesn’t bother me. Just because the subject is easily understood doesn’t mean that it’s irrelevant. On the contrary I believe that it makes it more relevant since it can be accessed by more people that way.
Any other opinions?

[–] ghenrikson-1 21 years ago

Well first off the film didn't stir any great controversy. It went straight to video and didn't do any favors for the director's career. The action film audience it was foolishly marketed to were pissed off more because of the yapping and lack of real action than any anti-gun message.

And the actions of the main character have more to do with the twisted visions of a far-left Director than anything in real life. The end product was both boring and preachy. Contrast this with Moore's "Bowling for Columbine," which was anything but boring and was targeted at the precise audience most likely to approve of its political message.

On top of this, it was clear that the director (a foreigner I believe) knows next to nothing about the Second Amendement or the actual details of the gun control debate in the US.

[–] 21 years ago

[deleted]

[–] wavemaninawe 21 years ago

I didn't find it that spectacular either but apparently it was contriversial enough to strike a nerve since so many people have made the effort to throw such extreme amounts of manure at it.
I'm not going to turn this into a tiresome political discussion but personally I don't see any connection between wanting gun restrictions and being an extremist of either left or right wing. To me it just seems like common sense. Incompetent people with guns kill other people... that's a fact in most parts of the world, wether we like it or not. Supposedly competent people with guns also kill other people. Wether the movie was poorly produced or not is a matter of personal opinion but I think it had enough irony to make it interesting.
I don't know why anyone would want to compare this movie with BFC since that is a documentary and this movie is fiction portraying a possible real-life situation. Fiction can come close to the real thing but will alwaýs have some flaws for the sake of suspense. Otherwise it wouldn't be fiction.
Correct me if I'm wrong (I live in Sweden) but I havent heard of any particular progress in the gun control debate for quite some time. Last thing I heard, gun shot wounds was a very common cause of death in the US.

[–] ghenrikson-1 21 years ago

I wonder what your version of "progress" in the gun control debate would be.

Oddly, I live in a state with virtually no restrictions on firearm ownership. We are allowed to carry firearms concealed with no limitations, and can also carry openly with some limitations in the urban areas. Crime rates are low, and shootings rare.

[–] wavemaninawe 21 years ago

Without the slightest touch of sarcasm I can say that I'm relieved to hear that. What state do you live in? I honestly hope that a considerable ammount of the other parts can be comparable. My prejudice still stand fast though... my father refused to move back after my birth (an extreme case though considering he's from Texas) for the very reason we´re discussing here. Besides Texas, I have relatives in New York, Florida and Arizona and most of them have mentioned that even though they're not panicky they're used to a lifestyle of slight paranoia.
No offense but despite the situation in your state I think that a liberal policy like that is just statistic waiting to happen. It doesn't even have to be intended, it just happens. Even here where private possesion of firearms is forbidden.

[–] ghenrikson-1 21 years ago

I'm in Alaska, where even the liberal Democrats pack heat. Firearms are just tools, which is why it always amazes me when people view them as demons or fetish objects. This film amazes me too, since it seems to blame a gun maker's daughter for the murder of some kid. Weird. I can't even begin to undersand such a twisted worldview. It's like attacking someone from GM because a drunk driver was driving a GM car!

BTW, Alaskans have always been well armed. We have had school shootings and we have murders, but aside from rape violent crime is rare. Rape and alcohol-related crime are the major problems we face, not firearms.

[–] wavemaninawe 21 years ago

I'm in Alaska, where even the liberal Democrats pack heat.

Heheheheh... that was kind of funny. So Í guess the wild west was actually the notorious north then?
I see your point and I for one don't view guns as demons. I do however consider them a safety hazard if handled by a majority of the general public.
I'll stick to mine though. Firearms, are indeed just tools. But tools designed for killing. So to say that gunwielders cause death and guns don't would be kind of hypocritical in my opinion.
Cars can't hurt people either but cars in combination with alcohol and careless drivers certainly can and often will.
I find the logic in the movie quite comprehensible. He directed his hate at the source of the tragedy. If it hadn't been for gun manufacturers the kid in school would never have had a weapon to kill his daughter with in the first place. If someone ganglord/godfather ordered a hit on me or someone I cared about I'd try to kill the actual don himself rather than the soldier sent to carry out the order. Attack the root of the problem.
I can't condone Joe's actions but I see at least some sense in his way of thinking.

[–] filehopefully 21 years ago

I really enjoyed this film. I was very impressed by the way Wes put his entire livelihood on the line for a subject that he knew would not be popular within the US. He decided to stand up and be counted and that is very laudible in this day and age where speaking out against guns or politics results in death threats, attempts by pressure groups to sabotage your career or the public burning of your works.

