REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Bullet To The Head Anyone?

POSTED BY: JONGSSTRAW
UPDATED: Monday, January 21, 2013 03:35
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 3624
PAGE 1 of 2

Friday, January 11, 2013 2:42 PM

JONGSSTRAW



Bullet To The Head is the title of Stallone's new movie. The release date was pushed back until Feb.1 because of the Newtown shootings. And who says Hollywood has no heart?!

Meanwhile, the two highest grossing films of 2013 so far are Django and Texas Chainsaw Massacre-3D. For Django they took the incredibly repulsive and vile 1975 movie 'Mandingo', and spiced it up to be even more repulsive and vile for the modern audience. Texas Chainsaw was going to be released in good old 2-D, but test audiences said the gore, decapitations, and bloodlust wasn't horrible enough for their sophisticated tastes. They wanted to feel like they were there in the middle of it all.

But don't anyone fret at all over these seemingly ultra-violent films. They certainly have NO affect on the culture of the country, and they are not at all influential to anyone. The claims by the multi-billion dollar Madison Avenue industry that visualized advertising actually works are clearly ludicrous and pure fantasy. Companies that spend tens of millions of dollars to advertise products with images on tv for 30 seconds or one minute just do it for no apparent reason at all. And if 30 seconds of air time doesn't affect anyone, how could a two hour movie either?

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, January 11, 2013 3:58 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


I'm with you, Jongstraw. I'm over the level of violence, gore, brutality, torture, sadism that constitutes entertainment these days.

http://www.imdb.com/list/-2i2noPUF6A/

No wonder people wants guns by their bedside tables, especially as Hero and Raps demonstrate on another thread, they have limited capacity to distinguish between real life and fantasy.

Also this

Quote:

Two recently published studies show that prolonged exposure to gratuitous violence in the media can escalate subsequent hostile behaviors and, among some viewers, foster greater acceptance of violence as a means of conflict resolution.

The two studies were conducted by James B. Weaver III, head of the Department of Communication at Virginia Tech, and Dolf Zillmann of the University of Alabama. In one study, the researchers wanted to see if frequent, consistent exposure to violence in films would bring out in people a greater support of violent solutions to social problems. The researchers set up an investigation in which 53 male and 40 female college students with various behavior types (empathetic, Type A, etc.) participated for extra credit in a class. They first took tests to determine their primary personality traits. Then they were told they would view five films, one each evening, to evaluate the films’ viability in the video market. They were exposed to nonviolent or gratuitously violent films over four consecutive days and rated those films. The films included innocuous movies, such as "Driving Miss Daisy" and "Little Man Tate," in which conflicts are resolved without bodily harm, and violent films, such as "Universal Soldier" and "Excessive Force," representing the new cinematic genre of superviolent movies that are laden with maimings and killings and often have a hero who uses such violence.

The researchers were surprised at the strong effect of media violence on the responses of non-provoked persons.

On the fifth day, approximately 24 hours after viewing the fourth film, the students were told the researchers had enough data on the video-rental study, but they could participate in a substitute project to earn their full credit. They took part in a project that they were not told was a part of the film study. An experimenter and helper administered tasks that the students were told would indicate whether they possessed important interaction skills or lacked them. The experimenter then gave them either good scores or poor grades with comments such as "Awful!" and "I sure wouldn’t hire you!" The students then were sent to the professor’s office, where they were asked to help the professor decide whether the new assistants should be given financial assistance or denied it.

Weaver and Zillmann found that no matter what type film the students saw, they reacted in a hostile manner toward the experimenter if they were provoked (recommending that they be denied financial assistance). Exposure to the gratuitously violent film also produced this effect without provocation by the experimenter. The study showed that prolonged exposure to gratuitously violent films is can escalate hostile behavior in both men and women and instigate such behavior in unprovoked research participants. They determined that the effect is not short lived, but remains for some time after the viewing of the films.



http://www.research.vt.edu/resmag/sciencecol/media_violence.html

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, January 11, 2013 4:11 PM

JONGSSTRAW


Quote:

Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:

I'm with you, Jongstraw. I'm over the level of violence, gore, brutality, torture, sadism that constitutes entertainment these days.




You mean you actually saw right through my carefully concealed sarcasm? I'm impressed. Seriously, thank you.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, January 11, 2013 4:37 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Are you suggesting that if someone puts crosshairs on the names of congressional candidates and tells people "don't retreat - RELOAD!" then they might be responsible in some way for the culture of violence they've promoted and engendered?


Or is that only if they're from Hollywood?



"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, January 11, 2013 4:38 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


By the way, did any of those movies walk out of the theaters and kill anyone?






"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, January 11, 2013 4:40 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:
By the way, did any of those movies walk out of the theaters and kill anyone?







movies don't kill theatres, theatres kill theatres.

Or sumting...

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, January 11, 2013 5:06 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!



Hollywood decries the position that their movies or t.v. shows have ANY influence , at all, with today's youth.

But we can't allow tobacco products to advertise on t.v. anymore. Kids might get the impression that smoking is " cool ". So we restrict where cigs can advertise, and slap all manner of warning labels on the cartons, and guess what ? Smoking in this country declines. Imagine that.

But by all means, show all the gore, violence and humans being inhuman to each other... and make sure you put it in 3-D !

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

Resident USA Freedom Fundie

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, January 12, 2013 3:08 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:

Hollywood decries the position that their movies or t.v. shows have ANY influence , at all, with today's youth.

But we can't allow tobacco products to advertise on t.v. anymore. Kids might get the impression that smoking is " cool ". So we restrict where cigs can advertise, and slap all manner of warning labels on the cartons, and guess what ? Smoking in this country declines. Imagine that.

But by all means, show all the gore, violence and humans being inhuman to each other... and make sure you put it in 3-D !




