Gun control


So, in January the "star" of this film stated in an interview that the U.S. was gun crazy and nobody should own a weapon. Then, yet another "hit movie" is released with the central theme of guns and their use both as defense and assault upon another.
So, sorry, your credibility is very lacking.

reply

Why do people care so much about this? Liam is an actor, not a politician. Most actors are a little er... crazy so why does anyone really care what he thinks about anything? His job is acting and making movies, he's not in congress writing and passing laws... I don't watch my favorite actors because of their political points of view, I watch them because they are good and make good movies. Everything else is irrelevant.

reply

It's similar to the way people held Mel Gibson, and Micheal Richards responcible for the remarks they made?


Do think a person that was really anti-gay, and out-spoken about it, would take on so many gay rolls, that glamorized that lifestyle? If so, I do not think the Gay community would support this person?

reply

Movies like this don't really portray the gun culture in a positive light...

reply

Does rap music portray guns in a positive light? I hear many say it does.

We are talking about coolness. Using guns to solve your problems. I have not seen this movie, but his other movies do.

Again, do think a person that was really anti-gay, and out-spoken about it, would take on so many gay rolls, that glamorized that lifestyle? If so, I do not think the Gay community would support this person?

I'm not an expert here, but I do know a lot of "cool" gay charaters have popped up on some of the shows I watch. Omar Little, from the wire is a favorite, even among the black community. John Cooper(Southland), Captain Flint(Black Sails), Job(Banshee), Hank(Sirens), Mickey Milkovich(Shameless), Ian Gallagher(Shameless), Chris Keller(OZ), Lafayette Reynolds(True Blood), and of course a few of those "Spartacus" guys. Wow! I didn't realize how many shows I watch with gay characters. Anyway, this list wouldn't even come close to the many gayer shows out there I don't watch. I think if anyone of the actors playing these guys came out against Gay rights, many Gays would be upset.

reply

I disagree. Most of Liam Neeson's latest characters use guns as a means to an end. They are tools to complete a mission. He also uses a lot of hand to hand combat in the Taken movies. I never get the impression that any action movie glorifies guns, more that they are just necessary.

For the record I am a fan of firearms, but not to the point of being a crazy gun nut.

There is a middle ground that can be reached with this issue, but both sides hate each other so much that it inevitably turns into a shouting match before anything can be accomplished.

reply

I disagree. Most of Liam Neeson's latest characters use guns as a means to an end. They are tools to complete a mission. He also uses a lot of hand to hand combat in the Taken movies. I never get the impression that any action movie glorifies guns, more that they are just necessary.

Yet, these movies are where most Fudds acquire their "love" of guns from. It's how they get their erroneous information on what to buy, and their fake movie tactics.


For the record I am a fan of firearms, but not to the point of being a crazy gun nut.
I've been military/LEO/security/competitor/instructor my entire adult life. Movies, followed by video games, are where these people get their gun Jones. We are not talking about people who grow up in the country hunting with dad. We're talking about a whole new generation of fanboys.

There is a middle ground that can be reached with this issue, but both sides hate each other so much that it inevitably turns into a shouting match before anything can be accomplished.
Middle ground? According to whom? What would that be?

reply

Middle ground as in instituting new logical gun control measures. On the one hand you have the gun nuts who want to able to carry any type of firearm in public at all times, and never have to submit to any type of background check when purchasing or selling a firearm. The other is the anti-gun people who want to make virtually all firearms illegal aside for maybe hunting rifles and shotguns.

Background checks on all gun sales, training requirements, and rounds per magazine all seem like rational solutions to lowering gun related deaths.

I have traveled a lot the past 10 years, and the one thing people outside the USA can never seem to understand is how easy it is for Americans to buy guns legally. Not only the ability to buy them, but the type of firearms that are available. I actually described a gun show I went to in Montana to a colleague of mine in London, and he thought I was full of it. To this day he doesn't believe me.

reply

Middle ground as in instituting new logical gun control measures. On the one hand you have the gun nuts who want to able to carry any type of firearm in public at all times, and never have to submit to any type of background check when purchasing or selling a firearm.
I think "gun nuts" are just tired of knee jerk laws, that don't really do anything to effect crime. We don't require people to earn or pay for their Rights. We remove Rights from those who abuse them. Use the gun laws we already have to go after people.