The right to bear arms made sense in an America of two hundred years ago, it makes no sense today. Whereas a lot of card-carrying Guns n'ammo reading cold dead hand variety guys took personal offence at anything that might take their shiny toys away, the film is not just about Joe Schmo being able to pop downtown, present his driving licence and come away with both a pistol and ammunition (not in all states) - it is about how a multi-billion dollar industry puts guns in the hands of criminals, bribes politicians to look the other way and even uses the pretence of selling weapons to one country in order that they can be highjacked on-route by prior arrangement and end up somewhere else entirely while said manufacturers hold their hands up in mock horror. Even the government does this, as evidenced by the Reagan administration or the arming of brutal dictators elsewhere as in Salvador.

Henrikson makes the point that in the state where he lives, everyone packs heat and the gun murder statistics are down. Why is this a cause for celebration? The fact that it is necessary in the first place is proof positive that wide gun availability is wrong in the first place. It certainly won't stop the school shootings he mentions from continuing. I sincerely hope that if he has kids, none of them ever becomes a statistic, but the possibility certainly does'nt seem to be keeping him awake at nights.

Yes, there is a high availability of firearms in Switzerland and Canada and neither seems to have the same perchant for shooting each other that the US does. Perhaps because in both countries you don't end up with so many weapons on the streets, perhaps because if someone rang your bell at night and you shot him though the door you go to prison, directly to prison - do not pass go, while in comparison in Texas you get away with it scot free.

Yes, guns are a tool - They are designed to kill things. Cars are not, although most American sports cars do seem designed to kill the driver...:)

At the end of the day it is all about accountability. These manufacturers need to be acountable, they certainly are'nt at the moment. It's unlikely they will be in the future as there is simply too much money involved.

It's not really my problem. I don't live in the US and the easy availability of weapons and the murder statistics are two of the main reasons why I never want to although I do have a number of relatives who are americans and I do worry about them from time to time.

This problem is not going away.

[–] wavemaninawe 20 years ago

I have no further comments.

[–] jbowmore 20 years ago

A friend of mine is only alive because he carries a concealed pistol. He was gassing up his car when a stranger came at him with a knife. He drew his gun and the assailant fled.

[–] wavemaninawe 20 years ago

Good for him. He was fortunate. However, civilian firearms still cause a lot of unnecessary deaths and violent crimes. I believe that every day life would be safer if guns were more restricted.

[–] 20 years ago

[deleted]

[–] wavemaninawe 20 years ago

Showing once again that opinions differ...

Just to be a bit nitpicky I thought I'd mention that he kidnapped her because she was an the excecutive of the biggest gun manufacturing company in the country. He was obviously making a statement. Quite a blatant one as well since he threatened her with their best selling rifle.
Sending Joe off rampaging with an arsenal would pretty much kill the plot point.

I'm certain that god is with you too.

[–] soymaid327 20 years ago

Filehopefully and Smokeeater have it exactly right. I am a US citizen and I support gun control. So you see, Europeans, not *all* of us are like this.

Morfeus:

Not only hippies are anti-gun, and certainly you don't have to be crazy to identify yourself with either group. I'm not sure what you mean about the movie being ridiculous.

Snipes' character is not, repeat, NOT the hero. In fact, that title is quite troublesome when applied to this movie. Liberty is the "protagonist," but the hero? Who knows. "Joe," as he identified himself, is a victim. He is not trying to prove his courage. He is not grandstanding. He is a desperate man, one who we learn is considering suicide.

The smiley emoticon after your action-movie joke does not make it appropriate. It is still offensive, and still makes you look like an idiot. Although the term "crazy anti-gun hippie group" already got you halfway there.

Europe has fewer guns than America, and less of the type of crime relevant to this discusion -- that is, violent gun-related crimes and shooting fatalities. I believe this is a well-known fact.

You are proposing a system in which everyone legally can buy guns -- so, bad guys with guns are deterred by good guys with guns. Yes? I am proposing a system in which bad guys can't be bad (at least, not *as* bad) because they don't have guns, and neither do the good guys. No-one's unprotected, because there's no need for such technology.

It's a bit difficult to get guns off the black market if you're a teenager who needs some cash in a hurry. Or if you're a high school student who's feeling a lot of frustration with your classmates. Or if you're a six-year-old boy who's interested in looking through your daddy's stuff. Any of this ringing a bell? Many fatalities are not caused by criminals, and most criminals are not mafiosos with black market connections. Maybe a few people would still have guns, but Europe (yes... the one you live in, my friend) has proven that gun-related crimes and death decrease by a staggering amount. I believe there is a statistic that says, if you introduce a gun into your home, you're (well, it's either three or four) times as likely to kill a family member as you are an intruder. Does that make you feels safe? It doesn't make me feel very safe.

Legally purchased guns? Wait, isn't this in a hypothetical society where guns can't be purchased legally? Because if you're talking about present-day US society, legally purchased guns are used all the time. Hence the issue of gun control.