So you're saying that movies should carry some kind of warning or "rating" system? Huh.

Or are you suggesting that maybe, just MAYBE... regulations help?

You've just made the case that restricting gun sales, requiring labels so kids don't think they're "cool", restricting where you can and can't take your gun... all would help reduce the incidence of spree killings.



"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, January 12, 2013 4:48 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

You've just made the case that restricting gun sales, requiring labels so kids don't think they're "cool", restricting where you can and can't take your gun... all would help reduce the incidence of spree killings.


Gun sales ARE restricted, with buyers required to be of a certain age, and having not been convicted of a felony. But owning a gun is also a constitutional right. And oh, by the way, the guns aren't the issue here, as much as the extreme, hard core fringe Left would like to make us believe. The problem is the individual, committing the act. Columbine took place during the last " assault " gun ban. Didn't matter. Connecticut has some of the more restrictive laws in the country. Didn't matter. Clearly the issue isn't MORE gun restrictions. It's dealing w/ the individuals, and allowing MORE citizens to legally self defend themselves.

"False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the soul with evil." - Socrates

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, January 12, 2013 6:13 AM

BYTEMITE


Quote:

No wonder people wants guns by their bedside tables, especially as Hero and Raps demonstrate on another thread, they have limited capacity to distinguish between real life and fantasy.



I tuck knives between my mattresses, but that's mostly because I'm spectacularly nuts.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, January 12, 2013 6:25 AM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:


Gun sales ARE restricted

...to any lazy idiot with a driver's licence who likes to leave his gats lying around for the kids to play with & bring to show & tell.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, January 12, 2013 6:25 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


This kinda reminds of the TV show Sledge Hammer!. (One of the benefits of being old... ya get to remember all kinds of stuff.)


In it, Sledge is looking thoughtfully at his gun and then asks his partner if guns kills people. When his more PC partner says "Guns don't kill people" (obviously intending to follow it up with "People kill people" he looks at her and says ... "Yeah. Bullets do".

Hmmm... the conversation hasn't moved forward since then?

Keep your guns. Let's just ban bullets.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, January 12, 2013 6:26 AM

JONGSSTRAW


I don't necessarily blame Hollywood for the cultural and moral decline in America. It seems some Americans just can't get enough on-screen sex, violence, and gore to satisfy their purient and macabre needs. Hollywood operates as a business, and if there wasn't a market for this stuff they'd stop making these gross films.

But our values have indeed changed for the much worse over the last several decades, and nothing is going to change that. In the late 1960's Midnight Cowboy was an X-rated movie. Today it would be a PG. Same with 'Blow Up'. 'The Wild Bunch' was considered too violent and bloody in its day. Now its merely mild.

So if the producers and promoters of 'Bullet To The Head' think that's an appropriate or acceptable title for a movie in the aftermath of Newtown, I'm sure they don't care about anything other than making money. And if people go out to wait in line and plunk down $8 to see 'Texas Chainsaw Massacre-3D', I'm sure not going to stop them. It's just very, very sad.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, January 12, 2013 6:42 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


The PROBLEM is that Hollywood (and TV) operate as a business. It's not just about attracting an audience, it's about attracting an audience that has money AND is a little loose with it, and then finding reliable buttons to push and pushing those buttons for all they're worth.

Kids... not enough money.

Old folks... even if they have money, they're resistant to advertising.

Young women... tend to be buying groceries and diapers and stuff like that. Household money stuff.

Some young men... ah, they buy cars, they buy games, they buy entertainment systems, they buy all kinds of useless high-profit toys. What are their buttons??? Well, sex and.... sex and... violence, which is located right in the brain right next to sex... and dominance (which is all about sex) and .... food and ...sex... and alcohol (which all about getting sex) and...

Advertising guarantees that our content is aimed straight at the stupidest and most inducible segment(s) of our population, without fail.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, January 12, 2013 7:22 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Quote:

Hollywood operates as a business, and if there wasn't a market for this stuff they'd stop making these gross films.

But our values have indeed changed for the much worse over the last several decades, and nothing is going to change that.


Amen Jong.

I don't blame the entertainment industry alone (which includes TV--because of restrictions, they can't get AS gory as movies, but they get as close as they can, and make up for it with titillation), obviously; entertainment both leads AND reflects society at the same time. I don't blame the gaming industry either, for the same reason. And for both, profit is the bottom line, so the gorier a lucrative portion of the population wants, the gorier it will get. But both certainly contribute to the numbness with which each subsequent generation view violence, in my opinion.

As I think I related once before, the makers of "Final Destination" showed an audience the original version, which had an ending where love triumphed. They didn't like it. The makers changed it to where virtually everyone got slaughtered and no hope was offered at the end. The audience cheered. Subsequent Final Destinations ran with the concept, and are still doing so to this day. The audience gets what it wants.

Tit for tat got us where we are today. If we want to be grownups, we need to resist the ugliness. If we each did, this would be a better reflection on Firefly and a more welcome place. I will try.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, January 12, 2013 7:28 AM

FREMDFIRMA


Quote:

Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
I don't necessarily blame Hollywood for the cultural and moral decline in America. It seems some Americans just can't get enough on-screen sex, violence, and gore to satisfy their purient and macabre needs. Hollywood operates as a business, and if there wasn't a market for this stuff they'd stop making these gross films.


Ding!

Jong nails it in one, the demand CREATES the supply, and if that supply was not available commercially they'd find another way - look at prohibition, the war on (some) drugs, the attempted misuse of the tax code to make some items prohibitively expensive (thus leading to smuggling)...
COMMERCE. CONTINUES.

S'why I find the idea of banning things ludicrous, you wanna stop proliferation of something, you go after the DEMAND, find out where and why it is, and address the issues which cause it.