Corrupt federally licensed gun dealers: Federally licensed gun dealers send more guns to the criminal market than any other single source. Nearly 60% of the guns used in crime are traced back to a small number—just 1.2%—of crooked gun dealers. Corrupt dealers frequently have high numbers of missing guns, in many cases because they’re selling guns “off the books” to private sellers and criminals. In 2005, the ATF examined 3,083 gun dealers and found 12,274 “missing” firearms.

The BATF claims that these licensed retailers are part of a block of rogue entrepreneurs tempted by the big profits of gun trafficking. They claim cracking down on these dealers continues to be a priority for the ATF, but they realistically don't have the manpower, or the budget. What's needed, is better monitoring of the activities of legally licensed gun dealers. This means examining FFL paperwork to see where their guns are coming from, and making sure that those guns are being sold legally. There is already a law requiring dealers to report gun thefts within 48 hours.

The BATF has refused to prosecute 1.83 mil felons and others (10 categories of people who by law are banned from touching let alone buying a firearm) who were rejected by the background check.

BATF as per the GAO congressional review fails to catch ANY person using a fake identification to pass the background check, much less catching anyone lying on their 4473 forms like Cho Loughner, Holmes.

BATF refuses to do anything about those 95% who don't even attempt to buy from a licensed source to begin with as per the law, they refuse to allow civilians access to use the NICS background check, imagine that.

Then of course there is your failed politicians, the ones who refuse to fund and resource the mental health reporting function of the NICS. As of July 2012, NICS database only had 1.7 mil records of people who by due process had lost their 2A rights for mental illness. Yet mental health experts agree that 50% of the current 2.7 mil prisoners and 7% of US adults are severely mentally ill. Meaning that the govt hasn't documented 91.2% of those who need to be in the NICS database to begin with.

Of course we can also review the TIME TO CRIME rate of firearms traced in the US from date of manufacture to use in a crime, around 14 years.

You can also review the recovery rate of property crimes being solved is below that of the 8.06%.

I have no problem with the BATF actually performing the background checks, and other duties set forth.

I have a SEVERE problem with people wanting more laws and regulations that don't apply to felons when you haven't fixed the BATF to begin with.


The other is the anti-gun people who want to make virtually all firearms illegal aside for maybe hunting rifles and shotguns.
Which is odd, considering these shotguns, and rifles are used in crime more often than, so called "assault weapons".

In 2011, out of 8,583 gun murders, 323 murders committed with a rifle but 496 murders committed with hammers and clubs. There were 356 murders in which a shotgun was the deadly weapon of choice. According to a Department of Justice study, assault weapons accounted for about 1% of guns associated with homicides, aggravated assaults, and robberies" and "only 2% of guns associated with drug crimes were assault weapons." That's 85 "assault rifles"(of any kind, not just ARs), out of those 323 rifle murders. 238 non-assault non military style rifles, plus 496 shotguns equal 734.

1,694 people killed by knives, and 728 beat to death with no weapons that year.

I believe, anti-gun advocates(in the US) should acknowledge that gun-control legislation is not the only answer to gun violence. Responsible gun ownership is also an answer. An enormous number of Americans believe this to be the case, and gun-control advocates do themselves no favors when they demonize gun owners, and advocates of armed self-defense, as backwoods barbarians. Many make the mistake of anthropomorphizing guns, ascribing to them moral characteristics they do not possess. Guns can be used to do evil, but guns can also be used to do good.

Seventeen years ago, in the aftermath of Matthew Shepard’s murder, Jonathan Rauch launched a national movement when he wrote an article for Salon arguing that gay people should arm themselves against violent bigots. Pink Pistol clubs sprang up across America, in which gays and lesbians learn to use firearms in self-defense. I taught classes to several of these clubs, and have had a couple of students track me down to tell me how it saved their lives. Other vulnerable groups have also taken to the idea of concealed carry: in Texas, African American women represent the largest percentage increase of concealed-carry permit seekers over the last decade.