I believe I've addressed all your points (although I was very, very tempted to respond in anger), and I eagerly await your reasoned response as the start of an interesting debate.

As long as we're talking about God and the far right-wing, I want to bring something up for your consideration:

Thou... shalt... not... kill.

[–] ThePlagueOfLosers 20 years ago

How about the unnecessary deaths that would result from banning guns? Like the story in the previous post to yours. Would that count? Would that happening make you stop and think, and do some soul-searching? I know in my other post on the thread I may have come off a little hot-headed, making my mind up without asking people to see what they'd say...so here I am, asking you.

What if gun bans resulted in deaths? Does this change the moral status of gun-bans? They are popularly presented as being infallible salvation from unnecessary deaths. What if they caused unnecessary deaths? Would they then become a burden instead of a boon, and worthy of reconsideration?

[–] lchmielewski 19 years ago

Restricted from whom? Those who are responsible with them? That's really all you can do with laws is restrict those who follow the law. A man who is going to rob you with a gun is not going to follow the law to get the gun.

[–] heavyweather 17 years ago

Its not about you and yout pathetic little american state. Guns are sold all over the world...Afrika, Middle East,...

Then maybe someday someone you know will get shot for some reason, bad luck I guess. Then you will wish that there was reasonable control.

I don`t care, where I live only police wears guns and crime is way lower than where you live.
But you have no idea what it is like to live somewhere where you don`t have to fear that someone could pull a weapon for whatever reason.

[–] extank 19 years ago

It "generated controversy" and "struck a nerve" for precisely the same reason The Swift Boat Veterans For Truth "generated controversy" and "struck a nerve" for Senator John Kerry.

It was a big, fat, whopping lie.

[–] phone_ranger 19 years ago

"Well first off the film didn't stir any great controversy. It went straight to video and didn't do any favors for the director's career. The action film audience it was foolishly marketed to were pissed off more because of the yapping and lack of real action than any anti-gun message"

Your patriotic response is sooo predictable. The director of this movie was voted one of the top 10 directors to watch the same year the movie was made, so yah, it did do something for her career.
It is not an action film and it doesn't have an anti-gun message. Did you actually see the movie?
This movie is about government corruption PERIOD. At no time does anyone say "we need to control private ownership of guns". It says "we need to control corporations who run roughshod over the concepts of Liberty and democracy". That distinction is even made by Snipes not holding the kid who shot his daughter as responsible for the deed as the gun lobby which allows guns to easily be put into the wrong hands (both domestic and foreign). Snipe's gripe is with the lobbyist system undermining actual democracy.
Stop eating so many of those Alaskan mushrooms. Mushrooms are the opiates of the mooses.

[–] ThePlagueOfLosers 20 years ago

"I got the impression that he wanted to make people on a national level realize that the whole idea of the second amendment is wrong...he had to make an example and make it where it mattered. He had to make Liberty (the manager) experience a shooting and the resulting death firsthand to make her understand the consequences of her work. Hence the sacrificial lambs."

Okay, so let's turn this story around. Someone loses a loved one as a result of laws that bar them from carrying weapons/guns(i.e. they are beaten or stabbed to death in their own home), would we have as much understanding if that bereaved person were to do something similar to try to make their point to the person who passed that law, or campaigned for that law?

Would it be believable to the audience if the person responsible for the law had a change of heart and came to realise that laws preventing defence of life were wrong and hurt people? And that such laws were hence not such a good thing for society? No, probably not.

That tells us a LOT about the gun debate, and specifically the people who are against guns. Their attitude is, the guys who own guns are OBVIOUSLY in the wrong, and have to atone by giving in to the people demanding they give up their weapons. The people making the demands have no such duty to consider how their demands affect the gun-owners. They justify this attitude by name-calling, i.e. 'Gun-nut'. Which reflects the way they see those who don't think as they do, it's OK to demonize them and demean them.

Dirty tactics, from dirty people who can't persuade others of the rightness of what they believe(probably because it's not a given that it is right) so they resort to abuse and insults. What's amazing is how well these tactics have taken with the culture at large, most people in the US would AGREE with this anti-gun owner extremist rhetoric! Letting a fringe element frame the debate, that's amazing. A sure sign of how hysterical and fraidy-cat American culture must be.

And I'm not even a gun-owner myself, my interest in this is based largely on the conduct of the anti-gun bigots, and how obviously unfair and vindictive it is.

But maybe they're not TRYING to persuade anyone that anti-gunners are pleasant people anyway...I can understand if they consider other things to be important.

[–] rubi6047 20 years ago

"Anti-gun". *snicker*
Do you people EVER get tired of strawmen?

[–] ThePlagueOfLosers 20 years ago

Don't think I'll get too bothered about you, wanker.

"You probably don't think I'm a very nice guy. Do ya?"
"Boddy I think you're slime."