While yes, at some points it does seem a self-feeding cycle, the demand is the key, for without it there'd be no MONEY in supply, and that'd solve your perceived problem pretty quick, wouldn't it ?

Instead of bandaids on bulletwounds, the usual result of kneejerk idiocy.

-Frem

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, January 12, 2013 7:44 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:


Gun sales ARE restricted, with buyers required to be of a certain age, and having not been convicted of a felony.





How does one ascertain any of that information?


And are you sure ALL gun sales are restricted in such a fashion? Or are you (as usual) running off your mouth about subjects you really no less than nothing about?



"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, January 12, 2013 8:58 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


FREM: Let's go for the gusto: ban profits. (Yes, I know... HORRORS!! What would we do without an economy that runs by theft??)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, January 12, 2013 9:04 AM

PHOENIXROSE

You think you know--what's to come, what you are. You haven't even begun.


I haven't seen anyone express my feelings about this argument better than Penny Arcade, so I'll just post that...


NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, January 12, 2013 9:20 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Excellently put, Rose. And thank you for that reminder of the importance of ALL the Amendments, not just the ones some want to remember.

Frem, the entertainment industry doesn't LEAD society any more than it REFLECTS society. Your point is valid, but it's not that black and white, in my opinion.

Mike, of COURSE the restrictions Rap so proudly puts forth are useless when one can buy a gun at a gun show without a background check. But he doesn't want to be reminded of THAT!

Tit for tat got us where we are today. If we want to be grownups, we need to resist the ugliness. If we each did, this would be a better reflection on Firefly and a more welcome place. I will try.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, January 12, 2013 1:02 PM

FREMDFIRMA



I know it ain't that black and white, Niki - as I said, self-feeding cycle, but you gotta start somewhere, and banning stuff just leads to underground production with the related crime and violence, the longer view is the better way.

Siggy - I don't have too much an issue with that, although my own viewpoint is not as extreme as the IWW, leading to some disagreement with em even if I do support them, the sheer rabid greed of our system is indeed, apalling.

Some scandanavian nations have this concept, I forget the word for it, but it translates to "having enough" (stuff, money, what have you) and going beyond that is seen as both offensive opulence and potential mental illness.

I'd say we could do with an introduction of the concept here - hell, I've injected it into my own life, as it's one reason I am so willing to help others when I run across people who need it, and keep a budgeted amount for just that very reason - I have "enough" and a tiny smidge to share, it's the decent, humane thing to do, isn't it ?

We look at people who hoard animals, who hoard things, as mentally unbalanced, well, folks who hoard other resources, ya think maybe something might be WRONG with them, too ?
I certainly think so!

-Frem

PS. I've said it elsewhere, but a big part of the problem could be solved with just four words.

LEARN. TO. FUCKING. SHARE.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, January 12, 2013 1:04 PM

FREMDFIRMA


Quote:

Originally posted by Niki2:
Mike, of COURSE the restrictions Rap so proudly puts forth are useless when one can buy a gun at a gun show without a background check. But he doesn't want to be reminded of THAT!


Not true.

Dealers at a show are required by law to make them - where are you getting this information, anyways ?
Now, person-to-person transactions are a different notion, but even then there's usually a requirement for a good faith effort, and most shows will not allow said transactions on the property.

-F

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, January 12, 2013 1:14 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


Quote:

Originally posted by FREMDFIRMA:

Jong nails it in one, the demand CREATES the supply, and if that supply was not available commercially they'd find another way - look at prohibition, the war on (some) drugs, the attempted misuse of the tax code to make some items prohibitively expensive (thus leading to smuggling)...
COMMERCE. CONTINUES.

S'why I find the idea of banning things ludicrous, you wanna stop proliferation of something, you go after the DEMAND, find out where and why it is, and address the issues which cause it.

While yes, at some points it does seem a self-feeding cycle, the demand is the key, for without it there'd be no MONEY in supply, and that'd solve your perceived problem pretty quick, wouldn't it ?

Instead of bandaids on bulletwounds, the usual result of kneejerk idiocy.

-Frem



Actually the evidence does support what you say. Legalisation of ....anything creates a larger market than prohibition. If you legalised heroin tomorrow and sold it in shops the demand would increase exponentially.

Countries where guns of all desciption are legal have more guns in circulation that countries where there are bans or restrictions.

And yes, you do get black markets with prohibition, but you will still have less of the product in circulation.

So in all of this you have to weigh up the consequences with the action. If you legalise certain drugs, you'd remove the criminal element, but you'd increase usage. Is that an acceptable risk?

These are ongoing conversations with out a perfect solution

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, January 12, 2013 3:26 PM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by FREMDFIRMA:

We look at people who hoard animals, who hoard things, as mentally unbalanced, well, folks who hoard other resources, ya think maybe something might be WRONG with them, too ?

This particular nail has been impacted with impeccable precision.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, January 12, 2013 3:34 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by FREMDFIRMA:
Quote:

Originally posted by Niki2:
Mike, of COURSE the restrictions Rap so proudly puts forth are useless when one can buy a gun at a gun show without a background check. But he doesn't want to be reminded of THAT!


Not true.

Dealers at a show are required by law to make them - where are you getting this information, anyways ?
Now, person-to-person transactions are a different notion, but even then there's usually a requirement for a good faith effort, and most shows will not allow said transactions on the property.

-F




Wrongo, Frem. *DEALERS* are required to run background checks. Non-dealers are not. And in Texas, we have plenty enough of both kinds. The Saxet Gun Show, the largest in the state, allows individuals to buy tables to sell guns; you're only a "dealer" if you sell more than X number in a calendar year. This has been the subject of quite a bit of debate in recent years, up to and including efforts by the city to not allow the gun shows on city property (they're currently held in the county-owned expo center, for now).