Background checks on all gun sales, training requirements, and rounds per magazine all seem like rational solutions to lowering gun related deaths.

The real problem is, there is nothing to be gained by restricting the guns. The Assault Weapon Ban was allowed to expire because it failed to do any good. Yet, our violent crime has had an amazing drop in the last decade. It's at a 50 year low. The only real problem with the so-called Assault Weapons is the attention they get. Whatever gun the movies and the gun control people talk about will be the weapon of choice of the crazy people. These killers don’t really know much about guns. They just want the ones the press tells them are the ones that kill large numbers of people. You create the demand among criminals with your talk of how “bad” they are.


I have traveled a lot the past 10 years, and the one thing people outside the USA can never seem to understand is how easy it is for Americans to buy guns legally. Not only the ability to buy them, but the type of firearms that are available. I actually described a gun show I went to in Montana to a colleague of mine in London, and he thought I was full of it. To this day he doesn't believe me.


No surprise there. They live on the other side of the ocean. Hell, people in New York, may not get, or understand people in Texas. That makes all the difference in the world to me. I've traveled a lot, including England. Nice place, but I'm a outsider, so I wouldn't began to try and tell them how they should run their country. I am happy they live in a country that has laws that reflect it's citizens beliefs. I'm happy I live in a country that reflects mine.

I am fortunate enough to have participated in cross-traing programs with Britsh cops. I've done ride-alongs in the UK, and have taken Britsh cops on ride-alongs over here. One thing we all agree on, British cops don't face anything anywhere close to what US cops face on a daily basis. Even though it's getting a lot better, our drug/gang situation is off the charts, compared to the Australia. Our GINI coefficient is closer to many 3rd world countries, and way worse than the UK. This is not really a gun problem.

There are over 750,000 law enforcement officers in this country, and our experience gives us a much more realistic idea, of what's really needed to make a difference.

PoliceOne conducted the most comprehensive survey ever of American law enforcement officers’ opinions on the topic gripping the nation's attention in recent weeks: gun control.

Breaking down the results, it's important to note that 70 percent of respondents are field-level law enforcers — those who are face-to-face in the fight against violent crime on a daily basis — not office-bound, non-sworn administrators or perpetually-campaigning elected officials.

Virtually all respondents (95 percent) say that a federal ban on manufacture and sale of ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 rounds would not reduce violent crime.

The majority of respondents — 71 percent — say a federal ban on the manufacture and sale of some semi-automatics would have no effect on reducing violent crime.

About 85 percent of officers say the passage of the White House’s currently proposed legislation would have a zero or negative effect on their safety.

The overwhelming majority (almost 90 percent) of officers believe that casualties would be decreased if armed citizens were present at the onset of an active-shooter incident.

More than 80 percent of respondents support arming school teachers and administrators who willingly volunteer to train with firearms and carry one in the course of the job.

More than four in five respondents (81 percent) say that gun-buyback programs are ineffective in reducing gun violence.

More than half of respondents feel that increased punishment for obviously illegal gun sales could have a positive impact on reducing gun violence.

Bottom Line Conclusions
Quite clearly, the majority of officers polled oppose the theories brought forth by gun-control advocates who claim that proposed restrictions on weapon capabilities and production would reduce crime.

In fact, many officers responding to this survey seem to feel that those controls will negatively affect their ability to fight violent criminals.

Contrary to what the mainstream media and certain politicians would have us believe, police overwhelmingly favor an armed citizenry, would like to see more guns in the hands of responsible people, and are skeptical of any greater restrictions placed on gun purchase, ownership, or accessibility.