[–] rubi6047 20 years ago

Great answer, papi.

[–] MxSChizo 20 years ago

Smoke, the difference is she would've had a fighting chance - Twice have I had to disarm a mugger with a knife, if any of them would've held a gun, I wouldn't be typing this right now.

[–] FreakingJoyConvulsion 20 years ago

And if SHE'D had a gun, she would have had more than a chance. She would have had a powerful deterrent. She probably would have had a much better day. Right?

--F U C K O F F Intrusion Attempts!!!--

[–] EruditeChap 20 years ago

It still amazes me Smokey(2), how for you the best case scenario is not NEITHER the victim nor the attacker having a gun, but BOTH of them.
How you just invision the criminal whipping out his gun, the victim doing the same, and the criminal just running scared, not wanting to be shot.

Because the cases I tend to here about, involves the criminal pulling a gun, the 'victim' pulling theirs, and in the nervous tension of it, someone eventually figures "I'd better shoot them before they shoot me. My life's on the line here!"... and BAM, someone is (and even sometimes both of them are) dead.

You know when that never happens?
Why, when there are no guns in the situation of course!

I just wonder, if I were to send around a survey, asking people "Would you rather be beaten and robbed/raped, or risk being shot dead?"

The results would be interesting to say the least.
What would you say Smokey?
Tim.

[–] ghenrikson-1 19 years ago

I'd rather die on my feet than live on my knees.

But of course it's already illegal for criminals to commit crimes with firearms. What you are advocating is making it illegal for non-criminals to even possess firearms.

[–] EruditeChap 19 years ago

I'm really more of an advocate for the shut-down of gun production, meaning that NOONE can get new ones, so much as not letting responsible citizens get their hands one them.
Tim.

[–] ghenrikson-1 19 years ago

You cannot shut down firearm production. If you outlaw it, the production will go underground. Zip guns will come out of the hills like moonshine did during prohibition.

[–] EruditeChap 19 years ago

To be fair, it is MUCH harder to actually manufacture and assemble precision firearm components then it is to ferment some grain in a bathtub. Any 'underground' source of guns would theoretically be big and obvious enough ("Hmm," the policeman thinks, "Funny this run-down factory keeps receiving large deliveries of metal alloys, and is constantly visited by criminals who consequently become armed. Hmmm...") that it could be shut down.
As things are today there generally IS no 'underground' MANUFACTURE of guns. Good, bad, or indifferent, they all spring from the same sources, simply because the construction of a firearm is something VERY dangerous to do sloppily.
Tim.

[–] ghenrikson-1 19 years ago

No, it isn't that difficult. Anyone with the basic knowledge and a few simple tools can make a zip gun. With more advanced metal working tools you can turn out rifles. Heck the natives in Afghanistan make AK clones in little dirt shops. The cops would have no better luck shuting down these operations than they did shutting down moonshiners. Indeed with the added political elements of the issue, any cop trying to do so would likely end up DOA.

Besides, firearms are the most durable of durable goods. Receivers can be re-used again and again, for a century or more. Other parts can last even longer. In fact, we still don't know the upper age limit of a modern firearm. There are Mosin Nagant receivers dating to the 19th century still in service in the Finnish military as reserve sniper rifles. I used to own an M-39 made in 1969 with a receiver dating to 1894 France. A modern Ruger single six revolver will probably last two or three hundred years with proper care--maybe more. With hundreds of millions of firearms in circulation, you'd never be able to collect them all. So there would still be firearms around for centuries to come.

Anyway, what would be the point? You would be wasting millions of dollars and lord knows how many lives on a project every bit as pointless as Prohibition or the war on drugs. Just leave people alone why don't you.

[–] bobbo_says 19 years ago

ghenrikson: you raise a good point I have not heard before. If restricting gun ownership were pointless, I would agree to leave people alone. So, is it pointless? If the society really had a wakeup call and recognized the harm guns do and began a program to remove them, I would think there would be a "chance" to reduce gun deaths and improve the culture thereby? Yes, it would take time but the alternative to keep them legal would unavoidably keep them in abundance. Seems to me if every seized gun and every repurchased and turned over gun were melted down that over time their numbers would be reduced and as the numbers were reduced their use even when available might decline.

I would rather "try" to solve a problem than give up and submit to the problem. Unlike prohibition and drugs, the excessive use of which damages the user more than anyone else, the excessive use of guns kills other unwilling participants===the analogy doesn't hold on the point it attempts to make.

[–] ghenrikson-1 19 years ago

Firearms in and of themselves pose no danger to anyone. Nor do they cause crime. Trying to fight crime by removing firearms is no more effective than trying to fight crime by removing drugs. You have to look at the reason why people are shooting each other or why they're OD'ing on drugs. Poverty, loss of hope, and decaying social structures for example.