As well, there are "unsanctioned" gun shows that are advertised as "no dealers allowed", which is gunbunny shorthand for "no background checks performed". I've gone to exactly one of them, basically on a dare, and it was downright creepy. Anyone who was looking halfway serious had at least two people watching them, following at a distance, at all times, and prices were about double what they run at a "legit" gun show. Hey, when you can't pass a background check, I guess you expect to pay more. I swear there were two plainclothes cops for every would-be customer at that one.

Me, I've gone through background checks for every gun I've bought.



Will there be a black market regardless of any effort to curtail it? Of course. Likewise, there's a burgeoning business in kiddy porn, and I've yet to hear anyone come out in favor of doing away with laws against pedophilia on the basis that it still exists, so why bother trying...



"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, January 12, 2013 4:03 PM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:

Me, I've gone through background checks for every gun I've bought.


Mike, you got gats??

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, January 13, 2013 1:17 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:

Me, I've gone through background checks for every gun I've bought.


Mike, you got gats??




But of course. Heck, I thought that was well known in these parts.

I own guns, quite a few, and I'm in favor of stricter regulation and stronger training/licensing requirements. I also own and race cars, and I'm in favor of stronger training and licensing requirements for those, too - and for the same basic reason: a better-trained, more informed person behind the "trigger" of either one increases overall safety for others who have to share this world with them.



"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, January 13, 2013 11:44 AM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


Quote:

Originally posted by chrisisall:


Mike, you got gats??



Sounds like you are asking if he has an STD.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, January 13, 2013 12:28 PM

FREMDFIRMA



Re: Proliferation.

I dispute that, when you drive a business underground, there's no way to have hard data on how much stuff there is, especially when you've given such incentive to conceal it.

Of course prohibition didn't stop the proliferation of alcohol, in fact as far as I can tell demand actually INCREASED, possibly due to forbidden fruit effect.
And we all know the happy consequences of that, not only did it enable and embolden the criminal element, but it also stuck us with a barrage of so-called-protectors who are factually WORSE than the gangs, the BATFE might be only three letters short of batshit, but in their conduct they've long since reached THAT rubicon and crossed it.

Also, yanno, wasn't THAT long ago one could buy heroin or cocaine over the counter here, and addition was considered a medical, not legal problem.
And then some dimwit went and decided to start banning stuff.
And look where we are now.
And the happy consequences of THAT, poisoning our society.

And cause it worked SO WELL the first two times, now you wanna try it again ?
Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.

What I don't comprehend, is that despite the fact that some of you really should know better, while I keep showing you what's *IN* that pandoras box, there you are prying at the lock, just like the damn fools who enabled the former administration to get us neck deep in two wars which accomplished exactly nothing other than wrecking our credibility, damaging our society, and ravaging our economy.

You'd think that after all this time when you hear me say "This is a very fekkin BAD idea..."
You *MIGHT* consider all the *other* times I've said that.


Re: Lack of solutions.

I offered one, no one wanted to hear it, cause despite what most folk say, their *intentions* are perfectly clear to me, and a reasonable adjustment like the one I suggested doesn't get them what they WANT, which is the ability to push other "for your own good" measures down peoples throat without the problem of self-defense getting in the way.

See, with me it doesn't get past "But would it WORK?" - cause of the way I cogitate it.
IF X=NO THEN GOTO... etc.

But a lotta folk, they hit that wall, and then just merrily skip right around and decide to pretend it will, and be damned to the consequences, just like we tried soooo hard to pretend Saddam had massive WMD stockpiles, and look what that kind of pretending buys us ?

Hell, this push has even influenced me in ways I find aggravating, cause rather than wait on it I've felt the need to hedge my bets in case serious naive stupidity wins out temporarily due to the ignorance and gullibility of folks who should know better, aiding and abetting folk they ought to know bloody well enough do not have their best interests in mind.
Tell me again WHY the BATFE felt the NEED to give guns to bad guys, what the PURPOSE of that whole mess was, what their INTENTIONS were ?
Uh-huh, "for our own good", suuuuuure it was, tell me another.

So I figure I best grab that RPK with drum mag while it's still available, and yanno, I don't even really *WANT* the blasted thing all that much - its more a matter of if things get progressively stupider, welll...
And it sure looks like I am not alone in that sentiment these days.
FYI: Backing people into corners is a Very Bad Idea, too.

-Frem

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, January 13, 2013 12:47 PM

JONGSSTRAW


Quote:

Originally posted by FREMDFIRMA:

Also, yanno, wasn't THAT long ago one could buy heroin or cocaine over the counter here, and addition was considered a medical, not legal problem.
And then some dimwit went and decided to start banning stuff.
And look where we are now.


And opium, and dilaudid, and hashish, and prostitutes. Progress sucks!

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, January 13, 2013 1:08 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


Quote:

Originally posted by FREMDFIRMA:

Re: Proliferation.

I dispute that, when you drive a business underground, there's no way to have hard data on how much stuff there is, especially when you've given such incentive to conceal it.

Of course prohibition didn't stop the proliferation of alcohol, in fact as far as I can tell demand actually INCREASED, possibly due to forbidden fruit effect.
And we all know the happy consequences of that, not only did it enable and embolden the criminal element, but it also stuck us with a barrage of so-called-protectors who are factually WORSE than the gangs, the BATFE might be only three letters short of batshit, but in their conduct they've long since reached THAT rubicon and crossed it.

Also, yanno, wasn't THAT long ago one could buy heroin or cocaine over the counter here, and addition was considered a medical, not legal problem.
And then some dimwit went and decided to start banning stuff.
And look where we are now.
And the happy consequences of THAT, poisoning our society.

And cause it worked SO WELL the first two times, now you wanna try it again ?
Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.