The officers patrolling America’s streets have a deeply-vested interest — and perhaps the most relevant interest — in making sure that decisions related to controlling, monitoring, restricting, as well as supporting and/or prohibiting an armed populace are wise and effective. With this survey, their voice has been heard.

reply

Background checks on all gun sales, training requirements, and rounds per magazine all seem like rational solutions to lowering gun related deaths.


Among our literal thousands of current gun laws, gun sales by all licensed dealers already require a background check.

The problem is that the people who most need to be caught by a background check simply will opt out. Habitual criminals buy black market guns, either stolen, supplied by a straw buyer or a gun trafficker. These avenues will evade any imposed background check.

Training is a great idea. Just don't expect gun owners to bear the cost as a condition of their rights and don't expect anti-gunners to support it unless it IS a financial obstacle to gun ownership. They love heaping burdens on this particular right.

Magazine capacity limits are an instinctive "fix" but even in the rare mass killing scenario, it has little real effect. Mass killers often carry multiple guns or a number of reduced capacity mags. The Cumbria, England killer used a .22 rifle and double barrel shotgun to kill about as many people as James Holmes did in a crowded theater with his "arsenal". In the vast majority of gun crime, it is irrelevant. A premeditated killer can adapt his tactics to whatever tools are available.

reply

Amplified, you mistakenly said "logical" instead of "common sense" as every other know-nothing says. We already have FBI background checks on every gun purchase from a dealer, and every handgun purchase even if through a private sale. They all go through rigorous checks, AND STILL DOES NOTHING TO COMBAT CRIME.

Billy the Kid

reply

I have traveled a lot the past 10 years, and the one thing people outside the USA can never seem to understand is how easy it is for Americans to buy guns legally. Not only the ability to buy them, but the type of firearms that are available.


over 30 jurisdictional studies across the US have shown if you are not a gang member, prior felon or person with five or more arrests (career criminal) who are 91% of US homicide victims, you are LESS likely to be murdered in the gun happy USA than in Australia, Canada or the developed nation mean.

Background checks on all gun sales, training requirements, and rounds per magazine all seem like rational solutions to lowering gun related deaths.


a) Background checks are done in 98% of guns used in crime.
b) and capacity of magazines has been increasing for decades, and gun murder has been plummeting.
c) Same demographic same region jurisdictions with magazine capacity limits, and training requirements have MORE murder . Compare per capacity Virginia vs Maryland murder rates

reply

Búllshït. These kind of movies use the type of guns that Fudds hate and revile. Guns they have absolutely no interest in owning.



jpat99 wrote:

Yet, these movies are where most Fudds acquire their "love" of guns from. It's how they get their erroneous information on what to buy, and their fake movie tactics.



reply

Really...you think guns are a 'means to an end' and 'necessary' in these movies?

SPOILER ALERT...Neeson plays a mob hit man!

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

Just so everyone knows what Dummazz was responding to:
[quote]Really...you think guns are a 'means to an end' and 'necessary' in these movies?

SPOILER ALERT...Neeson plays a mob hit man![/quote]

The bolded part of the post you selectively knee-jerked off to should have clued you in. Your posts indicate you may not know what a 'mob hit man' is, so for your edification...it is a criminal who kills people on behalf of a criminal enterprise.

Not my fault if you went off half-cocked and didn't understand. Next time try a bit of criminal thinking, and when you make a mistake just say so. Don't try to cover your azz with some out-of-context half-quote in order to justify your inanity.

reply

[deleted]

Yes, most people bother to bold the least-important part of their statement. Good analysis, keep up your one-of-a-kind originality.

reply

[deleted]

nww12973 (Sat Mar 21 2015 17:38:38) IMDb member since January 2007
Post Edited: Sat Mar 21 2015 17:40:20

Most people don't, actually.

You are unique, yourself.

Thank you. - N


Seeing the problem, now. You are sarcasm-challenged. Responding to irony as if it is sincere. I predict a long and difficult life for you, especially since you seem to jump feet-first into conversations you do not understand.

reply

[deleted]

Noting that all your responses, up to and including your initial misguided reply to a post you completely misunderstood, are simply ad hominem.