I live in Alaska, where virtually everyone owns firearms and the gun laws are very liberal (in the true sense of the word). Yet our crime rates are not excessive, and what crime we have is primarily related to the problems of poverty and native american issues. In short, I live in an area of great firearm abundance but limited crime. So what would be the point of seizing all the firearms up here just because Detroit has a problem 3,000 miles away?

[–] bobbo_says 19 years ago

G: Thanks for the response. I try to be thourough in my thinking and writing, and respectful, so let me respond to each point you make.
1. I think firearms DO pose a danger===a danger equal to their likelihood of being used. This is a product of the desire to use them multiplied by their availability.
2. Likewise, guns do not cause crime but they do facilitate crime again by the above equation.
3. One and Two answer your point regarding fighting crime. The effect is indirect but certainly there.
4. I agree, looking at the "why" of any issue hopefully helps explain the situation and helps to offer solutions.
5. I agree with your root causes and agree there are many other root causes and facilitators like availability of guns and the fact that drugs are made illegal.
6. I agree Alaska is a special case. I think anyone in Detroit who eats moose or has a marauding bear problem should have a gun "unless" they have psych problems, criminal record and so forth.
7. I agree seizing all the firearms in Alaska would not address the firearm abuse problem in Detroit.

Overall---I also think that anyone who doesn't think the country with the highest death rate from firearms has a problem that is best addressed by the most direct and immediate cause of the statistic is not actively engaged in the problem. What active solution approach would you suggest? bobbo.

[–] bobbo_says 19 years ago

ghenrikson===as I said, I found your argument re the futility of gun controls interesting. A google search brought up interesting "facts" in support of your position. See http://www.libertarian.org/LA/gunconuk.html which on point reminds us that Universal Gun Owenership is required in Switzerland and it has a very low gun death rate. Contra is Northern Ireland with very strong gun control laws but with a gun murder rate sometimes in excess of USA!! The pragmatic side of me doesn't want to engage in symbolic activities with no salutory effect. I don't believe school education on social values would have any effect, nor preaching from the pulpit.

(((see also http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a188460.htm === U.S. Leads World in Gun Deaths)))

Well---on examination, it does appear that long lasting chronic problems "aren't easy to solve." Maybe moving to genetically encoded safety locks and licenses will be a high tech response in our coming wired world. Then I too will move to Alaska and you can use me as bear bait. (smile)

Thanks for your post. bobbo.

[–] ThePlagueOfLosers 19 years ago

If the society really had a wakeup call and recognized the harm guns do

Yes, because society is completely unaware that putting pieces of metal into a human is damaging to that human, and needs education to be brought up to speed on this elementary point.

Can you explain why antis like yourself assume that pro-gun people are stupid? Do you think you're going to win their support by addressing them as if they were?

I would rather "try" to solve a problem than give up and submit to the problem.

You would like to solve this problem by creating other kinds of problems for unwilling participants.

Unlike prohibition and drugs, the excessive use of which damages the user more than anyone else, the excessive use of guns kills other unwilling participants

No no, if they're breaking into someone's home and threatening them with harm so that they can get away with stealing from the homeowner more easily(not to mention the strong possibility that they might take things further and actually cause harm), then those miscreants are very willing.

Why do you not perceive that gun use is not black and white? Why is it that you lump self-defence gun use with criminal gun use? It makes you come across as terribly myopic.

Oh, yeah. So classic.

[–] bobbo_says 19 years ago

Hey Plague---you disagree but write a good post. Let me respond.
xxxxx
If the society really had a wakeup call and recognized the harm guns do////
Yes, because society is completely unaware that putting pieces of metal into a human is damaging to that human, and needs education to be brought up to speed on this elementary point. Can you explain why antis like yourself assume that pro-gun people are stupid? Do you think you're going to win their support by addressing them as if they were? /x/x/x I don't think I implied pro-gun people are stupid, If I did I apologize because of course the question is one of attitudes, beliefs, and values--not intellect. I was trying to make the point that too many people argue that "guns don't kill people, people do" and I don't think that catchphrase is "true." So, I will repeat the point--when society recognizes that the ready availability of guns is making us collectively more unsafe, only then might some anti-gun legislation be passed.

I would rather "try" to solve a problem than give up and submit to the problem. ///You would like to solve this problem by creating other kinds of problems for unwilling participants. /x/x/x Correct. That is unavoidable in any problem solving scenario. The question then becomes what kinds of problems do you want to be dealing with? What "problems" do you think restricted gun ownership would create and how are those problems compared to dealing with 10,000 gun murders per year and streets, neighborhoods, and towns you can't walk safely in today?