-Frem



Re drugs - I think you'll find the data in Holland suggests that legalising increases usage.

Do you think more people use alcohol and tobacco or banned drugs?
More people would be addicted to presription drugs, which I do believe result in more deaths than non presription drugs.

And with guns, no body is talking about prohibition anyway.

Easier to obtain = more of.

Look to the tobacco industry, regulation and accountability has resulted in massive decrease in number of people who use tobacco. There has been a massive cultural shift, which hasn't just happened by itself, but through an approach that involved regulation, information, marketing, legal remedies and education.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, January 13, 2013 1:11 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


Quote:

Originally posted by Jongsstraw:

.....and prostitutes. Progress sucks!



Prostition entirely legal here.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, January 13, 2013 2:09 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
Quote:

Originally posted by FREMDFIRMA:

Re: Proliferation.

I dispute that, when you drive a business underground, there's no way to have hard data on how much stuff there is, especially when you've given such incentive to conceal it.

Of course prohibition didn't stop the proliferation of alcohol, in fact as far as I can tell demand actually INCREASED, possibly due to forbidden fruit effect.
And we all know the happy consequences of that, not only did it enable and embolden the criminal element, but it also stuck us with a barrage of so-called-protectors who are factually WORSE than the gangs, the BATFE might be only three letters short of batshit, but in their conduct they've long since reached THAT rubicon and crossed it.

Also, yanno, wasn't THAT long ago one could buy heroin or cocaine over the counter here, and addition was considered a medical, not legal problem.
And then some dimwit went and decided to start banning stuff.
And look where we are now.
And the happy consequences of THAT, poisoning our society.

And cause it worked SO WELL the first two times, now you wanna try it again ?
Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.

-Frem



Re drugs - I think you'll find the data in Holland suggests that legalising increases usage.




Meanwhile, data from Spain or Portugal suggests that legalization decreases usage.

It might be that it takes a more holistic approach than just saying "This = illegal / this = legal."

Quote:


Do you think more people use alcohol and tobacco or banned drugs?
More people would be addicted to presription drugs, which I do believe result in more deaths than non presription drugs.




I'm not quite clear on this point. For the first part, I think more people use and abuse legal over-the-counter drugs than banned ones (alcohol & tobacco versus pot, cocaine, meth, heroin, etc.). But the statement on prescription drugs worries me; it sounds like there's a suggestion that ALL drugs should be legalized for over-the-counter availability, and I'm sure that's not a case anyone is making. Recreational pot, sure, but I'm thinking prescription medicines would stay that way.

Quote:


And with guns, no body is talking about prohibition anyway.

Easier to obtain = more of.



Nobody serious, anyway.

Easier to obtain = more of, indeed. I'd ask Frem how easy it is to find a car in this country that gets more than 50mpg, and ask whether that has anything to do with the "easy availability" of bloat-boat SUVs and cheap gas. At a certain point, things are so cheap and plentiful that even people who claim to want to "do the right thing" end up going with cheap and easy...

Quote:


Look to the tobacco industry, regulation and accountability has resulted in massive decrease in number of people who use tobacco. There has been a massive cultural shift, which hasn't just happened by itself, but through an approach that involved regulation, information, marketing, legal remedies and education.



I'd point to DUI legislation and regulations as well. When it was decided on a national level that there was an issue with drunk driving, especially among young adults, things changed. Geezer likes to point out that we didn't take all those "assault cars" off the road, but we DID raise the legal drinking age, didn't we? And we lowered drunk-driving thresholds, upped enforcement, raised the fines and penalties, and more. And lo and behold, we watched drunk driving fatalities and accidents plummet over the next 30 years.

Banning a certain class of weapons for a year or two WON'T have much of an effect, because it leaves to much wiggle room and too many workarounds to get around the law - either use this so-called "US-made" Bushmaster, or wait a year or two for the ban to expire. We already watched this happen from 1994 to 2004. The Saiga I've got is a "post-ban" gun, sold with a 5-round magazine, hunting-style rifle stock, etc. It can easily (in about 15 minutes, even) be retrofitted with all American-made replacement parts until it looks identical to a Russian military assault rifle, including pistol grips, folding stocks, and high-capacity 20-, 30-, 50-, or 75-round magazines.

So the Assault Weapons Ban we saw in the past was a sop to U.S. gun makers, intended ONLY to punish foreign manufacturers and importers, while acting as an economic boon to the American gun trade.

And still, even with that weak-sister half-assed effort, spree killings with high-capacity semi-auto weapons remained quite rare. They really started to explode once the ban was allowed to expire.



"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, January 13, 2013 2:20 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


Are all vehicles required to be registered in the US? Just out of interest, because ours are.

BYW, I'm not advocating that everything should be illegal just because it decreases usage, just pointing out that with decriminalisation, will come more usage and therefore a different set of problems.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, January 13, 2013 8:31 PM

RIONAEIRE

Beir bua agus beannacht


Magon's, all cars here have to have license plates/pass the DEQ test which tests for environmental safeness, anyone who is driving has to have insurance on their car, if you get caught driving without it you get in trouble.

I like Chris' US of ... idea, that's going to be my new game, whenever we are saying our opinions on things and what we would have as the rules if we had a say.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, January 13, 2013 9:00 PM

PHOENIXROSE

You think you know--what's to come, what you are. You haven't even begun.


Quote:

Originally posted by RionaEire:
if you get caught driving without [insurance] you get in trouble.


"Trouble" as in "charged with a felony." (I had insurance, I just didn't have my current card with me. Haven't made that mistake again, I can tell you.) The best part is that shortly after I had to go to court, and they told me in no uncertain terms that I had been charged with "felony lack of insurance," my re-registration form came in the mail, and the back said something about lack of insurance being a possible misdemeanor charge. F left hand doesn't even know what the left hand is doing.