And nowhere do you address my correct assertion that you got it wrong, didn't admit it, made up an excuse with a reverse-engineered quote without the most important (and bolded!) part, and now just keep hitting the shuttlecock over the net without ever understanding that you lost the point at service.

reply

[deleted]

Actually, your calling my statement "ad hominem" is ad hominem. You won't understand (if you did, you wouldn't have made that mistake) so I will explain, and type real slow so you can understand: My statement isn't ad hominem. It is a restatement of position to which I am responding, and the sarcasm (which you didn't understand in your initial reply, if you did you wouldn't have made that mistake) is directed at the false premise that a clear exploitation/hard action movie like this one (I'm a fan of these movies, btw, and you mistakenly see a hypocrisy that doesn't exist) doesn't glorify guns and violence. It does. And it's cool. And pretending that a hit man for the mob is using a gun for anything other than cool violence for the viewer is sophistry.

So let's review...
1) you attacked me personally (not my argument) when you mistakenly failed to detect the sarcasm in the post directed to another.
2) when your mistake was pointed out, you selectively used half of my short post and ignored the half which gave your selection context, in hope that it would make your mistake something other than a mistake.
3) you keep on flailing, making personal attacks, never admitting your mistake, and never addressing the issue originally in the discussion you ignorantly horned in on without understanding or comprehension.
4) instead of doing the right and logical thing, you will just continue to respond unresponsively as if that is the same thing as a logical point.
5) You have been given multiple chances to come correct, and have failed each time, in spite of facts presented. Nothing in it for me to continue. Please have the last word, if you so desire.

reply

[deleted]

the false premise that a clear exploitation/hard action movie like this one (I'm a fan of these movies, btw, and you mistakenly see a hypocrisy that doesn't exist) doesn't glorify guns and violence. It does. And it's cool. And pretending that a hit man for the mob is using a gun for anything other than cool violence for the viewer is sophistry.


I disagree with this sentiment. Yes, it is an action movie, and yes, gun violence is "cool," but I wouldn't say this movie is glorifying it. In fact, the whole point of the ordeal seemed to be: "this is terrible. Violence is terrible. Look at what it does to people and families."

Neeson's character uses a gun because he HAS to use one (in context to the story.) This movie would have been real short if he had tried to sort the situation out with, say, a baseball bat. At no point does he seem to want to or even like using one and his character deeply regrets the times he used one in his past. If that's not a denouncement, I don't know what is.

I do get what you're saying, but personally, I tend to classify movies like this differently than, say, John Wick. Which is clearly glorified and stylized violence. A movie like this portrays violence, but I don't think it glorifies it to the point of saying, hey look at how cool this mob hit man is! It would be like claiming Saving Private Ryan glorifies war. Nothing about war is indicated as positive in that movie, much like nothing about violence is indicated as positive in this one. The characters have guns because those types of people would have guns. It's not as though they were an unnecessary inclusion just to promote their use.

Crying children will dry their eyes. Sleeping babies will awaken and take to the skies!

reply

[deleted]

For the record I am a fan of firearms, but not to the point of being a crazy gun nut.

There is a middle ground that can be reached with this issue, but both sides hate each other so much that it inevitably turns into a shouting match before anything can be accomplished.



If you have a firearm you ARE a "crazy gun nut" according to Bloomberg without whom there would be no gun control movement.

The fact is the movements target is a gun ban.

And the Yale Cultural cognition project did a study showing almost everyone in the gun control moment thinks US gun homicide is up as gun laws were relaxed since the mid 1990's. it is down 60%.

They are flat earth on the core metric

reply

So he's an actor, not an expert on public policy? Fine. So shut up and act.


His opinion is no more valid than anyone else's; he just has a much louder megaphone because of his celebrity. More to the point, since he's likely protected by private security a great deal more than the average American, it could certainly be argued that he has less need for personal protection than, for example, someone like me who lives in a rural area and can expect at least a 30 minute wait for help once I hang up from the 9-1-1 dispatcher.