Unlike prohibition and drugs, the excessive use of which damages the user more than anyone else, the excessive use of guns kills other unwilling participants ///No no, if they're breaking into someone's home and threatening them with harm so that they can get away with stealing from the homeowner more easily (not to mention the strong possibility that they might take things further and actually cause harm), then those miscreants are very willing. /x/x/xWe don't "Need" guns to protect ourselves for this. Call the cops and the the burglars will get caught or dealt with otherwise by the homeowners. When we see people speeding in cars, we don't take aim and shoot them. We wait for the cops to catch them. Now I know home burglarly is a bigger more direct threat==but in MY value system, the answer is not machine guns and bazookas and automatic weapon fire. Collectively with all harms and risks included, society is better off with just cops having the guns to catch the criminal who will occasionally have guns---over time.

Why do you not perceive that gun use is not black and white? /x/x/x All my arguments try to balance competing interests. If I misspoke that would be confusing. If I did make an absolutist argument ((taken in context of the whole arguement)) then I was wrong. Just because I disagree with your statements doesn't mean I think the issue is black or white even if you do. I don't know if you are absolutist, black or white or not since we haven't discussed that point directly. I'm not for a "universal" anything. Sportsmen and Hunters should have access to guns that are licensed and controlled in their distribution. Saturday Night specials should be outlawed totally. etc.

Why is it that you lump self-defence gun use with criminal gun use? It makes you come across as terribly myopic. /x/x/x Again---if I did, I didn't mean to, but this sounds more like "your" issue than mine. In isolation, guns for self defense is legitimate whereas guns for criminal use never is. In context, if there were no guns, guns would not be needed for self defense and society would be safer in fact. If the POINT of gun ownership is to have a gun, then outlawing gun ownership will never be appropriate but if the POINT of gun ownership is to have a safer society THEN other approaches would be more effective. Thank you for your thoughtful reply. bobbo.

[–] ThePlagueOfLosers 19 years ago

I was trying to make the point that too many people argue that "guns don't kill people, people do" and I don't think that catchphrase is "true."

So you don't think it's 'true'. What do you base your thinking on? What's the reasoning behind your idea that it isn't true? Do you think that no person has ever strangled another person, perhaps? Never beaten them to death? Never pushed them to their death?

What you call a 'catchphrase' is really a concise explaination that people only die in such instances as a result of the actions of another person...not concise enough to keep the point from flying over your head, it seems, though I doubt that we'd have any more success getting you to understand it if we sat you down and explained it to you for hours. How do I know this. Because I've encountered people like you before, and they haven't wanted to understand it. They know the way they believe is deeply flawed, they are aware of the flaws, and they don't care, they want to continue to believe their ignorant notions. How can you abuse your mind like that?

Too many people use that 'catchphrase'? Yeah, it's a damned nuisance when large numbers of people perceive reality and won't have the wool pulled over their eyes, isn't it?

So, I will repeat the point--when society recognizes that the ready availability of guns is making us collectively more unsafe, only then might some anti-gun legislation be passed.

Guns don't make us unsafe, bad people make us unsafe. You can't solve a problem by misunderstanding the cause, as you do.

don't "Need" guns to protect ourselves for this. Call the cops and the the burglars will get caught or dealt with otherwise by the homeowners.

Oh my God. You really have no understanding of the nature of crime, do you? It's as if you're arguing from score sheets or something. Do you have a mind of your own? Do you ever stop to consider the reality of things, or do you honestly think this is a *beep* intellectual game? I can't believe that there could be such bland, clueless people like you in the world. I'm hoping to God you're taking the piss out of me. That would be a human behaviour that one could relate to.

It's common *beep* knowledge that the police are not effective in protecting you, and even if they were, it would not mean that you do not need guns to protect yourself. There will never NOT be a need to protect oneself, that is why guns are needed. No doubt you think that this is just an NRA talking point that you then counter with your own talking point. You'd be very dumb if you did think so, and that's how you seem, like someone who really could not breath without assistance.

I'm seriously thinking about jacking it in, if all I have to deal with is microcephalous driftwood like you. You really are the bottom of the barrel. You're a genuine village idiot. I'd swear off the internet tomorrow, if I seriously thought everyone on it was just like you.

I'm not going to deal with any more of your c.r.a.p. It's staggering what a cretin you are. Do you know why you're a cretin? Because you have never used your own *beep* brain. Never EVER. You are inadequate. You are an incompetent debater. You use other people's material without question or thought. You have never applied one ounce of brain power to anything and it chills me to the bone that people like you think of yourself as intelligent and worthwhile, it really does. You are barely above moron level IQ and I do not want to know you because people like you make me feel thoroughly *beep* miserable. You are personally responsible for my losing faith in people's intelligence.

*beep* the internet for revealing to me that pinheads like you live and breath. I don't want to know things like that. I just don't. If you had any sense, you'd realise that you were just a stupid, worthless, piece of crap that should stay out of everyone's way. You have nothing to contribute, you're never going to be anything, you're not going to amount to anything. You are a brain dead, moronic follower. And you follow the worst humanity has to offer because you have no judgement and no way to tell *beep* from shinola. You'd eat *beep* because you don't know any better.