Pardon my rant. That whole situation was quite upsetting.


I have no problem with a licensing and registration system for guns. Mostly licensing. I've often thought that the NRA is crazy for not advocating it, as they could offer classes to help people pass their license tests. More money for them, more gun owners with adequate safety training, fewer accidents. I don't think anyone loses in that scenario. (And, I mean, it's not like requiring a license has made cars uncommon, for those who are concerned with such things.)
I own a gun, inherited from my grandpa, who will probably give me a few more before he dies. I have no problem with guns or their owners. But if cars are dangerous enough to require a license, guns certainly are as well.


What reason had proved best ceased to look absurd to the eye, which shows how idle it is to think anything ridiculous except what is wrong.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, January 13, 2013 11:32 PM

FREMDFIRMA



I dunno if you caught it in all this mess, PR - but I did offer a proposal that would solve that problem without stepping on anybodys rights, but it kinda got drowned out in all the howling.

-F

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, January 14, 2013 4:58 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:
I'd point to DUI legislation and regulations as well. When it was decided on a national level that there was an issue with drunk driving, especially among young adults, things changed. Geezer likes to point out that we didn't take all those "assault cars" off the road, but we DID raise the legal drinking age, didn't we? And we lowered drunk-driving thresholds, upped enforcement, raised the fines and penalties, and more. And lo and behold, we watched drunk driving fatalities and accidents plummet over the next 30 years.



Thank you, Mike, for supporting my point. When you have a problem with people doing things that are dangerous to the public, apply your corrective actions to the people who are engaged in those actions, and increase penalties so people who are considering engaging in those actions understand there are severe consequences.


"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, January 14, 2013 5:53 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:
I'd point to DUI legislation and regulations as well. When it was decided on a national level that there was an issue with drunk driving, especially among young adults, things changed. Geezer likes to point out that we didn't take all those "assault cars" off the road, but we DID raise the legal drinking age, didn't we? And we lowered drunk-driving thresholds, upped enforcement, raised the fines and penalties, and more. And lo and behold, we watched drunk driving fatalities and accidents plummet over the next 30 years.



Thank you, Mike, for supporting my point. When you have a problem with people doing things that are dangerous to the public, apply your corrective actions to the people who are engaged in those actions...



I'm pretty sure 100% of shootings were done by those with guns.

We didn't just raise the drinking age on those who drink and drive; we raised it on EVERYONE. We didn't require insurance for those who have accidents; we require it for EVERYONE who drives. In this case, those who are doing things that are dangerous to the public are deemed to be... everybody who drives.


Quote:

...and increase penalties so people who are considering engaging in those actions understand there are severe consequences.



Yes, I agree - there should be consequences for gun ownership. That's why the Second Amendment starts off with the words "A well regulated..." Responsibilities and consequences are implied if not stated outright.





"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, January 14, 2013 9:52 AM

FREMDFIRMA


Mikey
Quote:

it sounds like there's a suggestion that ALL drugs should be legalized for over-the-counter availability, and I'm sure that's not a case anyone is making.

Oh I'd make it, lest one forget I also think any man portable weapon of any kind should be legal too, although with area affect weapons I do feel that mandatory insurance against collateral damage should be a requirement of purchase, as well as evidence of competency in use thereof.

A lot of times the only different between OTC and "prescription" drugs is the price, and having paid more than $80.00USD for a tiny fistfull of pills (antibiotics) with an actual VALUE of perhaps six dollars, one can certainly imagine I am no great fan of prescription-only.

And don't even get me STARTED about the DEA and pain meds, given I am about 2.25 sheets to the wind at this very moment on cheap rum due to local weather conditions leaving me with a feeling much like having a blunt pitchfork rammed through my lower spine, I had to roll out of bed and fekkin CRAWL to my wheelchair cause I couldn't even WALK.

Collective punishment is always an act of tyranny, and punishing people for what others have done, and they MIGHT, potentially, maybe, someday, perhaps do....
That is as offensive to me as anything in the universe, and in moments like this provokes extreme degrees of hostility.
Quote:

I'd ask Frem how easy it is to find a car in this country that gets more than 50mpg, and ask whether that has anything to do with the "easy availability" of bloat-boat SUVs and cheap gas.

Oh what I wouldn't give for an affordable TDI diesel/SVO hybrid, but noooo, the Big Three have it all in hand cause they own the people who write the rules, and keep changing them to keep any competition to their fekkin smoooveees off the market.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture

Oh, and since I happen to be blitzed enough to not give a rats bottom about other peoples precious, fragile freakin sensibilities, THIS:
Quote:

When Adam Lanza left the house, he took a Bushmaster .223 rifle and two handguns -- a Glock 9-millimeter and a Sig Sauer semiautomatic, law enforcement sources said. He left the rifle in the back seat of his mother's car, which he used to drive to the school. Both handguns were fired in the attack, sources said.

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/dec/15/nation/la-na-nn-sandy-hook-gun
man-tried-to-buy-rifile-days-before-20121215

And why, cause he wouldn't have got through the door with it since someone woulda tried to stop him, thus making the case to me that security measures against so called evil assault rifles were completely adequate, AND that this deliberate act of misblame is a contrived fiction to excuse a push with less-than-noble intentions behind it.
Quote:

"Among the many misdeeds of British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest." - Mohandas Gandhi, an Autobiography, page 446.

Imma big fan of Ghandi, especially the notion of at least TRYING reason and persuasion first, but the notion of removing peoples ability to say "No!" and make it stick, while leaving all manner of armament in the hands of the enforcers said folk with less-than-noble intentions will use by proxy to enforce their will while pretending their own hands are clean...

That is repulsive to me, infinately hypocritical, and inexcuseable.