Liam's world is Hollywood--the land of dreams. I live in the land of reality. So I really wish he'd keep his simplistic opinions to himself.

reply

I really agree with you on this one. The man is an actor so to hold his credibility against his work (which is all fictional by the way in which ever persona he plays) seems a little odd to me.




I'm nothing if not optimistic

reply

LOL! So if your favorite actor is an *beep* hypocrite, wife beater, a criminal and so on, you'd just ignore that on account of him/her being just an actor whose movies you like?

reply

People care because the believe in a right to bear arms... they also aren't stupid enough to think that you can separate the actor's work from the actor's beliefs. You go see a movie you know you are supporting that actor in the movie, even if they don't get a percent of the gross their next paycheck is based on how many tickets their movies sell... and if some loon from the left gets lots of money it allows them to spend it supporting anti-gun causes.... So a person that has strong beliefs in the right to bear arms is right not to see a movie that know will only support actors or directors that are against that right they believe in.

reply

You're upset that people who have differing opinions than you have the freedom of speech. You poor conservative. Regardless, the conservative belief that more guns makes everyone safer in wrong.

reply

expatinasia, stop making everyone that supports the 2nd Amendment a conservative. Look up the word.

People don't always fit neatly into one or the other party.
Makes sense right? Do you really think there are only 2 types of people?

You wanna know the difference though?

Liberals tend to invalidate conservatives and not want to be exposed to or give a hearing of any political or economic position anyone that disagrees with them has.

Conservatives don't.

Liberals are the only ones screaming at the gates trying to shut everyone up.

That's why I'd never be a liberal.

I'm for freedom.

If you're going to automatically label someone a way that isn't towing the party line that apparently you are towing and you think everyone else is towing then you are a collectivist.

If you want to be a a collectivist socialist nationalist in your utopia, buy a time machine... go back to 1920 and join the National Socialist Party. Otherwise, stop pigeon-holing everyone into your perception.

And think about this pal, do you REALLY think you're right and they are wrong? Would you bet one it? ALL those people, who actually outnumber you. You know that right? You know Liberals are only 23% of the dem vote right?

Liberals only make loud noises, the majority is quite the opposite.

reply

shiningthrough and jpat99, you guys make a lot of sense.

You're upset that people who have differing opinions than you have the freedom of speech. You poor conservative.

No one is saying Liam doesn't have the right to say and feel the way he likes. The other side of the coin is, he is a celebrity and his public persona is a product he sells. So, people who say, "I don't want to support this guy because of what he says." are also exercising their freedom of speech.

Regardless, the conservative belief that more guns makes everyone safer in wrong.

You say that like it's an incontrovertible fact. Prove it!

And don't use other nations as examples - different nations, different zeitgeist. Prove your statement true for Americans.

reply

I can't tell you how glad I am that this bomb is tanking at the box office.

reply

[deleted]

I am so glad someone else said it. I co-sign everything you just said.

reply

Why do you quote the word "star"? That's indicative of a hidden attitude.

reply

His movies like this actually support his points about gun control. For example if their was gun control, Liam's son wouldn't have seen Ed Harris' son shoot the Albanians, because it would not have happened.

reply

His movies like this actually support his points about gun control. For example if their was gun control, Liam's son wouldn't have seen Ed Harris' son shoot the Albanians, because it would not have happened.

Right! Because criminals can't get guns!

😒

reply

shinningthrough you're full of crap and contradict everything you say. You're taking the posts where people are allowed to speak their minds on a PUBLIC forum waaaay too seriously. Like a true conservative.



All those moments will be lost in time. Like tears in the rain. Time to die. -Blade Runner

reply

Why did you reply to me with that message? I am not shiningthrough.

reply

At least one side really should take the discussion seriously.

Conservatives have to think enough for both sides.

reply

i know actors are not supposed to be smart to perform their jobs, but liam has participated in countless movies with criminals with significant means. you think a guy who controls the ports capable of moving heroin across borders would bat an eyelash at any gun control measures? how do you think he enforces his business lol

-----------------------------------------

reply