Do not dare reply to me you *beep* sh!teating retard. Do not reply to me or I will cut off your empty *beep* head.

[–] bobbo_says 19 years ago

I was trying to make the point that too many people argue that "guns don't kill people, people do" and I don't think that catchphrase is "true." /////So you don't think it's 'true'. What do you base your thinking on? What's the reasoning behind your idea that it isn't true? Do you think that no person has ever strangled another person, perhaps? Never beaten them to death? Never pushed them to their death? /x/x/xIn my post to you just above, I gave you my thinking: gun deaths result from the interaction of the desire to use guns with gun availability. To say that guns don't kill people, people do is true only in an unhelpful way. Guns that are fired accidently can still be blamed on the people that misued them but this argument avoids the fact that if guns weren't available, they couldn't be used. Poison Gas and thermonuculear war and mutated viruses don't kill people either--only the people that use them?

What you call a 'catchphrase' is really a concise explaination that people only die in such instances as a result of the actions of another person...not concise enough to keep the point from flying over your head, it seems, though I doubt that we'd have any more success getting you to understand it if we sat you down and explained it to you for hours. /x/x/x/ Could you explain to me for hours how I could kill someone with a gun if I didn't have a gun. Could you explain to me for hours how I could kill 5 people 30 feet away if I didn't have a gun?

How do I know this. Because I've encountered people like you before, and they haven't wanted to understand it. They know the way they believe is deeply flawed, they are aware of the flaws, and they don't care, they want to continue to believe their ignorant notions. How can you abuse your mind like that? /x/x/ What "flaw" are you talking about. The flaw that I don't want people walking around with guns? What is the differnce between a "flaw" and a disagreement in values?

Too many people use that 'catchphrase'? Yeah, it's a damned nuisance when large numbers of people perceive reality and won't have the wool pulled over their eyes, isn't it? /x/x/x I think it is totally understandable for people to disagree over gun control issues and how to make our society safer. I do think it is inane to argue that "guns don't kill people" as they do.

So, I will repeat the point--when society recognizes that the ready availability of guns is making us collectively more unsafe, only then might some anti-gun legislation be passed. /////Guns don't make us unsafe, bad people make us unsafe. You can't solve a problem by misunderstanding the cause, as you do. /x/x/x Well, its the combination of bad people with guns that make us unsafe. In a neighborhood with a drive by shooting, it is the flying bullets that are of concern, not the bad person driving through.

don't "Need" guns to protect ourselves for this. Call the cops and the the burglars will get caught or dealt with otherwise by the homeowners. /////
Oh my God. You really have no understanding of the nature of crime, do you? It's as if you're arguing from score sheets or something. Do you have a mind of your own? Do you ever stop to consider the reality of things, or do you honestly think this is a *beep* intellectual game? I can't believe that there could be such bland, clueless people like you in the world. I'm hoping to God you're taking the piss out of me. That would be a human behaviour that one could relate to. /x/x/x Please explain yourself. I thought we had cops for the purpose of catching criminals. Have I got this wrong or what are you talking about?

It's common *beep* knowledge that the police are not effective in protecting you, and even if they were, it would not mean that you do not need guns to protect yourself. There will never NOT be a need to protect oneself, that is why guns are needed. No doubt you think that this is just an NRA talking point that you then counter with your own talking point. You'd be very dumb if you did think so, and that's how you seem, like someone who really could not breath without assistance. /x/x/x/ Well, the police ARE effective in protecting all of us. Can they prevent all crime==no. Do they keep crime at acceptable levels? NO---they need our help like reducing gun ownership and type of gun availability. You saw I'm sure the gun attack in Los Angeles--the cops ultimately prevailed in this dramatic example of "safety thru guns." Universal gun ownership would not prevent crime either so that is not the correct measuring stick.

I'm seriously thinking about jacking it in, if all I have to deal with is microcephalous driftwood like you. You really are the bottom of the barrel. You're a genuine village idiot. I'd swear off the internet tomorrow, if I seriously thought everyone on it was just like you. /x/x/x/x "Microcephalous"--very good. You will probably recall then that the need for breathing assistance is generally caused by motor/neuron problems haven't nothing to do with intelligence as it is an autonomic response---but I take your point, you disagree with me asking a question about how to make our society safer with reduced gun ownership as one element to be explored.

I'm not going to deal with any more of your c.r.a.p. It's staggering what a cretin you are. Do you know why you're a cretin? Because you have never used your own *beep* brain. Never EVER. /x/x/x/ Well, gee, I disagree here. Just because I disagree with you on this issue doesn't mean I have "Never, ever" used my brain. After all, by your own typo--I am breathing.

You are inadequate. You are an incompetent debater. You use other people's material without question or thought. You have never applied one ounce of brain power to anything and it chills me to the bone that people like you think of yourself as intelligent and worthwhile, it really does. You are barely above moron level IQ and I do not want to know you because people like you make me feel thoroughly *beep* miserable. You are personally responsible for my losing faith in people's intelligence. /x/x/x/ We are all inadequate in many but not all ways; we can always improve our debating skills through practice; I try to attribute original sources when appropriate or relevant; I did use my brain thru college and post graduate work and the various jobs I have held; intelligent-yes, worthwhile--too values laden but we should all try to lead worthwhile live-a goal as opposed to a status; no, my iq has been measured well above moron which I think is pretty "objective" evidence the gun debate issue proceeds on issues other than intelligence---as I have said before and these postings are making more clear to me, it is a question of values; life is short, we should spend as much time with friends as we can; no--you are responsbile for your own reactions. Intelligence and most human attributes (or attributes in general) fall into a bell shape curve. Associate with those in the curve you are comfortable with.

*beep* the internet for revealing to me that pinheads like you live and breath. I don't want to know things like that. I just don't. If you had any sense, you'd realise that you were just a stupid, worthless, piece of crap that should stay out of everyone's way. You have nothing to contribute, you're never going to be anything, you're not going to amount to anything. You are a brain dead, moronic follower. And you follow the worst humanity has to offer because you have no judgement and no way to tell *beep* from shinola. You'd eat *beep* because you don't know any better. /x/x/x/ That's alot of beeps and are off the subject of how to make society safer thru rational gun control.

Do not dare reply to me you *beep* sh!teating retard. Do not reply to me or I will cut off your empty *beep* head. /x/x/x Very crafty of you not to threaten to kill me with a gun? Yes officer very strange. A gun advocate who used a knife just to protect everyones right to be safe.

[–] freeman-27 16 years ago

I know these posts are ancient (by Internet standards), but I logged in to read a little about this movie (which is showing on TV this evening) and got drawn into this post which I found highly entertaining.

At the risk of condensing all the "subtle" nuances of this particular conversation and indeed the art of debate in general, I have the following comments to make:

To leaglebob:
Congratulations for not allowing yourself to be baited (a sure sign of an above average IQ). I found your argument both well thought and well written - even to the extent of trying to understand the "other side's" point of view and allow room for further open discussion. Well done.

To ThePlagueOfLosers:
Wow, what happened? Why did you suddenly just decide "game over"? Resorting to "name calling" is a strange way to facilitate different points of view in an open debate. How about using YOUR brain to help us non-believers better understand your (very emotional) point of view rather than relying on NRA rhetoric or an outdated 2nd. amendment?

Based on your last post, I'm glad you guys weren't sitting in a room together with all that emotional hostility. Just think what might have happened if there was a gun on the table?

I am a born and bred Glaswegian (Glasgow is less than peaceful city on the west coast of Scotland), and have witnessed a lot of first hand violence. Never have I seen a gun being used in any of these situations and yet still we manage to protect our families and property. Real men don't NEED guns.

[–] bobbo_says 16 years ago

Yes, this post is a bit old==and yet the notification system still works, even after a switch to a new computer!

My own thinking has evolved.

Yes, almost all of America's social engineering policies are woefully defective--including gun policy. Only a sick society would accept the number of death by guns that we do in favor of some sort of illusory "security."

I "would" still support outlawing guns if a comprehensive plan were actually put in place==not like supposed plans to fight drugs, border security, become oil independent, protect jobs and every other thing I can think of that is not done well by GOUSA.

But our society IS sick and in our bizarro world, maybe gun ownership for individual protection has some legitimacy. Doubtful, but those thoughtful people who decide that way cannot be overtly criticized as a gun fetishist.

Hope you enjoy the flick //// bobbo.

[–] ThePlagueOfLosers 19 years ago

It still amazes me Smokey(2), how for you the best case scenario is not NEITHER the victim nor the attacker having a gun, but BOTH of them.

What's amazing about it is your predilection for putting words in my mouth, and whining about my putting words in the mouths of others - which I don't do HALF as much as you do.

For me the best case scenario is for the victim to have a gun and the attacker to not have one. That's just so obvious it amazes me that you never thought of it. But then I realized, you have an unthinking anti-gun bias, which will not allow you to think this thing out fully.

I just wonder, if I were to send around a survey, asking people "Would you rather be beaten and robbed/raped, or risk being shot dead?"

The results would be interesting to say the least.

Interesting in that, you asked a slanted question that did not include the option of their being armed? Hmm. Hmm. I think those results would be much more interesting.

Oh, yeah. So classic.

[–] HeisenbergsLastStand 13 years ago

There will always be guns, moron. Anyone who believes that banning and confiscating guns will lead to a society where nobody has a gun, including criminals, needs to have their IQ checked, because yours is about 75 right now.

"Every time there is a bang, the world's a wanker short." -Billy Connolly