And yeah, maybe a little In-Vino-Veritas going on there, but that's just my opinion, this time around, is all.

-Frem

PS. That said, ANYONE, including law enforcement and others who often get a free pass, *SHOULD* be liable for the consequences of every round fired, when you pull a trigger you have a moral responsibility NOT to endanger people, and should you fail it by negligence or design, you damn well OUGHT to be held accountable, severely so - whether you wear a badge or not!

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, January 14, 2013 4:09 PM

RIONAEIRE

Beir bua agus beannacht


Good Gandhi points Frem.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, January 14, 2013 4:37 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Posted by Frem:

... lest one forget I also think any man portable weapon of any kind should be legal too, although with area affect weapons I do feel that mandatory insurance against collateral damage should be a requirement of purchase, as well as evidence of competency in use thereof.




Isn't an AR-15 with a 100-round drum an "area affect weapon" when it's taken into a school, mall, park, or state legislature?

Glad to see you've come around to my mandatory insurance proposal, though. Seems a few others have gotten on board with it in recent weeks as well.




"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, January 14, 2013 4:46 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:
I'm pretty sure 100% of shootings were done by those with guns.



And 100% of fatal motor vehicle accidents involved those with motor vehicles. So?

Quote:

We didn't just raise the drinking age on those who drink and drive; we raised it on EVERYONE.

And there are currently age limits on who can buy or possess a firearm. And again - So?

Quote:

We didn't require insurance for those who have accidents; we require it for EVERYONE who drives. In this case, those who are doing things that are dangerous to the public are deemed to be... everybody who drives.

Absolutely. Around 36,000 folks died in auto accidents in 2011. around 650 died of firearms accidents. So apparently, as relates to accidents, firearms are much safer.

But I notice you strayed a bit from the topic, which was drunk driving, which is not an accident, but an affirmative choice made by the person who drinks and then drives. Just like shooting someone on purpose is an affirmative action by the shooter.

So if you, Mike, are never going to drink and drive, does it reduce the number of drunk driving accidents if the government takes your CRX away, or puts a governor on it that limits your top speed to 55MPH?






"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, January 14, 2013 4:48 PM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by FREMDFIRMA:

Collective punishment is always an act of tyranny, and punishing people for what others have done, and they MIGHT, potentially, maybe, someday, perhaps do....
That is as offensive to me as anything in the universe, and in moments like this provokes extreme degrees of hostility.

I am SO with you there, bro. SO with you.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, January 14, 2013 6:23 PM

FREMDFIRMA



Well, I was speaking mainly of stuff like rocket launchers...
I ain't exactly sure an Arfie with a hundred banger would qualify, not the least of which is because the chance of the mighty mattel self-fouling piece of garbage actually firing all one hundred rounds without multiple second order malfunctions is somewhere below Dick Cheney going Brony on us.

Nor am I all that sanguine about mandatory anything, specifically insurance cause I know full damn well that they'd INSTANTLY try to expand it to any weapon they could (as you yourself have so aptly demonstrated) along with making it prohibitively expensive and then exempting themselves and their goons from that requirement, or merely sticking the bill on the taxpayer.

For a weapon with a blast radius, I can barely justify it by the razor-thinnest of margins as a social reponsibility in case of accident or negligence - although currently one *can* legally buy certain of them with a hefty bribe (they call it a tax, but we all know what it REALLY is) to the right people, thus keeping said weapons IN the hands of the wealthy elite while keeping them OUT of the peons they're exploiting, just like those bullshit bans on "saturday night specials" did.
To that I say, Long Live Bersa, for making a respectable self-defense piece affordable.

Besides which, the evil-black-rifle is to my understanding 1-for-3 on mass shootings, having jammed on the mall shooter and been left in the car by Lanza, not exactly a scary track record although I would say one is too damn many, yeah.


Also, a note about Littleton/Aurora - they're sister towns, sort of, and I think the problems there might have a little something to do with low level mercury contamination of the groundwater, which in some cases would be drastically magnified by psychotropic drugs.
I was following this line of thought due to a massive spike in impulse related crime just *before* Columbine happened, although I hadn't gotten beyond "hmmm?" and didn't make the connection till later - what drew my interest in the first place was a resemblence to a story I read in Readers Digest (although damned if I remember when) about a town in north Texas that all went crazy at the same time, and this was later found to be the cause.
Between a wastewater treatment plant with a laundry list of EPA violations, local industries (Solar cells for one) which produce mercury waste and seem to be in bed with local politicians, a drainage system notorious for stoppage and problems, and last I checked in 2007 the fact that the town had a special office for the collection of household waste potentially containing mercury...

Just one additional factor to consider, cause up till late 1998, that whole areas general crime rate was jack diddly spit, and then this HUGE spike (like 500%) PRIOR to, and following the events at Columbine, which hasn't seemed to abate very much, so I gotta wonder about it.

Mind you, I could be wrong on this, hell, I'd rather be - but I don't think that's the case.

-Frem

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, January 14, 2013 6:24 PM

FREMDFIRMA


Quote:

Originally posted by chrisisall:
I am SO with you there, bro. SO with you.


I figured you might be, also cause those martial arts "weapons" were originally tools and farm implements pressed into service out of desperation to stem the tide of rampant slaughter caused by....

A ban on weapons.
How ironic, innit ?

-F

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, January 15, 2013 8:15 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


It's not just gun shows that have the no-background-check loophole, you know. It's even more absurd than that:
Quote:

Even after ATF revokes a gun dealer's license for chronic non-compliance with federal law, it has allowed dealers to sell their remaining guns without recordkeeping or background checks - by transferring hundreds guns from their "business inventory" into their "personal collections."[i ]More, and specific examples, at http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/html/federal/dealer_firesales.
shtml


This has happened again and again, and the absurdity of someone who has DELIBERATELY broken federal law around gun sales being ableto sell with NO requirements after they've lost their license to sell legally is mind boggling!

Just one example:
Quote:

Valley Gun Shop - In 2005 federal officials revoked the license of Valley Gun Shop in Parkville, MD. Reports indicate the dealer was permitted to sell his inventory as a "private" seller.
Valley Gun had 483 suspicious crime gun traces between 1996 and 2000, tying it for 37th among the 120 worst dealers in the country.

-In the process of revoking Valley Gun's license, ATF documented serious violations:

--ATF identified 900 violations of federal law by Valley Gun.

--One ATF inspection showed that Valley Guns could not account for a quarter of its inventory, which made all those guns untraceable by law enforcement.

-Despite this long and well-established record of violating federal law, DOJ and ATF allowed the owner to sell off the store's remaining inventory - over 700 guns - without doing background checks, even after its license had been revoked. Same


If that's not totally insane, I don't know what IS!

Universal background checks seems to me the very LEAST we should agree on, no more gun-show loopholes, no more fire-sale loopholes!

It would really, REALLY be nice if the pro-gun folk among us could possibly get it through their heads that virtually NOBODY, here or elsewhere, wants to "ban guns". We are discussing banning weapons which were created for soldiers' use, assault weapons, nothing else. Yes, Frem, I know you think we're all lying about that, nobody will get through to you on that, but if the rest of us could conceivably talk about what IS being discussed, rather than constantly talking about banning all guns, we'd all actually have a chance to discuss the same thing.

Caveat: It won't happen anyway, we all should know THAT, too. The very best we can hope for is the background-check thing. Can't stop violent video games/TV/movies; can't get anyone to agree on a national registry (even of severely mentally ill); can't ban high-capacity magazines; we all should at least know none of that is going to happen. So the concept of banning assault weapons is even further beyond those possibilities.

The whole thing sickens me. A country which is suffering the repeated massacres by high-powered weapons, upon which the MAJORITY (INCLUDING NRA MEMBERS) would like to see sensible restrictions, yet which can't even agree to the most logical, common-sense regulations because of the power of those who manufacture such weapons and because of politics, is NOT a civilized country and has no right to call itself such.


Tit for tat got us where we are today. If we want to be grownups, we need to resist the ugliness. If we each did, this would be a better reflection on Firefly and a more welcome place. I will try.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, January 15, 2013 8:42 AM

STORYMARK


Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:


Young women... tend to be buying groceries and diapers and stuff like that. Household money stuff.

Some young men... ah, they buy cars, they buy games, they buy entertainment systems, they buy all kinds of useless high-profit toys. What are their buttons??? Well, sex and.... sex and... violence, which is located right in the brain right next to sex... and dominance (which is all about sex) and .... food and ...sex... and alcohol (which all about getting sex) and...



That's an.... interesting peek into your view of gender politics...




Excuse me while I soak in all these sweet, sweet conservative tears.

"We will never have the elite, smart people on our side." -- Rick "Frothy" Santorum

"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, January 15, 2013 8:47 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by Niki2:
It's not just gun shows that have the no-background-check loophole, you know. It's even more absurd than that:
Quote:

Even after ATF revokes a gun dealer's license for chronic non-compliance with federal law, it has allowed dealers to sell their remaining guns without recordkeeping or background checks - by transferring hundreds guns from their "business inventory" into their "personal collections."



Then perhaps you should address your complaint to the guys in charge of the BATFE. That'd be the President and the Attorney General.

You might also ask them why felons found in possession of firearms are so seldom prosecuted under Federal law that makes it illegal, with a 10 year jail sentence possible.


"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, January 15, 2013 9:35 AM

JONGSSTRAW


Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:

Originally posted by Niki2:
It's not just gun shows that have the no-background-check loophole, you know. It's even more absurd than that:
Quote:

Even after ATF revokes a gun dealer's license for chronic non-compliance with federal law, it has allowed dealers to sell their remaining guns without recordkeeping or background checks - by transferring hundreds guns from their "business inventory" into their "personal collections."



Then perhaps you should address your complaint to the guys in charge of the BATFE. That'd be the President and the Attorney General.

You might also ask them why felons found in possession of firearms are so seldom prosecuted under Federal law that makes it illegal, with a 10 year jail sentence possible.




Federal prosecutions for weapons charges have decreased by 29% during Holder's tenure. But they were never that impressive even before Holder and Obama.



http://trac.syr.edu/tracreports/crim/249/



NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Elections; 2024
Sun, November 24, 2024 16:06 - 4798 posts
US debt breaks National Debt Clock
Sun, November 24, 2024 14:13 - 33 posts
human actions, global climate change, global human solutions
Sun, November 24, 2024 14:11 - 948 posts
The predictions thread
Sun, November 24, 2024 13:15 - 1189 posts
The mysteries of the human mind: cell phone videos and religiously-driven 'honor killings' in the same sentence. OR How the rationality of the science that surrounds people fails to penetrate irrational beliefs.
Sun, November 24, 2024 13:11 - 18 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Sun, November 24, 2024 13:05 - 4762 posts
Sweden Europe and jihadi islamist Terror...StreetShitters, no longer just sending it all down the Squat Toilet
Sun, November 24, 2024 13:01 - 25 posts
MSNBC "Journalist" Gets put in his place
Sun, November 24, 2024 12:40 - 2 posts
Is Elon Musk Nuts?
Sun, November 24, 2024 10:59 - 422 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Sun, November 24, 2024 09:50 - 7496 posts
The Islamic Way Of War
Sun, November 24, 2024 08:51 - 41 posts
Favourite Novels Of All Time?
Sun, November 24, 2024 08:40 - 44 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL