You are viewing an archive of the old fxhome.com forums. The community has since moved to hitfilm.com.

Are guns cool? Debate!

Page 1 of 2: 1, 2 | Next

Posted: Thu, 18th Jan 2007, 2:17pm

Post 1 of 388

CurtinParloe

Force: 841 | Joined: 16th Oct 2001 | Posts: 916

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

I watched a TV programme today about guns in society, and it was excellent. I’ve been thinking about this from a filmmaking point of view for some time, but the programme has served to crystallise these thoughts, especially after the back-and-forth on the Columbine thread (incidentally, there was a documentary on Columbine last night on Channel 5).
Gun crime is rife in the inner city areas of the UK, and predominant amongst the contributory factors is American culture (another is the news, but that’s another story); not just hip-hop stars such as 50cent (the Reebok ad where he recounts the number of times he’s been shot and then laughs was a particularly evocative image), but also cinema from the US. There are images glamorizing guns in so many film posters; The Terminator, Casino Royale, Hot Fuzz, and even Pirates of the Caribbean. The problem is that guns are shown to be empowering (which they are to some extent), and to a disempowered demographic, they are enormously tempting. As a filmmaker and citizen I find myself given a great responsibility, in that I lean towards action films in my subject matter, a genre notorious for glorifying violence. Within the themes of my films, I can either add to the culture of gun-love, or try to negate it.
I did a quick survey of the films I have made which involve guns, and how they are portrayed. A positive image is one that shows guns as non-aspirational, a negative image is one that glorifies them:

1.Bad Eye. The protagonist has a condition where he has hallucinations of bad things. He attacks his friend who he is convinced has just drawn a gun on him. He then discovers it was a mobile phone. My opinion: Positive image. The gun isn’t fired, and its appearance breaks down the friendship.

2.Vengeance. The protagonist has a shootout with his twin brother, fatally wounding him. His brother tells him he missed on purpose, and then dies. My opinion: Slightly positive image. Although there is glorified gunplay, the protagonist discovers that he has killed his own brother.

3.Through The Bullet Hole. The protagonist is a hit man who arrives home to find (and despatch) two intruders. My opinion: Ambiguous. A hit man killing someone on-screen is obviously a negative image, but making him effeminate offsets the gun as an aspirational accessory.

4.Milk, No Sugar. The protagonist loses his wallet in the back of a van, and finds out that it is full of weapons. The driver comes through the side door and fires a shotgun. My opinion: Slightly positive image. The hero has no gun, and the driver is an antagonist and immediate threat, which he must evade.

5.Somnium Illis. The protagonist encounters two men in black, who chase him, before a zombie kills them. There is also an armed guard. My opinion: Positive image. The hero has no gun, and the men in black are instantly portrayed as the bad guys. They use their weapons against the zombie, but it is futile. The soldier is also immediately an antagonist, and never fires his gun.

I was relieved after I had done this little exercise. I enjoy watching the use of guns in films but, paradoxically, I don’t agree with their use in real life. It seems that this subconscious, pacifist agenda has been with me all along. I am making a short film for my final year project, and now I’ll approach it with a different view. What are other people's thought on this?
Posted: Thu, 18th Jan 2007, 3:19pm

Post 2 of 388

Kovacs

Force: 50 | Joined: 5th Dec 2006 | Posts: 80

Windows User

Member

I don’t buy the ‘mystique of the gun’ in real life. If I ever need to get one as part of my job (I work government security but at a desk) it would just be another tool, like the bolt-cutters or the microwave. I would much prefer to restrain a person physically; I’d only pull out a gun if I’d intend to shoot, not to use as a threat.

In my films and my fiction though, yea, I play around with the gun-as-metaphor device all the time. The complexity of the weapon, it’s ‘shinyness’, the number of hands it takes to fire steady, the reload process, etc, all help establish a part of the character’s personality.
Posted: Thu, 18th Jan 2007, 5:22pm

Post 3 of 388

Kid

Force: 4177 | Joined: 1st Apr 2001 | Posts: 1876

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User Windows User

Gold Member

At the end of the day fast cars and big guns are both desirable to make up for other ways that we feel vulnerable or inferior.

Yes I agree it is bad that hollywood has shifted to glorify the gun rather than the man or more importantly the act.

I think that hip hop culture has a lot to answer for in giving these punks the idea that a gun makes them a man. The message we should be putting out is that if you really are all that then you dont need a gun.
Posted: Fri, 19th Jan 2007, 1:23am

Post 4 of 388

Bryce007

Force: 1910 | Joined: 5th Apr 2003 | Posts: 2609

VideoWrap User Windows User

Gold Member

I'm a huge advocate of guns and our right to own them. There is no doubt about the fact that a country should arm it's citizens for their own protection.


I'm also an extremely avid shooter, and LOVE taking assault weapons out to the range, not to mention Shooting Clay's and Gophers.


But, because of peoples inability to accept responsibility for their actions, Guns seem to be Demonized more and more..
Posted: Fri, 19th Jan 2007, 4:35am

Post 5 of 388

Arktic

Force: 9977 | Joined: 10th Nov 2003 | Posts: 2785

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

I'm a huge advocate of guns and our right to own them. There is no doubt about the fact that a country should arm it's citizens for their own protection.
I disagree - and it's a proven fact (not an opinion, a fact) than in countries with stricter gun control, there are fewer deaths by shooting.

There are countless statistics to back that up - I checked the most recent statistics I could find - in the UK in 2002 there were approximatley 0.13 gun-related deaths per 100,000 people. In the USA in the same year, there were 10.50 gun-related deaths per 100,000 people.

So that's 81 deaths in the whole uk for the whole of 2002, where gun control is very strict.

But in the USA, where there's very liberal gun legislation, there were 30,242.

That means that EVERY SINGLE DAY in the US, there are more gun related deaths than for the WHOLE YEAR in the UK.

Sure, some people being shot are criminals by home owners shooting in self-defence, but the statistics show again that there are many, many more handgun offenses committed than people shooting to defend themselves; in 2003, there were only 163 'justifiable homicides' by private citizens using handguns to protect themselves - compare that to the approx 30,000 people killed in total.

Hence, less guns = less gun crime, ergo less death. Quite how anyone can justify laws that enable this senseless loss of life, I'm not sure. That's cold, hard fact there, not some liberal BS that I made up. Thirty thousand people each year is not 'demonisation'.

But that doesn't mean you can't enjoy shooting as a sport - I used to do a lot of shooting when I was younger, and attained various marksmanship awards as well as having taken part in competition shooting. But I simply don't see a reason why anyone would want to own such a dangerous weapon at home, if they knew the facts. Guns should be kept under control, locked away at gun clubs and ranges, where registered members can go to enjoy shooting, but those weapons do not pose a danger to the public.

It's sad that in the UK, it took Michael Ryan and Thomas Hamilton to teach us that. I wonder how long America will see innocent people being murdered before it realises that gun control is the only logical option.
Posted: Fri, 19th Jan 2007, 5:00am

Post 6 of 388

Hendo

Force: 13107 | Joined: 16th Sep 2004 | Posts: 848

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

FXhome Team Member

Arktic wrote:

I wonder how long America will see innocent people being murdered before it realises that gun control is the only logical option.
While I wholeheartedly agree with your views on guns, unfortunately I can't see the U.S. changing its constitution or laws anytime soon, mainly due to the amount of political influence that organisations like the NRA have. unsure
Posted: Fri, 19th Jan 2007, 5:19am

Post 7 of 388

ben3308

Force: 5210 | Joined: 24th May 2004 | Posts: 6433

VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

TELL ME you guys have seen "It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia". BEST American comedic-controversy show ever.

A clip from the episode "Gun Fever".
Posted: Fri, 19th Jan 2007, 5:40am

Post 8 of 388

ben3308

Force: 5210 | Joined: 24th May 2004 | Posts: 6433

VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Arktic wrote:

less gun crime, ergo less death.
To an extent, maybe, but I don't think it's guns that are the large cause of death, I think it's people. Racism, discrimination, overcrowded prisons and gang violence (especially) are all MAJOR factors for increased crime rates, ergo increased death.

Guns are obviously the weapons of choice for such crimes, but if the weapon is no longer available, we have escalation- people start using something more widespread like knives, tasers, or the like. Take away a violent person's means of violence, and that doesn't necessarily take away the violence within him.

In my AP Statistics class, we'd say that your data is misleading: you're drawing one probable conclusion without eliminating as much bias as possible. I understand your point, but perhaps many of the inferences of 'fact, not opinion' that you make are just that: inferences.
Posted: Fri, 19th Jan 2007, 6:00am

Post 9 of 388

Hendo

Force: 13107 | Joined: 16th Sep 2004 | Posts: 848

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

FXhome Team Member

Rating: +2

Arktic wrote:

ergo less death

ben3308 wrote:

ergo increased death
Posted: Fri, 19th Jan 2007, 6:39am

Post 10 of 388

Bryce007

Force: 1910 | Joined: 5th Apr 2003 | Posts: 2609

VideoWrap User Windows User

Gold Member

Consider this:


1. If guns are banned for private citizen ownership, Then Any criminal that wants to break into your house KNOWS for a fact he won't be facing anyone that is armed. So He's got no reason not too and a whole lot less fear.

2. The U.S Faces a massive amount of racial tension and astounding amounts of illegal Aliens flooding in every day. Think we might be abit more prone to violent crime then the U.K?

3. Anybody that is going to actually commit to Killing someone is going to do it regardless of the availability of a gun. Murder is essentially as far as you can go criminally, so Acquiring an "illegal" gun isn't going to seem that risky to said person.
Posted: Fri, 19th Jan 2007, 6:39am

Post 11 of 388

Hybrid-Halo

Force: 9315 | Joined: 7th Feb 2003 | Posts: 3367

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 3 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

ben3308 wrote:

Guns are obviously the weapons of choice for such crimes, but if the weapon is no longer available, we have escalation- people start using something more widespread like knives, tasers, or the like. Take away a violent person's means of violence, and that doesn't necessarily take away the violence within him.
I both agree and disagree. Whilst 'violence within' is the root problem, making the weapons available to such people which are easy to use at a fatal level is the larger part of the other side of a murderous equation. It takes a lot more effort, and a lot more physical stress to stab someone to death, or to bludgeon them to death than it does to pull a trigger.

Bryce007 wrote:

I'm also an extremely avid shooter, and LOVE taking assault weapons out to the range, not to mention Shooting Clay's and Gophers.
This is something I've enjoyed, and I'm sure if I were an American I would enjoy on a regular basis. However - I don't see any need for these guns to be available to you outside of the firing range or an entertainment environment.

Bryce007 wrote:

3. Anybody that is going to actually commit to Killing someone is going to do it regardless of the availability of a gun. Murder is essentially as far as you can go criminally, so Acquiring an "illegal" gun isn't going to seem that risky to said person.
If that's the case, why does Murder in the 2nd degree exist? What you just said would suggest that all murders are premeditated.

To drag this topic back on subject - I think guns are 'cool' within a movie environment when done well. For example - The Pistol in 'La Haine' took on such a powerful meaning standing as a simple for both revenge and rebellion yet it also had an air about it which hinted at impending doom. The same cannot be said about 99% of other movies with guns in.

-Hybrid.

Last edited Fri, 19th Jan 2007, 6:50am; edited 1 times in total.

Posted: Fri, 19th Jan 2007, 6:45am

Post 12 of 388

ben3308

Force: 5210 | Joined: 24th May 2004 | Posts: 6433

VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Guns used tastefully in movies is what I appreciate the most. For instance, in The Rundown, the Rock insists he doesn't use guns (until the very end when he shoots like 4 shotguns at a time to take everyone out) because they are obviously weapons of deadly force rather than an incapacitating force.

On the other hand, what would 'Él' from Robert Rodriguez's movies, Desperado in particular, be without guns? He wouldn't be so badass, that's for sure.
Posted: Fri, 19th Jan 2007, 7:07am

Post 13 of 388

B3N

Force: 3081 | Joined: 26th Feb 2006 | Posts: 1534

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

I like guns in a way as they can be used wildly in films and work well in stunts but, i feel that the best days were when we used swords and shields because they require courage to use whereas guns are basically, stand four metres away and shoot something.

Just the way i see it

B3N
Posted: Fri, 19th Jan 2007, 9:09am

Post 14 of 388

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

Bryce007 wrote:

1. If guns are banned for private citizen ownership, Then Any criminal that wants to break into your house KNOWS for a fact he won't be facing anyone that is armed. So He's got no reason not too and a whole lot less fear.
Alternatively, he might not feel the need to even carry a gun in the first place. Sure, he's still going to break into your house, but he might not bother bringing a gun.

If he knows the home-owner is going to have a gun, then you can guarantee that the criminal is going to arm himself.

So, yes, it goes both ways. Overall, I would say no guns are still better - while criminals can get hold of guns easily in the UK, on the whole you don't have to worry about standard break-ins etc featuring guns (though there are exceptions, of course, as always).

Similarly, the police in the UK aren't armed to the teeth, so general criminals aren't either. Sure, you get the hardcore group that you'll always get, but you don't generally get petty criminals armed with guns.

While I'm not sure about Arktic's statistics (I always hate statistics), I do agree with his point. There's no logical argument that can support having an untrained population fully armed with powerful weapons. It assumes that the population is intelligent, highly trained and responsible - and general populations clearly aren't, as shown everyday by polls, elections, TV habits, etc etc...
Posted: Fri, 19th Jan 2007, 1:34pm

Post 15 of 388

Warfare Unlimited

Force: 425 | Joined: 1st Sep 2006 | Posts: 26

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Pro User Windows User

Gold Member

It comes down to the same cause, lack of moral responsiblities. The weapon of choice used in a crime or in self defense really isn't the issue.
Posted: Fri, 19th Jan 2007, 1:36pm

Post 16 of 388

petet2

Force: 2899 | Joined: 27th Dec 2005 | Posts: 1043

VisionLab User VideoWrap User Windows User

Gold Member

I think Tarn gets is right there - the argument that gun ownership deters crime is clearly fallacious as the high level of violent crime in the US proves.

Additionally the regular problem of some crackpot walking into a high school with an automatic weapon can only arise in a society where people have access to guns in their homes.

I think it is beyond dispute that Hollywood glorifies violence and gun culture in many films but we have to be careful not to restrict the enjoyment of the sane majority because others are irresponsible. I would consider myself a pacifist and am trying to bring up my son to understand that violence is rarely a solution along Buddhist lines. However I can also sit down with him to watch a movie like Doom and enjoy it as a mindless rollercoaster ride.

I don't see that as a contradiction. I would make a distinction between fantasy violence (monsters, zombies, etc) and human to human violence.

I think Hollywood has to be very careful with its depiction of war as the US news media protects the population from the truth regarding real life wars such as the ongoing conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. Anyone with access to multi-channel viewing in the UK should compare the reporting on BBC News 24 and some of the American news channels. I think it goes a some to explaining the attitudes of the average citizens in those countries.
Posted: Fri, 19th Jan 2007, 1:41pm

Post 17 of 388

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

Warfare Unlimited wrote:

It comes down to the same cause, lack of moral responsiblities. The weapon of choice used in a crime or in self defense really isn't the issue.
Lack of responsibility is a huge part of the issue, of course.

However, the weapon of choice is still vastly important. An automatic weapon is much more dangerous than a knife, for example - sure, we have violence in UK schools too. The difference is that attacking people with a knife is much more difficult and time consuming - with a gun you can attack many people in one go.

It's the same reason you wouldn't allow home owners to have RPGs or cruise missiles. By the pro-gun logic, it shouldn't be a problem - it's just people protecting themselves. Of course, that's absurd. To my mind, you should generally try to keep weapon proliferation to a minimum and as low tech as possible.

The more high tech a weapon is, the easier it is to kill using it. Simple as that, really.

With regards to films, I tend to prefer overtly violent films, where the impact of a gun is shown more-or-less honestly. Robocop and A History of Violence, for example, while both very different films, both show violence as being absolutely horrendous.

That, to my mind, is what a responsible film should do. Action films where people just fall over with hardly any blood or pain - they're the irresponsible ones, whether they make it look 'cool' or not.
Posted: Fri, 19th Jan 2007, 2:01pm

Post 18 of 388

Arktic

Force: 9977 | Joined: 10th Nov 2003 | Posts: 2785

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

The U.S Faces a massive amount of racial tension and astounding amounts of illegal Aliens flooding in every day. Think we might be abit more prone to violent crime then the U.K?
Racism, discrimination, overcrowded prisons and gang violence (especially) are all MAJOR factors for increased crime rates, ergo increased death.
You think that we don't have those things in the UK? Are we all wandering around with our monacles and top hats wondering when our next cream tea appointment is? razz No, of course not, all of these things apply to the UK too. Ask any member of UKIP or the BNP if we have a problem with immigration (or infact, any of the millions of people who read the Daily Mail). Of course there's racial tension and discrimination, especially in the inner cities like London. You're not the only country who's racially diverse.

However, there's less crime in the UK, especially less murder. Again, that's fact - let me cite sources for this:

Number of murders in the whole UK for the year 2004 = 820 (from the website of the UK Home Office).

Number of murders in the whole USA for 2004 = 16,137 (from the website of the FBI).

But, of course America is much larger than the UK. So it's not a fair comparison. Let's look, however, at total murders per 100,000 members of the population.

In the UK, there's 0.7 murders per 100,000.

In the USA, there's 5.5 murders per 100,000.

That's a fact, there are more murders per capita in the USA. Now is that due to the availablilty of guns? I don't know, I can't say for sure, but what I do know for sure is that there are a huge number of gun related homicides (not to mention suicides and accidents) that simply don't occur in countries with tighter gun control.

Think about it, 16,137 murders per year, and only 163 justifiable homicides with a handgun (not included in that 16,137!) per year... using guns for self defence doesn't appear to work! Add to that all the accidental deaths (not to mention all the injuries, some of which are life-destroying, even if they don't kill the person involved) and I think the numbers show that guns do nothing to increase the safety of your citizens.

Then Any criminal that wants to break into your house KNOWS for a fact he won't be facing anyone that is armed. So He's got no reason not too and a whole lot less fear.
Ok, so if that's the case, in the USA, where there's more chance a potential burglar will be facing an armed citizen, there will be less burglaries, right? Because armed citizens is a reliable deterrant for crime, yeah?

Well, no. In the UK, there were 677,373 burglaries in 2004 (as defined by Home Office data), so that's an average of 8.9 burglaries per 100,000 people. Seeing as there was 2,154,126 estimated burglaries in the USA for the same year (as reported by the FBI's crime statistics), which is a staggering 735 burglaries per 100,000 people, it's safe to say that the ownership of guns does nothing to reduce the rate of burglary.

As I say, I think these are pretty reliable facts based on statistics gathered by government bodies, not just made up by pro-control campaigners.
Posted: Fri, 19th Jan 2007, 2:27pm

Post 19 of 388

Sollthar

Force: 13360 | Joined: 30th Oct 2001 | Posts: 6094

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

Every male swiss citizen is armed. When you turn 18, the army takes you in, hands you a gun and sends you back home (well, not quite, but almost).

So why do we have so little crime even though there's a shitload of guns in everybodies household?

The answer, in my opinion, is: the lack of FEAR.


Reading Bryce and Bens posts, the argument are all based on the assumption, there's loads of bad people out there who actually WANT to kill you - so you should be able to defend yourself.
And that's the main reason we don't have much violent crimes here. People aren't afraid much.

Taking someone's life is actually considered an option in a MUCH earlier stage in the US - the country has a large active military, actively goes to war, has death penalty in several states, people want to defend themselves using a gun...
Contrary to here - Our military will be compltely restructured to a first AID crew soon, we don't even consider going to war with anyone, death penalty is something no one even thinks about and people don't even know what to "defend" against.

I'll take Bryce's example of the guy breaking into your house:

The burglar knows, there might be a gun inside. Common sense tells him, he needs to defend himself too then. Should he actually meet an armed man, it's him or the other. Ergo he's much more inclined to use violence himself too.

I'm not even afraid of a burglar - don't even lock the main door usually. Why? Because if he wants in, he'll get in. Most likely not to harm me, but to take some things he can sell. Why would he want to harm me in the first place...?
So knowing I'm not armed, he'll most likely not carry an automatic weapon either. If he takes a few things, so what, we're insured.


As long as you're actually afraid of bad people out there, you will try to defend yourself - spawning more reason to be afraid in the first place. It's a classic cycle and the US are the living example for it.


The problem are indeed not the guns. It's the people and the fear they have. Fear leads to anger... anger leads to suffering... the path to the darkside... wink
Posted: Fri, 19th Jan 2007, 2:30pm

Post 20 of 388

Bryce007

Force: 1910 | Joined: 5th Apr 2003 | Posts: 2609

VideoWrap User Windows User

Gold Member

Admitedly, Our gun policys are considerably too loose in some ways, such as how easy it is for someone to simply acquire a gun without any proper training being mandatory. The fact that you don't need a 5 day waiting period for a handgun anymore also sucks.


But that clearly doesn't mean responsible people who can smartly handle a gun should be cut-off from their right to own a gun because criminals enjoy the ease at which they can kill.

And My point still remains that Disarming the average citizen will do nothing but give criminals the upper hand. They'll always be able to get their hands on guns. Period.


And Yes, I'm aware the U.K has plenty of tension as well, But consider southern California and parts of Texas and Arizona. They've turned into the Modern Wild West. I'll be living in Phoenix Arizona very shortly, where I'll be shooting a feature film with thousands of dollars worth of equipment in bad parts of the city and while doing so, I'll certainly feel alot safer with my 9mm holstered on my hip.

Fact of the matter is, Violence is a part of life. You can't end it. One can't stop it by walking on eggshells around everyone and smiling politely. It's never been like that, and never will be.



But Yes. I Think John Woo can turn a pair of pistols into a work of art.
Posted: Fri, 19th Jan 2007, 2:49pm

Post 21 of 388

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

Bryce007 wrote:

And My point still remains that Disarming the average citizen will do nothing but give criminals the upper hand.
In the case of the US, I agree. It's basically too late to do something like that - the situation has got to a point of no return.

In countries that don't have a major gun problem currently, however, I'd argue that it's well worth retaining their gun control systems and restricting use.
Posted: Fri, 19th Jan 2007, 2:59pm

Post 22 of 388

CurtinParloe

Force: 841 | Joined: 16th Oct 2001 | Posts: 916

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

In the UK it's different; we don't have the fear that most Americans do (although our fear is increasing).
If you feel helpless, you're going to want empowerment, and American culture portrays the gun as empowering. Bryce demonstrated this when he said "I'll certainly feel a lot safer with my 9mm holstered on my hip." I'm fearful of a future when the British get this scared, as it implies a lack of choice in the matter. It's almost as though there's pressure to have a gun, as it isn't safe without one.

I don't know much about the psyché of someone who demands the right to bear arms, but I'd rather demand the right to not bear arms.
Posted: Fri, 19th Jan 2007, 3:12pm

Post 23 of 388

Sollthar

Force: 13360 | Joined: 30th Oct 2001 | Posts: 6094

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

Bryce007 wrote:

And My point still remains that Disarming the average citizen will do nothing but give criminals the upper hand.
As I said... fear... there's simple and blatant fear speaking... And THAT is the problem.


Fact of the matter is, Violence is a part of life. You can't end it. One can't stop it by walking on eggshells around everyone and smiling politely. It's never been like that, and never will be.
Sounds very darwinistc Bryce.. May I ask though: What's the consequence you take from this? It's always been like that, so what? Should violence even be legalized then? I mean, it's a part of life after all you seem to be so sure of.
Posted: Fri, 19th Jan 2007, 5:19pm

Post 24 of 388

Kid

Force: 4177 | Joined: 1st Apr 2001 | Posts: 1876

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User Windows User

Gold Member

Rating: +5

You cannot protect yourself with a gun. It does not stop the other person's bullets.

If you 'protect' yourself with a gun you are more likely to be shot because if a burgler (or any other opponent in a dispute) has a gun and you don't in most cases he will simply threaten you with it. If you have a gun as well then he will feel obliged to shoot you to protect himself.

In the UK drunk people have fights all the time and generally the worst people suffer is a beating or some minor cuts. This is because we ban both guns and dangerous knives. If people were walking around with weapons we would have similar number if not more killings (per population) than the US.

Bryce007 wrote:

And Yes, I'm aware the U.K has plenty of tension as well, But consider southern California and parts of Texas and Arizona. They've turned into the Modern Wild West. I'll be living in Phoenix Arizona very shortly, where I'll be shooting a feature film with thousands of dollars worth of equipment in bad parts of the city and while doing so, I'll certainly feel alot safer with my 9mm holstered on my hip.
And the likelyhood is that because everyone can see you have a gun that the guy who decides to steal your kit would have shot you dead before you even realise he wants it, let alone drawn your 9mm.
Posted: Fri, 19th Jan 2007, 5:43pm

Post 25 of 388

Sollthar

Force: 13360 | Joined: 30th Oct 2001 | Posts: 6094

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

You're spot on Kid.

What Bryce and others who argue like him don't realize is the problem that the "other guy" thinks exactly like them... Better save then sorry. So every major conflict will resort quicker to a "shoot first, ask later" thing.
Posted: Fri, 19th Jan 2007, 8:08pm

Post 26 of 388

Warfare Unlimited

Force: 425 | Joined: 1st Sep 2006 | Posts: 26

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Pro User Windows User

Gold Member

Differing mindset for both sides of the Big Pond.

I think the right to keep and bear arms clause in our constitution was the signers intentions that any government (even ours) who no longer represents the citizens should be replaced by force of arms if peaceful solutions have failed. Revolutionary concept by the founders of our country I think. No offense meant to our British kin. And an apology for the revolutionary pun.

Our main concern is to be able to defend the home(and home front) and our property if need be. Being from Texas, we were a sovereign country first and US state secondly. Those muskets that won our freedom wasn't issued by the Republic of Texas to the volunteers, they were owned by the citizens themselves. Our Revolutionary War wasn't won by strictly government issued muskets but mainly by privately owned weapons. Our whole concept of private weapon ownership is based on the right to defend ourselves from enemies from inside our borders and from foreign threats. Past history you might say, well if we ever had a government who shackled us with a 60% tax rate, there would be a second Revolutionary War.

Yes we are quick to shoot and then ask questions later, thats what we call a"No Second Place Winner". We have no problems jumping into armed frays to do what we think is right, anybody remember WWI-WWII? We make mistakes of course but our hearts are in the right places even when we do step on our cranks so to speak.

If I have offended you, I apologize upfront. Does violence in films bother me, no its a film and rarely factual. Does real world violence bother me, yes. Am I afraid of it? See "No Second Place Winners" above.

(falls off soapbox and breaks hip due to old age)
Posted: Fri, 19th Jan 2007, 8:25pm

Post 27 of 388

Hybrid-Halo

Force: 9315 | Joined: 7th Feb 2003 | Posts: 3367

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 3 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

Irony levels peaking here.
Posted: Fri, 19th Jan 2007, 9:07pm

Post 28 of 388

CurtinParloe

Force: 841 | Joined: 16th Oct 2001 | Posts: 916

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

Warfare Unlimited wrote:

Yes we are quick to shoot and then ask questions later, thats what we call a"No Second Place Winner". We have no problems jumping into armed frays to do what we think is right, anybody remember WWI-WWII? We make mistakes of course but our hearts are in the right places even when we do step on our cranks so to speak.
I've not heard the phrase "no second place winner", but it sounds like a dangerous philosophy to me - surely it means that every confrontation is a gamble with death? I don't mind gambling, but when the stakes are that high...

If I have offended you, I apologize upfront. Does violence in films bother me, no its a film and rarely factual. Does real world violence bother me, yes. Am I afraid of it? See "No Second Place Winners" above.

(falls off soapbox and breaks hip due to old age)
Not at all, it's your right to have your opinion.

My original point, by the way everyone, is along the lines of - "is there a link between the fetishisation of the gun and real-life gun violence and attitudes? If so, aren't we responsible as film makers to think carefully about any portrayal of gun violence in our films?"
Posted: Fri, 19th Jan 2007, 10:03pm

Post 29 of 388

Bryce007

Force: 1910 | Joined: 5th Apr 2003 | Posts: 2609

VideoWrap User Windows User

Gold Member

Even though I already knew that promoting my opinion would be near impossible on site moderated and run by Europeans, I figured, Why not wink


To Kid: Not when I've taken Combat handgunning courses. Also, Anyone with even a slight sense of his surroundings will be on the lookout for trouble constantly. Ever shot a reasonably powerful handgun? It's not like you can EASILY point and shoot. It takes aim. infact, I doubt most untrained people could hit something farther than 10 ft in front of them. Certainly not when you're nervous.


To Sollthar: Fear really isn't the reason I prefer a gun as a method of self defense. The reason is, I'd rather have a level playing field. Criminals use guns. Period. I'm simply not going to be caught "With my pants down" as they say.

As far as "Darwinistic" goes...Can you honestly say you don't agree with me? There's never been a time in history where violent crime hasn't taken place on a day to day basis somewhere in the world. It's not a cynical viewpoint, it's simply fact. The answer? accept it and move on. You only live once.

It's my personal value system that I won't be the guy complaining about how he wasn't able to defend himself if necessary. Is the world getting more and more wound up and scared? Yes. Does that breed violence? absolutely. Do I want the ability to avoid being taken advantage of? For sure.
Posted: Fri, 19th Jan 2007, 11:17pm

Post 30 of 388

Kid

Force: 4177 | Joined: 1st Apr 2001 | Posts: 1876

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User Windows User

Gold Member

Rating: +1

Maybe your difference in attitude comes from the sheer capitalism of american society? You would rather put your life on the line to protect your stuff where as we would just let them have it and claim it on insurance.
Posted: Fri, 19th Jan 2007, 11:40pm

Post 31 of 388

petet2

Force: 2899 | Joined: 27th Dec 2005 | Posts: 1043

VisionLab User VideoWrap User Windows User

Gold Member

Bryce007 wrote:

Criminals use guns. Period.
No, a certain type of American criminal uses guns. Even in the US you have a range of crimes commtiitted which don't involve violence.

In the UK very few criminals use guns - some bank robberies and gang-related violence in the main - and the reason that those criminals use guns is because they anticipate meeting an armed response.

The US has adopted an increasingly isolationist political stance over recent years and has propogated a climate of fear and distrust amongst its population (one which the UK government seems increasingly keen to follow with recent ministerial statements in relation to religious dress).

The US government would do more to achieve world peace by educating its children that actually the rest of the world isn't bad, just different. And when criticising political regimes on the other side of the world the US government would do well to look at the inequalties and prejudices which exist in it's own society. Perhaps if it did so it could start to tackle the crime figures.

Warfare Unlimited wrote:

We have no problems jumping into armed frays to do what we think is right, anybody remember WWI-WWII?

I'm not quite sure what this point means. The US certainly didn't jump into World War One. Woodrow Wilson kept America out of the conflict for several years until Germany resumed unrestricted submarine warfare in 1917. Up to that point American businesses were allowed to trade with both sides of the conflict. When it came US entry into World War One was measured and reluctant.

Similarly the US avoided direct involvement in World War Two for two years and only entered the conflict in response to the Japanese attack on Hawaii. While I am in no way trying to diminish the role of the US in either conflict it is important to look at the facts rather than the Hollywood depiction of America charging in to end the war and save the world.

If President Kennedy had decided to "shoot first and then ask questions later" during the Cuban missile crisis we'd probably all be dead and a lifeform evolved from cockroachs would have inherited the planet.

The rashness of the "No Second Place Winner" attitude is more reflective of the recent US regimes and the ill advised sorties into the Middle East which have done far more to destabilise the world than to make it safer.

Bryce007 wrote:

Even though I already knew that promoting my opinion would be near impossible on site moderated and run by Europeans...
You've obviously never read the Daily Mail.

EDIT - To Kid: your last post (the insurance claim one) made me laugh out loud after a long hard week at work. Cheers mate!
Posted: Sat, 20th Jan 2007, 12:54am

Post 32 of 388

Fill

Force: 1257 | Joined: 1st Jul 2005 | Posts: 1652

CompositeLab Lite User EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

I've been looking at this topic for a while and I guess I can say a few words.

First off, guns aren't "cool". They're weapons and can be used for good or bad. Now, think about this: If a criminal in the U.S. is allowed to bear a weapon legally why wouldn't a criminal in the UK bear a weapon? If they're willing enough to do the crime, they're probably willing enough to do another crime by illegally bearing a weapon.

Yeah, weapons can be dangerous, but they can be helpful. If there was any country that would survive the most if invaded, it would be America. We own guns, and we can use them for defense. Even though defense is usually not the case. But really, if I carry a gun around I'll get arrested for threatening or something. Our government gives us rights but they aren't really as much as they used to be. I wrote a research paper on political correctness and I've read so many silly stories of companies getting sued for offending an employee. So really, we're sorta cut short of our rights.
Posted: Sat, 20th Jan 2007, 1:02am

Post 33 of 388

petet2

Force: 2899 | Joined: 27th Dec 2005 | Posts: 1043

VisionLab User VideoWrap User Windows User

Gold Member

There are a number of reasons why criminals in the Uk don't bear weapons.

1. It is not easy to get a gun in the UK. To buy one legally is hard and you can't carry it around with you. Possessing a gun in a public place is likely to get you arrested.

2. Taking a gun to a crime dramatically increases the liklihood of a serious punishment. The courts in the UK tend towards community penalites and short term custodial sentences for crimes such as house burglary. Take a gun along and you are going to the big house for a long time.

3. There just isn't the mentality to carry guns in our society and that still permeates the criminal fraternity. Apart from city centre drug gang crime (where the participants appear to aspire to replicate the American model and die young in a drive by shooting) most criminals appear satisfied that they can carry out their task with threats, fists and the odd knife.
Posted: Sat, 20th Jan 2007, 3:08am

Post 34 of 388

Kid

Force: 4177 | Joined: 1st Apr 2001 | Posts: 1876

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User Windows User

Gold Member

Indeed, in fact most criminals specifically don't carry a gun here because it would highlight them as a criminal. Plus it means that the police can assume anyone carrying one is dangerous and treat them as such. There's no confusion in whether their intentions are good or bad.
Posted: Sat, 20th Jan 2007, 3:12am

Post 35 of 388

CurtinParloe

Force: 841 | Joined: 16th Oct 2001 | Posts: 916

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

Bryce007 wrote:

Even though I already knew that promoting my opinion would be near impossible on site moderated and run by Europeans, I figured, Why not wink
Ahem... promoting your opinion is wrong. Jehovah's witnesses do that. Stating your opinion is fine, that's your right. It's unlikely you'll persuade us that guns are good, however, as we have the whole violent history of Northern Ireland to remind us the opposite.

There's never been a time in history where violent crime hasn't taken place on a day to day basis somewhere in the world. It's not a cynical viewpoint, it's simply fact. The answer? accept it and move on. You only live once.
Does that mean you can be violent with impunity? The exact same argument landed us all with Microsoft Windows!!

It's my personal value system that I won't be the guy complaining about how he wasn't able to defend himself if necessary. Is the world getting more and more wound up and scared? Yes. Does that breed violence? absolutely. Do I want the ability to avoid being taken advantage of? For sure.
If that's not fear, I don't know what is. Taking it to its absurd but logical conclusion, will you be the guy complaining that your family is dead from gunfire because they gambled their lives on the "no second place winner" scenario and lost?


Kyal wrote:

First off, guns aren't "cool". They're weapons and can be used for good or bad. Now, think about this: If a criminal in the U.S. is allowed to bear a weapon legally why wouldn't a criminal in the UK bear a weapon? If they're willing enough to do the crime, they're probably willing enough to do another crime by illegally bearing a weapon.
Yes. Weapons are a tool, although they are designed to kill, unlike a screwdriver. The point I'm making is, if guns aren't cool, why does Hollywood perpetuate the myth that they are?
And criminals in the UK do carry weapons at times. However, my opinion is that carrying a weapon myself won't stop that from happening.

Yeah, weapons can be dangerous, but they can be helpful. If there was any country that would survive the most if invaded, it would be America. We own guns, and we can use them for defense. Even though defense is usually not the case.
No kidding! In fact from checking this list it would seem that it's the US that does the invading. In that case, I need a nuclear missile to protect me personally from being invaded. Not gonna happen, but that's not the point...

But really, if I carry a gun around I'll get arrested for threatening or something. Our government gives us rights but they aren't really as much as they used to be. I wrote a research paper on political correctness and I've read so many silly stories of companies getting sued for offending an employee. So really, we're sorta cut short of our rights.
Would you get arrested for carrying a gun? From what I see in the American media it's practically compulsary. And that's my point.

petet2 wrote:

1. It is not easy to get a gun in the UK. To buy one legally is hard and you can't carry it around with you. Possessing a gun in a public place is likely to get you arrested.
The documentary I watched would dispute that. Particularly in inner city areas, as you mention later in your post.
Posted: Sat, 20th Jan 2007, 3:59am

Post 36 of 388

Warfare Unlimited

Force: 425 | Joined: 1st Sep 2006 | Posts: 26

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Pro User Windows User

Gold Member

In explanation of the "No Second Place Winners"phrase, coming in second in a gunfight or a fight of any type means you lose. Phrase is the title of Bill Jordans book on his experiences in 30+ years as a US Border Patrolman.

As far as the attitude for it, why tolerate criminal behavior at all. Sure insurance may cover your loss, but we simply don't care to play Ostriches and bury our heads in the sand and ignore it when it does happen.

Thanks Great Britian for repaying the Lend Lease debt in full recently, we supplied arms and equipment and other needed supplies to the UK for almost 2 years before Pearl Harbor forced our isolationist Congress into open war. Not to mention all of the American Merchant Marine folks under other flagged vessels who died ferrying those supplies over prior to the US entering the war openly.

Did I mention the All American Squadron? Or the US citizens fighting as "Canadians"? prior to 1941. Or the naturalized US citizens who went back to fight to liberate their native countries?

Any country who doesn't enter a war reluctantly is insane or expects to profit from it in some fashion, usually in territorial or financial gains, etc. Or is trying to get revenge for losing a past war.

Woodrow Wilson found the same differing attitudes between the US and Europe at the end of WWI . What we consider right and wrong here in the US isn't how the rest of the world views things(DUH). We know that folks. All I have to do is look at the BBC website to see we are vastly different in beliefs. Who's right and who's wrong?

Darned if I know and I am almost 55, a war vet and worked in law enforcement for a number of years before deciding that no gave a rats rear end truthfully one way or the other in the end.

I would say these days I am old and cranky and don't play well with others. And tend to ramble and actually am looking forward to dementia and Alzheimer's so I can forget all this BS and be a kid again!

History repeats itself. My parting shot! (pun)

FXHome team, outstanding software by the way, any blatantly commercial FXHome banners I can post on my sites is appreciated:-) No problem waving your flag when the products are this great.
Posted: Sat, 20th Jan 2007, 4:07am

Post 37 of 388

Bryce007

Force: 1910 | Joined: 5th Apr 2003 | Posts: 2609

VideoWrap User Windows User

Gold Member

To Parloe:


Promoting your opinion ISN'T wrong. It's anybodies right to do that. Not sure where you came up with that?


On violence:

Of course it's not okay to be violent with "Impunity". That's blowing it out of proportion in an attempt to make my argument seem absurd. Nice try though.


On Supposed fear:

I never said anything about "No second place winner". That was someone else. I do however hold myself to this statement: "If it's between me or them, i'll send flowers."


On "Are guns cool"

If you've ever shot one, You'd know immediately the answer is YES.


On Carrying a gun on you:

I've got a concealed weapons permit and don't plan on getting in a shootout. If I do run into a situation where that may occur, I'm not going to stand there and get smoked like a "Peaceful, subservient young man"


I Certainly don't see what the problem is with owning guns and concealing them on you if it's legal. Perhaps someone can enlighten me?
Posted: Sat, 20th Jan 2007, 4:24am

Post 38 of 388

Hybrid-Halo

Force: 9315 | Joined: 7th Feb 2003 | Posts: 3367

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 3 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

Bryce007 wrote:

I Certainly don't see what the problem is with owning guns and concealing them on you if it's legal. Perhaps someone can enlighten me?
Perhaps because then criminals can legally carry around dangerous weapons right up until the point they decide to use them to commit a crime and potentially kill somebody?

Exactly what situation's do people come into where they simply get smoked for standing there? Most exchanges of fire occur when both participants draw arms. On top of this, smoked with what? With the right to own fire-arms removed then the likelihood of you ending up on the wrong end of a fire-arm are drastically reduced, as is an armed criminals assumed thread level of you thus reducing the likelihood that he believes he'll need to shoot you in order to guarantee his own safety.

Perhaps as mentioned earlier - it is now too late for America to become safely gun-free, I just hope that this country doesn't fall into the same hole.

-Hybrid.
Posted: Sat, 20th Jan 2007, 4:56am

Post 39 of 388

Serpent

Force: 5426 | Joined: 26th Dec 2003 | Posts: 6515

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Pro User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Hybrid-Halo wrote:

Bryce007 wrote:

I Certainly don't see what the problem is with owning guns and concealing them on you if it's legal. Perhaps someone can enlighten me?
Perhaps because then criminals can legally carry around dangerous weapons right up until the point they decide to use them to commit a crime and potentially kill somebody?
If it were a criminal, they could go without concealed firearm license and carry the gun when they decide to commit the crime.

I don't think there's much we can do now about gun violence other than educate. unsure For entertainment purposes, guns are badass. Video games, movies, tv shows, range shooting, etc. For real life gun situations, I think guns are pretty "cool" (more like interesting) in the hands of those doing justice. This may be influenced by how they are presented in media, but that's my view.
Posted: Sat, 20th Jan 2007, 5:29am

Post 40 of 388

Hybrid-Halo

Force: 9315 | Joined: 7th Feb 2003 | Posts: 3367

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 3 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

Serpent wrote:

If it were a criminal, they could go without concealed firearm license and carry the gun when they decide to commit the crime.
...It?

First off, not every criminal can be considered to be able to acquire fire-arms if they became illegal. On top of this, if it's illegal to conceal a firearm then the offence is committed as soon as that person owns/takes a fire-arm somewhere thus drastically extending the period of time an individual is likely to be caught breaking the law either through routine check or just coincidence BEFORE that fire-arm is used in any harmful criminal activity.

On top of this, not all crimes are premeditated or thought out. Crime that is spur of the moment either due to narcotics or alcohol influence or sometimes just a turn of events which lead to conflict would certainly be a lot less deadly if firearms were removed from the equation.

The Gun problem is very similar to the Nuke problem as in they are both cases of countries or individuals 'building their walls higher simply because an enemy or potential threat has done the same'. Sure, nobody plans on using nukes and they are just for protection though the need for them would be eradicated if nobody had any in the first place. The presence of Weaponry doesn't create a safer environment when everyone has access to them, it simply creates an environment where the likelihood of you being harmed by the weaponry is drastically increased.

-Hybrid.
Posted: Sat, 20th Jan 2007, 9:13am

Post 41 of 388

Sollthar

Force: 13360 | Joined: 30th Oct 2001 | Posts: 6094

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

Rating: +1

Bryce wrote:

I Certainly don't see what the problem is with owning guns and concealing them on you if it's legal. Perhaps someone can enlighten me?
I will: Carrying a gun with increases the likelyhood of using it. Especially being as fearful as you obviously are ( I mean, you're talking about criminals getting the "upper hand" or trying to shoot you everywhere in your posts, talk about paranoia smile ).

Criminals use guns. Period.
That's just plain wrong Bryce, and you know it is. Most "criminals" don't use arms and don't intend to kill anyone - also a "fact" considering the number of actual crimes and the number of arms or killings involved in them. Your idea of "criminal" seems highly limited to the kind you see in action movies. smile

Usually, they want to get money, steal your TV, your radio, your wallet, whatever. If I was a criminal trying to survive by robbing people and I knew everyone of them could carry a gun, I'd damn sure get one myself AND would be highly inclined to use it, just to make sure.


I'll make an example - a simple street robbery:

If that happens to me - which it has, by the way - I take my wallet out and say "there you go". He takes it and leaves and I carry on with my day.

If that happens to you - carrying around a gun - you're naturally thinking "when is the best time to draw it and get the upper hand?". Otherwise there would be no point in carrying it with you in the first place.

Statistically speaking, your situation is MUUUUUCH more likely to end with violence, or even the death of one of you for many many reasons. And THERE is the problem I have with armed civillians.


I'm not willing to kill someone or even just risk having to kill him just because he takes my wallet, breaks into my house or maybe even beats me up to get it. That's what insurances are for. I'm not willing to take someone's live for that, I'm not a criminal. Would I die for that value in that 0,00001% chance that I face that one guy actually willing to kill me? Yes, I would. Because arming myself wouldn't help my case, as explained earlier.

As far as "Darwinistic" goes...Can you honestly say you don't agree with me?
Yes I can, because I don't agree with you.

There's never been a time in history where violent crime hasn't taken place on a day to day basis somewhere in the world. It's not a cynical viewpoint, it's simply fact.
True, but the rest is an assumption based on deductive logic: It's always been like that, therefore it will continue to be like that.
Unfortunately, that cause of logic is very flawed. It's an assumption based solely on the fact that tomorrow is assumed to be exactly like yesterday. While the assumption can be right or wrong, it's not a fact.


However, I do share the assumption (And again: It's not a fact, it's an assumption) that violent behavior will continue to be a part of the human existance. My reaction to that assumption is very different from yours:

My "goal" is to reduce this violence to a minimum. Because there's large differences in the amount and intensity of violence possible by humans - also shown by history.


Your solution is to arm civillians so they can defend themselves: I'd say the US is the living proof that this solution causes the opposite and I'm not surprised a single bit it does for the reasons stated above and in earlier posts. It has the highest murder rate of all so called "civilized" countries. That whole "cowboy" let's see who's the quicker man attitude doesn't help at all.

While I understand that the fact of having a gun might make you "feel saver", what it actually does is this:

1. It increases the likelyhood if YOU getting killed.

2. It increases the likelyhood if YOU becoming a killer.

Darwinistically speaking: It increases the amount of violence in both cases. Because even though in movies, it's always alright to shoot the "bad guys", in reality, hopefully ethics work a bit more complex then that.

I for myself don't wish to be killed, nor kill someone else. Ever. Maybe there's a difference between you and me there.


EDIT: Oh, and on a sidenote... In movies and games, gun's definately ARE cool! So is going to the shooting range and shoot a few rounds at a target.
Guns do become very "uncool" though when civillians start carrying them around in their backpocket to protect themselves from the evil that is lurking in the shadows.
Posted: Sat, 20th Jan 2007, 10:41am

Post 42 of 388

Joshua Davies

Force: 25400 | Joined: 21st Mar 2001 | Posts: 3029

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

FXhome Team Member

I don't really get how anyone in the western world can stick up for guns being part of general society. Unless we really want to push the "climate of fear" to its logical conclusion and be at war with each other then guns need to be removed from the equation at a national level.

To own and concealing such a powerful weapon is the admit that you might have to use it. This instantly means that other forms of defence and negotiation are less important (for your survival) or completely sidestepped. Police serve the best interests of the public and are trained to deal with these situations, this is simply not true of just any average joe out on the street with a weapon.

My mum used to work in the post-office and was held up at gun point. Do I wish she had a shotgun behind the desk when this happened? Hell no, they probably would have shot her. Instead she did what was asked and was fine if a little shaken. The guys were later caught by the Police.

Sorry, I just don't get how it could be any other way otherwise we're all just laying down our own laws and agendas therefore increasing the climate of fear.
Posted: Sat, 20th Jan 2007, 11:40am

Post 43 of 388

alpha54

Force: 830 | Joined: 26th Jan 2006 | Posts: 323

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Pro User Windows User

Gold Member

I think the major point which all of us Europeans see clearly, but which some of our American friends fail to acknowledge, is that the threat to your life is drastically reduced when you are unarmed.

Why? Because the vast majority of criminals are not willing to risk a life sentence for murder by shooting an unarmed civilian - they can easily take your wallet without having to use a gun, and all you have to do is call up your bank to lock your credit cards and then contact your insurance!

If you, as a civilian were armed yourself however, a criminal is now much more likely to shoot you - simply because he is afraid of getting shot himself.

What this boils down to is that you will be much safer, in your home and on the street if you are unarmed; there simply is no reason for the criminal to take the risk of killing you!

Another fact, which those advocating guns for self-defence often seem to ignore, is that an average shooter can probably squeeze off 5-6 rounds with a semi-automatic pistol in the time it takes you to draw your gun from its holster. Realistically, this means that by the time anyone's got their gun levelled at you, he can put five bloody shots through your head before you can even manage to raise your gun.

Yeah, carrying a gun seems like a great method of defending yourself! wink
Posted: Sat, 20th Jan 2007, 12:22pm

Post 44 of 388

CurtinParloe

Force: 841 | Joined: 16th Oct 2001 | Posts: 916

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

Bryce007 wrote:

Promoting your opinion ISN'T wrong. It's anybodies right to do that. Not sure where you came up with that?
Forget it, it's just a semantic difference between you and me, I considered your definition of "promotion" to be more aggressive than you evidently meant it.

Of course it's not okay to be violent with "Impunity". That's blowing it out of proportion in an attempt to make my argument seem absurd. Nice try though.
My view is that acceptance of violence is implicit in the acceptance of carrying lethal force. Just because there's always been violence, that doesn't mean we should accept it. There's an alternative to Microsoft, there's an alternative to violence.

I never said anything about "No second place winner". That was someone else. I do however hold myself to this statement: "If it's between me or them, i'll send flowers."
Or they won't send you flowers. You're assuming that in a confrontation, you'll be the victor. You're also assuming that there's a "them". The more people fear "them", the more people will want to defend themselves, and the more likely "they" are to appear. I won't get into the whole thing about guns in the home killing their owners instead of being used for self defence, as there's a lot of argument about that already in other arenas, and it gets twisted by both sides.

On "Are guns cool"
If you've ever shot one, You'd know immediately the answer is YES.
You don't need to shoot one to think they're cool. But do the parents of children killed at Columbine think they're cool too? Sorry for bringing up the inevitable Columbine reference, but perhaps guns shouldn't be seen as cool. Cigarettes are much less cool than they used to be, mainly because they kill you. Off on a tangent, I'd much rather suffer secondary smoke than secondary gunfire.

On Carrying a gun on you:
I've got a concealed weapons permit and don't plan on getting in a shootout. If I do run into a situation where that may occur, I'm not going to stand there and get smoked like a "Peaceful, subservient young man"
"Subservient?" Bang! That's the smoking gun right there, if you'll pardon the pun. I mentioned before that guns are (misguidedly, I feel) seen as a form of empowerment.

I Certainly don't see what the problem is with owning guns and concealing them on you if it's legal. Perhaps someone can enlighten me?
And that's the problem. It's OK for you to carry a concealed handgun. Therefore, it's OK for a criminal to carry one too. If neither of you could, the criminal could get one, yes, but that would then open up a whole new world of danger to him?

I didn't intend to be picking apart your post Bryce, but unfortunately it's the only way to answer your points made by picking apart mine wink
Posted: Sat, 20th Jan 2007, 1:05pm

Post 45 of 388

CurtinParloe

Force: 841 | Joined: 16th Oct 2001 | Posts: 916

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

It's not a double post.

It's just that this whole discussion has become a pro-gun/anti-gun argument, which was never my intention. It's partly down to the thread title being changed by a moderator (you know who you are wink), for possibly the right reasons, from the title of the TV programme I watched in the first place to something less relevant to my original post.

I know that many Americans vigorously defend their right to bear arms, an idea which is anathema to most Europeans. I also know that this polarisation of opinion isn't likely to change, and so a forum discussion is ultimately futile.

I'm talking about the fetishisation of guns in film, its impact on our culture, and our responsibility as filmmakers with regard to that culture. In that regard I suspect this is more geared towards the Europeans, as American culture is already saturated with guns...
Posted: Sat, 20th Jan 2007, 1:27pm

Post 46 of 388

Joshua Davies

Force: 25400 | Joined: 21st Mar 2001 | Posts: 3029

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

FXhome Team Member

I shot quite a few guns from time-to-time as a kid growing up in the country. To this day I still don't think they are "cool" in reality but they do work as tools for pest control on farms etc. I don't understand them as a hobby or as some kind of statement.
Posted: Sat, 20th Jan 2007, 2:34pm

Post 47 of 388

Penguin

Force: 852 | Joined: 17th May 2006 | Posts: 560

EffectsLab Pro User FXpreset Maker FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

petet2 wrote:

The US government would do more to achieve world peace by educating its children that actually the rest of the world isn't bad, just different.
This isn't a communist country. Just because the govornment thinks something doesn't mean that we are all fed that point of view.

Oh and by the way, I agree with sollthar... guns are cool only in a movie or a game.
Posted: Sat, 20th Jan 2007, 3:40pm

Post 48 of 388

Kid

Force: 4177 | Joined: 1st Apr 2001 | Posts: 1876

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User Windows User

Gold Member

Bryce007 wrote:

I never said anything about "No second place winner". That was someone else. I do however hold myself to this statement: "If it's between me or them, i'll send flowers."
This hero attitude is part of the problem. Even with training it is hugely arrogant to expect that you will beat anyone who comes. In fact training should tell you that you are quite likely to lose if taken by surprise. Most likely what will happen is that you both shoot each other and both lose.
Posted: Sat, 20th Jan 2007, 4:23pm

Post 49 of 388

jmax

Force: 260 | Joined: 17th May 2006 | Posts: 671

MacOS User

Member

Guns are bad, but people can be bad too. If we could trust people to do the right thing all the time, guns would never have been invented.

That said, the whole gun culture creeps me out. You don't rely on it for food from hunting, you don't need it for "self defense", you just go to the range every day and, uh, shoot.

Anyway, I'm gonna turn this over to Robin Williams, who can say things better than I can:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=n6bFOYUGJu0

This clip is a little wierd, because its put together dubbed with videogame cutscenes, but it's the only recording of his "Cops" bit I could find on the web. Funny and true, the sign of a good comedian.
Posted: Sat, 20th Jan 2007, 6:59pm

Post 50 of 388

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Rating: +1

I'm not sure anyone has realized this, and I think I can say this since I haven't yet offered my 'gun-pinion':

Why so much hate and fact-throwing, statistic-wielding towards how bad America is? Do you think people living here really want to here that?

And Bryce, do you think you're really helping that opinion of your country and those statistics by boasting about it in, IMO, a rather primal, or romantic hero fashion?

I hate to see this go back and forth. UK violence v. American violence. It's the classic, "No, my dad makes more money!"-kindergarten scenario. And where it's rather evident that the US. is in the crapper for some of these things, is it necessary to add insult to injury? It pisses me off, even though I can see there is no actually hostility from our non-American friends, merely opinions:

It doesn't help America by provoking the world's general consensus that we're all a bunch of murdering, gun-wielding maniacs, does it Bryce?
Posted: Sat, 20th Jan 2007, 7:06pm

Post 51 of 388

alpha54

Force: 830 | Joined: 26th Jan 2006 | Posts: 323

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Pro User Windows User

Gold Member

I just want to make sure I am not misunderstood - I don't hate America and I don't want to make it look bad either.

I just think that's its clear that America has its fair share of problems, such as excessive gun violence - just like any country has its share of problems. Hell, I'd be the first to admit that my country does!

Nevertheless, I just ticks me off a bit when some Americans continue to maintain that there isn't really a problem, that its all just "a fact of life", when there clearly is a problem - and I think a lot of Europeans have no issue whatsoever with admitting that their countries have problems too!

Just wanted to clear that up. smile
Posted: Sat, 20th Jan 2007, 7:27pm

Post 52 of 388

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

alpha54 wrote:

Nevertheless, I just ticks me off a bit when some Americans continue to maintain that there isn't really a problem, that its all just "a fact of life", when there clearly is a problem
This is true, and I appreciate your response, but do you think it is necessary, or even your place, to isolate and point out those problems? I understand your point, I'm just saying. I don't think being ruled by a king/queen is that great, (not saying our current President is any better........jeesh, Bush!) but you don't here me spouting that. Alpha, I'm not trying to refute your clearly unhateful post, it's just like you, I get fed up with the European mentality of, also, some Europeans that America and the American people are oblivious to everyone else. It's just not true, and people like pete2 only further this severe misconception.

petet2 wrote:


The US has adopted an increasingly isolationist political stance over recent years and has propogated a climate of fear and distrust amongst its population (one which the UK government seems increasingly keen to follow with recent ministerial statements in relation to religious dress).

The US government would do more to achieve world peace by educating its children that actually the rest of the world isn't bad, just different. And when criticising political regimes on the other side of the world the US government would do well to look at the inequalties and prejudices which exist in it's own society. Perhaps if it did so it could start to tackle the crime figures.
I love how you know so much about the inner-workings of American U.S. society and their ideas of the outside world and just the general feelings of American citizens even though you aren't one.

Learn to have some courtesy, pete2. You're from the U.K., you're an adult, and for someone your age and place of residency, I'm frankly surprised you posted such accusatory and "supposedly-knowledgeable" posts about a country you don't even reside in, and likely know very little truthful information about. We don't live in a nation of complete fear and distrust, and the only way you could even realize that is if you lived here, otherwise all you have to go off of is propagated, skewed media sources.

For how matter-of-fact you make yourself sound, I doubt you truly know anything about U.S. society. I'm an American, lived here my entire life, 17 years, and never lived in fear or distrust of my nation. Don't make remarks on things you clearly know nothing about. Likewise to your opinion of Americans, because of people like yourself America is beginning to see Europeans as haughty, self-serving people with little concern for the customs or cultures of others, and I just hate that. You wanna talk about intrusion into foreign nations, let's talk about why every Indian now has a British accent.

It's the twist on either side that causes this, and it drives me crazy.
Posted: Sat, 20th Jan 2007, 7:57pm

Post 53 of 388

alpha54

Force: 830 | Joined: 26th Jan 2006 | Posts: 323

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Pro User Windows User

Gold Member

I can empathise with your point Atom, even though its somehow diminished by the fact that I'm not British, and that my country happens to have a proportional representation system of government and one of the most democratic constitutions in the world... wink

Don't worry about me though, I have plenty of American friends that demonstrate on a daily basis that George W. Bush does not equal America. smile
Posted: Sat, 20th Jan 2007, 7:59pm

Post 54 of 388

Bryce007

Force: 1910 | Joined: 5th Apr 2003 | Posts: 2609

VideoWrap User Windows User

Gold Member

I retain my right and enjoyment of carrying a gun. consequently, this makes me:

1. A paranoid delusional.
2. someone adding to the violence
3. a bad person


Which, is fine. Opinion is opinion. I wouldn't expect anyone else to agree with me, and certainly not people who dislike American policy/government...


But I digress. Watch the matrix lobby scene. That single scene answers the questions of this topic.
Posted: Sat, 20th Jan 2007, 8:07pm

Post 55 of 388

Hybrid-Halo

Force: 9315 | Joined: 7th Feb 2003 | Posts: 3367

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 3 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

I don't think weapons being cool has ever been in debate Bryce. Swords, Guns, Axes, Bows. They're all pretty bad ass in movies.

Weaponry of any sort is empowering and thus will always have a macho bravado/gung-ho draw to them, that doesn't mean we should be allowed to carry them around under our jackets. I find that pretty simple.

Wasn't this thread about guns portrayals in movies and how it impacts our society and how we, as film makers have a certain responsibility in regard to such impact or effect upon our culture anyway?

I'd also like to add that I'm tired of American's playing the 'the world hates us!' card. Especially in threads where the level of intelligence of the posters should alone suggest that we do not deal in stereotypes.

I'd also like to add that I do however, drink an awful lot of tea. With milk. Cows milk.

-Hybrid.
Posted: Sat, 20th Jan 2007, 9:00pm

Post 56 of 388

Gnome326

Force: 10 | Joined: 21st Mar 2005 | Posts: 436

Windows User

Member

Guns in movies - cool. Isn't it fun to go run around the map on BF2 shooting up people? Are running to the paintball field and shooting up your friends? WHy? Mainly because its all in good fun and the fact that there is no real danger to it. SO I think the same applies to movies. Its fun to watch people get shot up and blown up because even though in the story they die, in reality every one is alright and the audience knows that. So to go see some one's heart ripped out generally isn't that big of a deal emotionally for people, though being squeemish is something entirely different.

But when it comes down to gun control in general, are guns really the problem? No, its the freaking people who carry the guns. Those a-hole who think that they control some part of "the hood" and feel like shooting any one up who "disrepects" them are the problem. Or that trash on the street corner that beats his/her spouse/"significant other" rolleyes because they feel they have to harm everything because they have some issues that they don't know how to appropriately deal with. So its not the gun's fault, but it is a tool that can be used to create harm, so if gun cotnrol would help keep guns out of thier hands of those people who really shouldn't have a gun, then fine. Maybe when the whole population can act responsibly and intelligently then gun laws wouldn't be so strict, but chances of that happening are slim to none, so I guess we'll just have to try and stay away from such things.
Posted: Sat, 20th Jan 2007, 9:11pm

Post 57 of 388

Kid

Force: 4177 | Joined: 1st Apr 2001 | Posts: 1876

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User Windows User

Gold Member

I think the reason why people have an opinion and don't just let the US fester in their own mess is that the US is very influential on Europe and especially the UK. Your gun crime problem is becoming our gun crime problem.

And getting back to the topic Hollywood and the Hiphop scene promote guns as cool. This may be fiction and some of us are smart enough to know the difference but others are influenced and that effects the rest of us. Although guns and explosions are enjoyable in films I would happily go without them if it would delay them being on our streets.
Posted: Sat, 20th Jan 2007, 11:00pm

Post 58 of 388

jmax

Force: 260 | Joined: 17th May 2006 | Posts: 671

MacOS User

Member

alpha54 wrote:

I have plenty of American friends that demonstrate on a daily basis that George W. Bush does not equal America.
Likewise I have British friends that remind me that Queen Elizabeth does not equal the UK.

Unfortunately, I also know people who remind me that George W. Bush (or insert other widely disliked American politician such as Ted Kennedy, Jack Abramhoff, or Mark Foley here) does equal some parts of America, or else they wouldn't have come into power.

But let's not get too political. This thread, remember, was started to talk about gun crime and it's influence, not to rag on each other's politics. (Which, last time I checked, isn't allowed on these forums.)
Posted: Sat, 20th Jan 2007, 11:14pm

Post 59 of 388

petet2

Force: 2899 | Joined: 27th Dec 2005 | Posts: 1043

VisionLab User VideoWrap User Windows User

Gold Member

Atom wrote:

petet2 wrote:


The US has adopted an increasingly isolationist political stance over recent years and has propogated a climate of fear and distrust amongst its population (one which the UK government seems increasingly keen to follow with recent ministerial statements in relation to religious dress).

The US government would do more to achieve world peace by educating its children that actually the rest of the world isn't bad, just different. And when criticising political regimes on the other side of the world the US government would do well to look at the inequalties and prejudices which exist in it's own society. Perhaps if it did so it could start to tackle the crime figures.
I love how you know so much about the inner-workings of American U.S. society and their ideas of the outside world and just the general feelings of American citizens even though you aren't one.
My comments weren't aimed at the "inner-workings of Amercian society" they were a comment on the foreign and domestic policy of your current government. Apologies if this wasn't clear enough from the words I used. My son is named after one of your greatest citizens, the late comedian Bill Hicks.

Atom wrote:

You wanna talk about intrusion into foreign nations, let's talk about why every Indian now has a British accent.
I'm not quite sure what you mean by this. In the UK there are a number of second and third generation British citizens of Indian and Pakistani descent. These people have British accents because they are British. The country of birth of their great grandparents is irrelevant.

If you are referring to India itself its population has survived the indignities of the British Empire (not this country's finest hour) and in my experience the people do not have British accents.
Posted: Sat, 20th Jan 2007, 11:23pm

Post 60 of 388

Sollthar

Force: 13360 | Joined: 30th Oct 2001 | Posts: 6094

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

Hm, shame you draw back in such a way from the discussion Bryce, seeing I took the time to answer your question with reasoning. But in the end, it's your decision.


Atom - I wasn't being anti-american. There's loads of things going wrong were switzerland is a good example, or where I am a good example. Because other then popular belief, I'm not perfect. wink

Seriously though, every debate that is about "facts" should be able to get examples to prove a point. Personally, I rather enjoy debating on a logical and purely factual level a lot and I also enjoy being proven wrong. Because my set of ethics tell me to try to become a better man and evolve my opinions and viewpoints constantly. Discussion with other people is vital for that to happen, also the strength and muse to step back from previous views and change accordingly - or form new counterarguments.
Which is hard to have sometimes, so I don't blame Bryce for backing away like that really, even though I'm admittedly disappointed. I'm sure I've had similar reactions when I felt cornered.
Posted: Sat, 20th Jan 2007, 11:33pm

Post 61 of 388

Bryce007

Force: 1910 | Joined: 5th Apr 2003 | Posts: 2609

VideoWrap User Windows User

Gold Member

I honestly don't mind when people don't like guns. It's perfectly fine with me. However, I do begin to mind when people attempt to tell me that I'm wrong for having an opposing opinion from them- on guns or otherwise.

That's usually where I stop, as I'm not the type to try and force my opinion on others, or have others aggressively attempt to debase mine.

As far as being "Cornered" goes..well, I think at least some of you can agree with me on this: It's not possible to be cornered or even feel that way on an internet based forum. Perhaps in real life that might occur to some extent, but here? not so much. I'll never understand why some people could actually take anything said on a Forum personally. I think it's all in fun.

Also, three of you on here have very intelligent points.
Posted: Sun, 21st Jan 2007, 12:19am

Post 62 of 388

Arktic

Force: 9977 | Joined: 10th Nov 2003 | Posts: 2785

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

Rating: +1

Why so much hate and fact-throwing, statistic-wielding towards how bad America is? Do you think people living here really want to here that?
As I'm the only person to have mentioned statistics, I assume that this is a comment aimed at me. Firstly, I'd like to point out that I'm not saying 'how bad America is' - I'm saying how bad I think your gun control policy is (or lack thereof).

I think that some people who live in America DO need to be educated about the situation with regards to certain things, and one of those is in my opinion America's lack of decent gun control.

The difference might I point out, between this discussion and a "my dad is better than your dad" argument , is that regardless of who's dad is better than whoever elses, there's no good outcome of that debate. However, poor gun control leads to more deaths. And the needless death of a single person is something abhorent that we should all aim to do whatever we can to prevent. And if that involves people with opinions voicing them and maybe educating a few others in the process, then where's the problem with that?

As for comments such as "You wanna talk about intrusion into foreign nations, let's talk about why every Indian now has a British accent" - I'd like to point out that 'every Indian' does not have a British accent. It's gross generalisations like these that you're complaining about in the first place, no? Is it not hypocritical of you to say "don't make assumptions about America!" before going on to make a sweeping (and incorrect) statement about another nation?

Arktic.

PS - My dad is actually cooler than your dad, so nerrrr razz
Posted: Sun, 21st Jan 2007, 12:34am

Post 63 of 388

Sollthar

Force: 13360 | Joined: 30th Oct 2001 | Posts: 6094

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

Ah, sorry. I misunderstood you then Bryce.

I do take stuff said on an internet forum seriously. Why wouldn't I? It's actual human beings posting their thoughts and opinions and I try to deal with that the same way as if I would look into their eyes. Talking to someone through a forum or through a chat is only a different mean of communication to me, but very real and very meaningful because the people behind it are.

As far as my "cornered" comment, that's how I interprated your short "Okay, whatever you said, I ignore it and I'm a bad person and that's fine" argument, which I assumed is not actually what you believe. At least I didn't have the opinion of you being someone who wouldn't care for those 3 points you raised.


I didn't try to tell you you're wrong to have an opinion other then my own. If that's how it came across, I apologize. I mean, everyone has the right to his own opinion.
However, that doesn't equal every opinion is true or alright to have. There is such a thing as a wrong opinion, even though a lot of people think otherwise. smile

And I tried to bring logic arguments why the opinion "armed civillians will make criminals more afraid, therefore increase safety" is a wrong deduction - which is how I currently understood your PRO-argument. At least that's the way I see it because for the reasons I stated. You're welcome to bring factive arguments for the contrary, or bring up a chain of arguments that make mine invalid. In fact, I'd really enjoy if you did - because that's what a good discussion is all about. And I love nothing more then a good debate of interesting back and forth argumentation. biggrin

And sure, it's all good fun for me. If you could see me typing, you'd see a big smile on my face because while debating, I'm entirely in my element. Arktic here or anyone else who's met me in real life could vouch for that. smile

Leaving with different opinions isn't a problem for me. Avoiding a healthy confrontation of ones own views or someone elses viewpoint is. smile
Posted: Sun, 21st Jan 2007, 12:54am

Post 64 of 388

Klausky

Force: 1512 | Joined: 16th Jun 2005 | Posts: 392

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

Atom wrote:



For how matter-of-fact you make yourself sound, I doubt you truly know anything about U.S. society. I'm an American, lived here my entire life, 17 years, and never lived in fear or distrust of my nation. Don't make remarks on things you clearly know nothing about. Likewise to your opinion of Americans, because of people like yourself America is beginning to see Europeans as haughty, self-serving people with little concern for the customs or cultures of others, and I just hate that. You wanna talk about intrusion into foreign nations, let's talk about why every Indian now has a British accent.

It's the twist on either side that causes this, and it drives me crazy.
First off, I am American.

Secondly, that statement is completely irrelevent considering the US is equally as guilty in being a nation which encroaches itself upon an other, weaker, nation; exemplified by the annexation of Hawaii, the stripping of Native American land, and the servitude of Africans.
Posted: Sun, 21st Jan 2007, 1:56am

Post 65 of 388

ben3308

Force: 5210 | Joined: 24th May 2004 | Posts: 6433

VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

I'm almost entirely sure he was speaking of modern America, where the gun issue is applicable. Not anything from pre-50 years ago.
Posted: Sun, 21st Jan 2007, 2:14am

Post 66 of 388

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Arktic wrote:

I think that some people who live in America DO need to be educated about the situation with regards to certain things, and one of those is in my opinion America's lack of decent gun control.
I'm not trying to refute we have poor gun regulations, (I mean, come on, I live in Texas) I am saying that gun regulations have no correlation (other than being about guns) to U.S. education on them. We all know guns are bad. We're taught it in school, we're told the reprecussions and punishments for guns everyday, and that's my issue. There's an assumption by people foreign to the U.S. that Americans know nothing about guns, or that we haven't been "educated" about them.

That's my problem.

As for comments such as "You wanna talk about intrusion into foreign nations, let's talk about why every Indian now has a British accent" - I'd like to point out that 'every Indian' does not have a British accent. It's gross generalisations like these that you're complaining about in the first place, no? Is it not hypocritical of you to say "don't make assumptions about America!" before going on to make a sweeping (and incorrect) statement about another nation?
I was trying to mention the British reign over India to counter a previous point, without flat out saying it. It was meant as a generalization, although it clearly didn't come out the right way, and I apologize for that. Pete2 mentioned the U.S. regime in foreign lands (which seemed utterly irrelevant, in the first place) and I tried to offer the same to him.

Again, I apologize.

My dad is actually cooler than your dad, so nerrrr razz
Impossible. My dad is god and therefore can only be made less cool by Chuck Norris, who is of infinite coolability. Ergo, you would have to be the son of Chuck Norris to have your dad be cooler than my dad, which we all know is impossible since Chuck Norris cannot have children. Why? Because a spawn of Chuck Norris would be as powerful as him, therefore creating two Chuck Norrises. And we all know, that is impossible.

Oh yeah, you just wasted 2 minutes of your life reading that. Suck on it. wink
Posted: Sun, 21st Jan 2007, 2:27am

Post 67 of 388

Kid

Force: 4177 | Joined: 1st Apr 2001 | Posts: 1876

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User Windows User

Gold Member

petet2 wrote:

Atom wrote:

petet2 wrote:


The US has adopted an increasingly isolationist political stance over recent years and has propogated a climate of fear and distrust amongst its population (one which the UK government seems increasingly keen to follow with recent ministerial statements in relation to religious dress).

The US government would do more to achieve world peace by educating its children that actually the rest of the world isn't bad, just different. And when criticising political regimes on the other side of the world the US government would do well to look at the inequalties and prejudices which exist in it's own society. Perhaps if it did so it could start to tackle the crime figures.
I love how you know so much about the inner-workings of American U.S. society and their ideas of the outside world and just the general feelings of American citizens even though you aren't one.
My comments weren't aimed at the "inner-workings of Amercian society" they were a comment on the foreign and domestic policy of your current government. Apologies if this wasn't clear enough from the words I used. My son is named after one of your greatest citizens, the late comedian Bill Hicks.

Atom wrote:

You wanna talk about intrusion into foreign nations, let's talk about why every Indian now has a British accent.
I'm not quite sure what you mean by this. In the UK there are a number of second and third generation British citizens of Indian and Pakistani descent. These people have British accents because they are British. The country of birth of their great grandparents is irrelevant.

If you are referring to India itself its population has survived the indignities of the British Empire (not this country's finest hour) and in my experience the people do not have British accents.
I would have to say that our relationship with india is actually mutually beneficial. A significant amount of english language and customs come from india and it is often assumed that we forced it upon them. If you speak to british born indians, then not surprisingly they have an english accent, seeing as they are english. However if you ring a bank or other company the likelyhood is that the call center is indian and you won't have a clue what they are saying. No one can accuse an indian in india of having a decent british accent! smile
Posted: Sun, 21st Jan 2007, 2:33am

Post 68 of 388

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Dell: Dell Outsource Customer Support, how we taking of your may call, yes?*

Me: Wait, what?
Posted: Sun, 21st Jan 2007, 2:45am

Post 69 of 388

Kid

Force: 4177 | Joined: 1st Apr 2001 | Posts: 1876

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User Windows User

Gold Member

Exactly. Its all very well commenting on Britains part in 'civilising' the rest of the world. But we are now at a point where we have given back all the territories that we 'discovered' to the people that rightfully own it and they are better off for it.

We can talk because we have learnt that meddling is wrong and have rectified it. America is yet to learn this. A lot of americans are still in the arrogant belief that they belong to the no 1 superpower. It still suprises me how many don't realise that they didn't even become a superpower until AFTER WWII. I wonder what they will do when France and China let them know who actually is boss.

An amusing fact to respond to your comment that american people need guns to defend america against attack - if china attacked america then they actually have a birthrate high enough that they could continously die until you ran out of ammo and still have an overwhelming army to invade with.
Posted: Sun, 21st Jan 2007, 2:58am

Post 70 of 388

petet2

Force: 2899 | Joined: 27th Dec 2005 | Posts: 1043

VisionLab User VideoWrap User Windows User

Gold Member

The history of England and Great Britain is certainly nothing I would defend (see my comments above). Long before our Imperialist ravagings of India we have such infamous achievements as the Crusades. I'm not sure I would agree that the effects of British rule in India were mutually beneficial to both countries Kid but that is WAY off subject so I'm not going there.

To Atom - I wasn't so much talking about US actions in other countries as commenting on foreign policy, especially that of the current Bush regime. I don't feel the need to have a gun because I don't feel the level of threat to my personal safety nor to my country that have been reflected in some of the postings from the US based forum members.

Where does that attitude come from? I would stand by my assertion that the current US government must bear some responsibility when your president is regularly talking up the threats from around the world.

In the UK we lived with terrorism from the IRA for decades. The heart of my city, Manchester, was devastated by an enormous bomb ten years ago. More recently the London tube bombings brought the current fight against international terrorism to our shores. It still doesn't make me want a gun, nor would a gun make me feel safer.

I agree with much earlier posters that the gun is such an inherent part of US history that there is nothing that can be done. But I feel sad that a proportion of your citizens feel so threatened in their daily life that they see the need for firearms and will do my utmost to ensure that the UK does not go the same way towards gun culture.
Posted: Sun, 21st Jan 2007, 3:12am

Post 71 of 388

Klausky

Force: 1512 | Joined: 16th Jun 2005 | Posts: 392

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

ben3308 wrote:

I'm almost entirely sure he was speaking of modern America, where the gun issue is applicable. Not anything from pre-50 years ago.
British Imperial rule over India ended in the 1940's.
Posted: Sun, 21st Jan 2007, 3:46am

Post 72 of 388

Bryce007

Force: 1910 | Joined: 5th Apr 2003 | Posts: 2609

VideoWrap User Windows User

Gold Member

And here's where Bryce says: The U.S Government is intensely corrupt, and I don't really trust them all that much.




Also, on topic: John woo wouldn't have a career without Guns. Neither would sam peckinpah or michael mann.
Posted: Sun, 21st Jan 2007, 5:33am

Post 73 of 388

ben3308

Force: 5210 | Joined: 24th May 2004 | Posts: 6433

VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Neither would two independent filmmaking heroes (one of which I despise, but this point still stands), Robert Rodriguez and Quentin Tarantino. They need guns.
Posted: Sun, 21st Jan 2007, 11:06am

Post 74 of 388

Sollthar

Force: 13360 | Joined: 30th Oct 2001 | Posts: 6094

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

Hm, how did this turn into a debate about the US government? I thought it was about guns... unsure
Posted: Sun, 21st Jan 2007, 1:13pm

Post 75 of 388

CurtinParloe

Force: 841 | Joined: 16th Oct 2001 | Posts: 916

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

Sollthar wrote:

Hm, how did this turn into a debate about the US government? I thought it was about guns... unsure
I'm asking "hmmm, how did this turn into a debate about gun control? I thought it was about guns in film making....
Posted: Sun, 21st Jan 2007, 1:21pm

Post 76 of 388

Sollthar

Force: 13360 | Joined: 30th Oct 2001 | Posts: 6094

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

Gun crime is rife in the inner city areas of the UK, and predominant amongst the contributory factors is American culture
Combined with "Are guns cool? - Debate" kinda yelled for a discussion of real life guns though. smile

Hm, so does the cowboy attitude of some americans yell for a discussion about politics I guess...


Ah well... Shame, I'm still waiting for someone to actually start the discussion and point out a new synthesis to my antithesis to Bryces thesis. Bryce doesn't seem to be willing. Maybe someone else is? Maybe I've missed something and though I continued the gun debate off topic yesterday night with friends it was pretty boring, as we all agreed. sad
Posted: Sun, 21st Jan 2007, 1:26pm

Post 77 of 388

CurtinParloe

Force: 841 | Joined: 16th Oct 2001 | Posts: 916

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

Sollthar wrote:

Gun crime is rife in the inner city areas of the UK, and predominant amongst the contributory factors is American culture
Combined with "Are guns cool? - Debate" kinda yelled for a discussion of real life guns though. smile
Yes, I wish the moderator who changed the title had read my post a bit more closely unsure
Posted: Sun, 21st Jan 2007, 1:30pm

Post 78 of 388

Sollthar

Force: 13360 | Joined: 30th Oct 2001 | Posts: 6094

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

Oh, your thread was altered? Hmm, unfortunate. No idea who did that though. I apologize in that case in the name of the moderator who did it, he should actually have read your intention more precisley then.
Posted: Sun, 21st Jan 2007, 7:13pm

Post 79 of 388

Joshua Davies

Force: 25400 | Joined: 21st Mar 2001 | Posts: 3029

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

FXhome Team Member

Lets get this thread back on track...

I think guns in films can be very cool depending on how they are used.

The original Matrix had some great, and totally over-the-top, gun action which was made vastly better by the way it was filmed.

More recently, I found the use of guns in Smokin' Aces to also be over-the-top but in a totally different way which was utterly lame (just like the rest of the film).
Posted: Sun, 21st Jan 2007, 7:50pm

Post 80 of 388

Naruto

Force: 361 | Joined: 8th Jan 2007 | Posts: 30

EffectsLab Pro User

Gold Member

Bryce007 wrote:

I'm a huge advocate of guns and our right to own them. There is no doubt about the fact that a country should arm it's citizens for their own protection.
I'm also an extremely avid shooter, and LOVE taking assault weapons out to the range, not to mention Shooting Clay's and Gophers.But, because of peoples , Guns seem to be Demonized more and more..
I agree completely some people have an inability to accept responsibility for their actions and yes gun are "Cool" depending on how they are used.
Posted: Mon, 22nd Jan 2007, 9:17am

Post 81 of 388

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

ben3308 wrote:

I'm almost entirely sure he was speaking of modern America, where the gun issue is applicable. Not anything from pre-50 years ago.
If he was, then it would only be fair to talk about modern Britain too, in which case the Indian accent comment is rather arbitrary and irrelevant, unless I missed Atom's point.

Oh, and on another point: you guys do know that we're not actually ruled by a monarch, right? The Queen is nothing more than a figurehead these days - a useful symbol to con tourists into parting with their money. smile

As for the 'attacking America' feeling, I don't think that's the case at all. America has massive influence on the world stage and is a vastly important country; therefore it is of great significance to non-Americans as well. As such, we have a right to discuss America's policies and intricacies.

If as an American you don't like Europeans discussing your country, then the only real solution is to withdraw and become completely isolationist (not something I'm suggesting as a good idea, btw).

However, given the global nature of human society these days, it's inevitable that discussions will continue to range outside of people's own 'borders'. I think that's a very healthy thing, myself - the more persepectives you get on something the better.

Atom's point is that people in the UK can't possibly understand America. I would say the same is also true of people in America, though - when you're in the thick of things, it's often difficult to view something objectively. It's vital to get an outside perspective, at least so you can confirm your own thoughts. In the same way, it's vital that, as Europeans, we pay attention to what other people think of us - and strive to avoid that 'haughty, snobby European' image that some people encourage.

Whether you're talking about countries or people, that holds true. I think I know myself pretty well, but it's still important for me to pay attention to what other people think of me - sure, in most regards they can't possibly understand me as much as I understand myself. But, on the other hand, they might give me a perspective that makes me consider something I had overlooked previously. Same goes for 'outsiders'' opinions of America, or of Europe.

Anyway, this is seems rather blindingly obvious to me, so I'll shut up now. wink

schwar wrote:

Lets get this thread back on track...
Indeedy...

The original Matrix had some great, and totally over-the-top, gun action which was made vastly better by the way it was filmed.
I actually find the use of guns in The Matrix to be a bit odd.

On the one part, the utter lack of remorse or concern the Zionists have towards killing essentially innocent humans (still plugged into the Matrix) really bothers me.

Sure, I expect Trinity, Morpheus and the others to be fine with it - they've been fighting their war for years. But Neo seems to take to it like a duck to water; hardly what I expect of a hero.

In terms of the way they're filmed, however, it's great stuff. Some really innovative use of slow-motion.

Personally I've never been a fan of gunplay that is depicted as clean and simple, where random 'bad guys' just fall over and disapear out of frame. I feel that is the irresponsible side of Hollywood.

Movies that show the effects of a gun as being specifically painful, violent and unpleasant, however, I tend to enjoy more. History of Violence, Heat, Miami Vice - they all have parts that definitely highlight guns as being empowering and 'cool', and as an audience it is incredibly exciting. But at the same time they show the proper results.

I (finally!) saw Casino Royale yesterday, which I thought got a pretty good balance between the traditional cartoon violence of Bond movies and a more realistic approach. The use of guns was over the top, but also felt painful and unpleasant at times - even when it was Bond firing the gun.
Posted: Mon, 22nd Jan 2007, 10:25am

Post 82 of 388

Sollthar

Force: 13360 | Joined: 30th Oct 2001 | Posts: 6094

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

Personally I've never been a fan of gunplay that is depicted as clean and simple, where random 'bad guys' just fall over and disapear out of frame. I feel that is the irresponsible side of Hollywood.
Making a clean and simple actionfilm myself where random, nameless and faceless bad guys drop dead I obviously disagree. smile

The important questions are, do human beings watch a movie / play a videogame and immediately draw the connection to the real world? Does showing violence and pain in it's full impact scare people into not using violence in real life?

I'm pretty sure the answer to both questions is in the case of a healthy, socially moderately skilled human being, a clean: No.


If showing violence without a proper effect is irresponsible, I assume that is based on the assumption people would see it and automatically assume that real life violence doesn't hurt either.

The opposing assumption would be, I assume, showing violence with it's proper effects would make the viewer feel unpleasant, therefore less inclined to use violence in the real world.

For arguments sake, I'll turn things around... smile


Our ability to "adapt" to influences could be used for leading the argument to the other side. If we're presented with pain and full impact violence on screen, we'll start to adapt to it. The second time we see a painful death will have less impact on us ( proven by SKINNER, in behavioristic psychology - or by the example of analysis of WW1 and WW2 soldiers).
Continueing the assumption that people are slowly adapting to pain and violence, that makes them much more able to perform an act of violence without remorse (IF they would transfer these experience to a real world environment).
While the "clean" violence wouldn't do such an adaptation and therefore the real life situation will be less likely to be dealt with violently.


Hence, the
they all have parts that definitely highlight guns as being empowering and 'cool', and as an audience it is incredibly exciting. But at the same time they show the proper results.
solution would be the irresponsible one. smile


Movies that show the effects of a gun as being specifically painful, violent and unpleasant, however, I tend to enjoy more.
Also interesting to look at, why is that you think?
Posted: Mon, 22nd Jan 2007, 10:35am

Post 83 of 388

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

Sollthar wrote:

Movies that show the effects of a gun as being specifically painful, violent and unpleasant, however, I tend to enjoy more.
Also interesting to look at, why is that you think?
Because I'm one sick mofo!

Or...

I think it's because I tend to prefer realism in general in movies/entertainment. I don't mean it has to be set modern-day and be about mundane things, but I tend to prefer anything that goes for realism.

I'll enjoy dialogue if it feels real to me. I'll enjoy a stunt or special effect if it looks genuine, rather than faked. Similarly, with a gun fight, I'll generally be more emotionally involved if it comes across as realistic (or, at least, my perception of what a 'realistic' gun fight should be).

I simply find it more involving and, thus, entertaining on a personal level.

As for responsibility - it depends. Trying to be a responsible artist is essentially as waste of time. There will always be somebody out there stupid enough to misinterpret things, and you can't make your stuff working on the fearful assumption that some moron will take it the wrong way. That's the fault of parents and education rather than your work.

There's no decent way to know where to draw the 'idiot line', so you might as well just go with your own personal set of morals, values and tastes. Doing anything else will only compromise the film.
Posted: Mon, 22nd Jan 2007, 10:57am

Post 84 of 388

Sollthar

Force: 13360 | Joined: 30th Oct 2001 | Posts: 6094

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

I think it's because I tend to prefer realism in general in movies/entertainment. I don't mean it has to be set modern-day and be about mundane things, but I tend to prefer anything that goes for realism.
Yeah, the question is still "why?" though, as in, what's the motive. I'm the same with videogames. I seek for the reality, enjoy them most when my character is human, my enemies are human and I kill them with real guns.

In movies though, interestingly, looking at my tastes, I do seem to prefer films that deal with violence in a somewhat comic-like way. Strong violence seems to disturb me more then anything else. Miami Vice for example had some scenes that took me right out of the movie because they were so violent.

I'd be really interested to know what exactly drives us to watch films of other people getting killed and "enjoy" it in the first place. Do I enjoy it because the death of someone else reminds me of the fact I'm alive? Is it because all those hunting and killing caveman instincts are still inside me and modern day society only allows me to satisfy those artificially? Or is there a part inside me that wishes I'd be the one getting killed? Or worse: The one who pulls the trigger? Or is it something entirely different?

Psychologically, I think that's a very very interesting thing and I've yet to come across a satisfying explanation.

Trying to be a responsible artist is essentially as waste of time. There will always be somebody out there stupid enough to misinterpret things, and you can't make your stuff working on the fearful assumption that some moron will take it the wrong way. That's the fault of parents and education rather than your work.
I couldn't agree more. If a violence in movies has a "bad" impact on someone is largely dependent of his social security and base he has - that's what modern psychologic studies show at least. Someone who can access to a function social background - family, friends, etc - will not turn into an irresponsible killer just because he watches the Matrix one too many times or plays counterstrike in his spare time.
Posted: Mon, 22nd Jan 2007, 11:08am

Post 85 of 388

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

Sollthar wrote:

I'd be really interested to know what exactly drives us to watch films of other people getting killed and "enjoy" it in the first place.
For myself, it's not a blanket statement though. The context of the killing is very important to me. Stuff like Hostel I have no interest in seeing, for example.

Similarly, while I thought Scarface was an excellent film, I didn't really enjoy it because it was so violent and unpleasant.

Miami Vice, on the other hand, is largely about people trying to prevent crime and violence - even if they have to use violence in order to do so. In that case, I can cope with the violence because thematically it's either the bad guys doing stuff, or it's for "the greater good".

So, yes, I tend to prefer violence that is being used to prevent more violence, I suppose. Rather hypocritical of me, really. razz

Despite saying I like realism, there's another part of me that loves comic book or cartoon violence. The ridiculous violence in Kill Bill, for example, I thought was extremely funny. Same with the Evil Dead movies.

I think it's the in-between films I sometimes have problems with - the ones that aren't fully cartoony, but also aren't realistic either. They sit on the fence and pretend their violence is 'real', while hiding from the nasty side of it.

Then, of course, there's the extreme violence films, like Hostel etc. I don't understand those either - violence for the sake of filming violence. I don't understand the appeal or the point.
Posted: Mon, 22nd Jan 2007, 11:36am

Post 86 of 388

Arktic

Force: 9977 | Joined: 10th Nov 2003 | Posts: 2785

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

Best depiction of gun violence on screen for me, has to be Funny Games.

It will really make you think about the stuff you see onscreen and the reality of what it's like in real life. There should be more portrayals like this, and more people should be exposed to this kind of film-making. It's sad that it's an Austrian movie, because a lot of people who I think could be affected by the message will never see it (though I hear talk that Henké is re-making it in America, which could go either way for me).
But nevertheless, you can't watch Funny Games and come out thinking "guns are cool, lets go shoot stuff", like you would from the Matrix.

I like guns, don't get me wrong, I just think that we should strike a ballance between over-the-top gunplay for fun, and realistic horrific portrayals like Funny Games.

If you've not seen it, it's HUGELY reccomended (if you're over 18!)

Cheers,
Arktic.
Posted: Mon, 22nd Jan 2007, 2:29pm

Post 87 of 388

Warfare Unlimited

Force: 425 | Joined: 1st Sep 2006 | Posts: 26

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Pro User Windows User

Gold Member

Mankinds fascination with death is what you are talking about . Be it for whatever reason, we are attracted to it, we all feel that draw in some form.

Watch the faces in the crowd immediately after an auto accident or other "tragic event". Forget your interest in the event and just watch the crowds faces and most of all their body language. You will see the entire range of human emotions in a nutshell.


The vehicle carrying us there isn't really important, its the scenery and unexpected stops along the way that keeps us interested and the anticipation of the destination that makes the journey worthwhile.

In explanation of that last statement, the best FX you can place in a film of any kind is allowing the viewers imagination to be exercised and by not trying to show all of the details in the scene. No one person eye's can ever see all the details in the real world for each event, why should the camera be different? Good example of this is "Why do people think the book is always better than the film version of it"

Graphic Violence in films can be replaced with writers using more of the viewers imagination and less gory FX and with better results I think. The movie Hostel was mentioned, a great premise of mankind's fascination with death which had my interest up to the point where the writers and director allowed it to become a graphic "Snuff" film. It would have been far better to show the clippers closing on a finger and then a camera cutaway to the door or hallway with a scream. I still have not watched this film in its entirety as the continuing "Snuff" scenes ruined the overall plot for me.

Imagination, as a film maker it should be your main FX tool.
Posted: Mon, 22nd Jan 2007, 3:53pm

Post 88 of 388

Kovacs

Force: 50 | Joined: 5th Dec 2006 | Posts: 80

Windows User

Member

On a semi-tangent, though you’ll understand the relevance, is looking at swordplay movies. Most of the times a sword is basically a magic stick that puts bad guys to sleep with a light tap. They you look at Kill Bill vol 1’s House of Blue Leaves scene and , yea, there’s a cartoony element but in regards to the heroine, the cannon fodder’s treated pretty real, especially at the end with over half the Crazy 88’s still alive crying in pain and anguish.

As mentioned, aftermaths are rare.

Do I prefer that over the standard ‘hero doesn’t pause in his quest?’ It depends on the context. In Kill Bill it was important to establish that the Bride know full well that she is much more of a monster than the other DiVAS, and needed to be in order to gain vengeance. A more noble heroic character may not be able to take it.

Reminds me of a scene in the classic film Red Beard, where the titular character beats up a gang of pimps to save a girl but, being a doctor bound by a feirce honor, immediately sets to work in setting the bones he’s broken afterwards. I'd like to see more of that.
Posted: Mon, 22nd Jan 2007, 4:12pm

Post 89 of 388

Hybrid-Halo

Force: 9315 | Joined: 7th Feb 2003 | Posts: 3367

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 3 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

Tarn wrote:

Then, of course, there's the extreme violence films, like Hostel etc. I don't understand those either - violence for the sake of filming violence. I don't understand the appeal or the point.
I don't think Hostel is classified under violence for the sake of violence at all, although if you're yet to watch the film I can understand why you'd think that as it's certainly what the trailers make it out to be. I'm only saying this because I thought it was too up until last week when I watched it. This isn't to say that the film isn't rather grisly, just that I felt the way it is done and the emotions it provokes are in aid of the films greater context : Revenge.

I agree with your point though, I'm not really a fan of films which go for the shock-gore factor without there being much point to it. If we wanted to see people cut up for no reason other than making money we'd go to the body worlds exhibition or watch Anatomy for Beginners. I'm looking at you Texas Chainsaw Massacre (remake/the beginning) and co.

It would have been far better to show the clippers closing on a finger and then a camera cutaway to the door or hallway with a scream.
That's exactly what did happen except the clippers were around her toe. Alot of the actual inflicting pain isn't shown in graphic detail barring a couple of shots. Take the ankle slicing for example. Perhaps my DVD is censored though.

-Hybrid.
Posted: Mon, 22nd Jan 2007, 4:49pm

Post 90 of 388

Waser

Force: 4731 | Joined: 7th Sep 2003 | Posts: 3111

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

SuperUser

C'mon, Chainsaw Massacre The Beginning is genius.

"I AM GOING TO CHOP OFF YOUR LEG BECAUSE OF A BULLET. OOPS, KNICKED ONE, BETTER EVEN IT OUT."

By the way, I'm a huge fan of Hostel, and think it gets a bad wrap, and billed as something that it really isn't.

As for GUNS, I think guns can be cool in movies, thought I'm more into sharp and blunt weaponry kills. I think when gunplay is tried too hard, the results can be pretty lame. I'm looking at YOU Equilibrium.


I think one of the movies that most effectively uses guns and people being killed by them is Unforgiven. That movie is a brilliant study of what effect killing people has on everyone involved. I'm gonna watch that again soon.
Posted: Mon, 22nd Jan 2007, 5:45pm

Post 91 of 388

CurtinParloe

Force: 841 | Joined: 16th Oct 2001 | Posts: 916

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

While I don't believe that films are directly responsible for violence, I do think that elements from films, the news about Iraq/Afganistan/the Middle East/Northern Ireland/wherever, and certain types of music all combine to create an ideological soup which at least desensitises us to violence, and at worst serves to promote the positives of guns without also promoting the negatives.
I consider it a similar thing with guns now as it was with cigarettes before people found out that they kill you. Of course, the big difference is that we already know that guns kill...
Posted: Mon, 22nd Jan 2007, 7:24pm

Post 92 of 388

Garrison

Force: 5404 | Joined: 9th Mar 2006 | Posts: 1530

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

For me, I think that over using guns in film for the sake of it can get completely ridiculous.

Ultraviolet is a perfect example of how the film was relying on guns and action in place of a story or acting. I REALLY despised that scene where all the asians were surrounding her with guns pointed and the camera kept swooping around and around and the stupidity that the asian gang shooting each other dumbed down what was already several steps below retarded.

But guns used sparingly (the firing of guns I mean) works very well for me like in the movie Se7en. Actual gunfire only happened in the middle (a few shots) and then when Brad Pitt snuffed Kevin Spacey.

But that's just me.
Posted: Mon, 29th Jan 2007, 8:40pm

Post 93 of 388

RusSEAL

Force: 1305 | Joined: 17th Jan 2006 | Posts: 106

VisionLab User VideoWrap User Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

As I'd mentioned in an earlier article, weaponry [specifically fire arms] is a soapbox highlight of my olde grousing ways...

The "concept" of the firearm in film and television is often played out as its own character- the weilder is nothing more than an extension of the weapon in stead of the other way around.

Equilibrium uses gunplay to its extreme- it is its own parody in one respect and yet it is a validation of "The Man As Weapon" ideology in martial arts. The Gun Kata in effect creates the validation of the fire arm as a tool of "The Cleric"- which incidentally is an iconclastic embodiment of fascism- a "thought" police of an Orwellian sort.

Ultraviolet winds up as a turn on this earlier Equilibrium concept as the obviously more feminine protagonist uses more dodge-n-weave forms of evasion:

For example; the earlier mentioned "Asian Gang" sequence is actually a mise-en-scene perspective of the perversity of weapon-craft [gun lust] as each man has his impetus trained on the only female of the scene who skillfully dodges each man's bullet strike and in turn kills the man ahead of him while she in turn never fires a shot. The "validity of the gun" is rendered impotent at the pull of a trigger.

The "Glorified Gun in Hollyweird" concept is a misnomer to the uninitiated.

The Gun is revered in many films because the artist little understands its true nature. Such films I've often labled as "hardware films" because the "character" in the movie is actually the gun/rifle/pistol itself- like the Judgement weapon in Judge Dread, or RoboCop's incredibly modified M93-B Pietro Barretta or the General Electric Mini-un in Predator. They are imbued with life so that the life that weilds them is rendered a non-issue to the viewer.

The concept of "gun=bad: person with gun=bad" is then perpetuated in an effort to embue weaponry with a life- therefore a "life" that must be controlled percause of it's potential for violence and destruction.

Trite, though it may be- "If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns" is stereotypical because it has been sadly true for decades.

If one believes that our ne'r-do-wells of society will make the choice of home robbery with anything less than a fire arm is ill perceived. Look to such unruly sections of the world as Somalia, Bosnia- yes, even Iraq- those with weapons weild the power.

Yes- places like England and Australia do well having condemned fire arms to the smelter- but the idea that "deaths are reduced" because weapons were erradicated from society is patently false. Certainly I do not say this lightly without facts.

"Deaths by fire arms"- certainly they've been drmatically reduced; I'll not argue that point as obtuse as it may be- but did HOMOCIDES reduce simply because a gun wasn't present? The answer would be a resounding "no". How about crime, suicide or accidental death? Again- the answer is irrevocably "no".

Back to task- the glorification of weaponry in film is just that- the weapon is the voyueristic joy of the auture. It is made the center of attention for one fo two reasons- lust or patriation.

Lust- as it is the desirous intention of the auture to witness its gleam in the trick of played light- to placate its destructive power [notice how many times a weapon is "sweetened" in post productionbecause it doesn't sound "beefy enough" to the director?] or alternatively, it is a representation of something that through political motivation is "upped in ante" in an effort to embue it with some mythical dragon's power that must be squelched and/or destroyed in an effort to bring it under control so that "no one" can weild its power...

As I see it- as a self actualized individual in this world, I've yet to see a government that EVER had my personal and familial "best interests at heart".

A governmental body is the closest thing to immortality we meer mortals shall ever lay witness to with our own eyes- it feeds only for its own survival.

"Government" as I lay witness is like a baby- one giant allimentary canal, with a ferocious apetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other.

Tell me one thing that everyone in this forum can agree our governments have done together or seperately that hasn't had some measure of "screw-up" attached to it and I'll name the fictionalized world it was portrayed in film or television.

Wealth, poverty, war, peace, crime and tollerance- I don't trust the governments of this world to get it right- my right to "bear arms" is not up for debate. Nor has there been a Hollywood or BBC portrayal of true warriorism been fabricated that stands teh test of politicism.

Label me as a "Gun Nut"if one must- I'll wear it proudly; not because I have some ego embellished with the smarm of the indignant- but instead the wise sageliness of insight gathered by way of experience in this world.
Posted: Tue, 30th Jan 2007, 11:11pm

Post 94 of 388

jmax

Force: 260 | Joined: 17th May 2006 | Posts: 671

MacOS User

Member

Um....yes?
Posted: Wed, 31st Jan 2007, 2:55am

Post 95 of 388

SyroVision

Force: 2130 | Joined: 1st Dec 2005 | Posts: 478

VisionLab User FXpreset Maker FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

Consider : Everyone in a country has a Personal Firearm, bar those who cant afford them. Would you feel safer as an average person knowing that you have a gun, they have a gun and everyone is equaly (roughly) equipt?



Consider: No one in a country has a Personal Firearm, only the Police and Military have firearms (and only have them AT work). Would you feel safer as an average person knowing that you are as safe as any other citisen, however should something bad happen the police can deal with it?


What do you think?

Personaly, i choose the second.
Posted: Wed, 31st Jan 2007, 3:46am

Post 96 of 388

Arktic

Force: 9977 | Joined: 10th Nov 2003 | Posts: 2785

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

Rating: +1

RusSEAL wrote:

Yes- places like England and Australia do well having condemned fire arms to the smelter- but the idea that "deaths are reduced" because weapons were erradicated from society is patently false. Certainly I do not say this lightly without facts.

"Deaths by fire arms"- certainly they've been drmatically reduced; I'll not argue that point as obtuse as it may be- but did HOMOCIDES reduce simply because a gun wasn't present? The answer would be a resounding "no". How about crime, suicide or accidental death? Again- the answer is irrevocably "no".
I'd be interested to hear exactly how you explain how this graph works out then - it's taken from the Australian Institue of Criminology, titled "Murder and manslaughter, rate per 100,000 persons, 1993-2005"

(sources: * Australian Institute of Criminology 2006. Australian crime : facts and figures 2005. Canberra: AIC. http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/facts/2005/
* Australian Bureau of Statistics 2006. Recorded crime, victims, Australia [various issues]. ABS cat. no. 4510.0. Canberra: ABS_)


Bear in mind that in 1996, the "National Firearms Agreement" legislation was passed in Australia, restricting the ownership of certain kinds of firearms and banning others outright. As you can see, between 1996 and 1998, the overall murder rate falls. There's a peak again between 1999 and 2000, but from then on, the number of murders is essentially falling, year upon year. Compare 1997 to 2005.

Has the number of HOMOCIDES (not just firearms-related deaths) fallen? A resounding 'yes'?

I can't say that it's ONLY related to the tightening up of gun control laws in Australia, but it certainly seems as though they're doing something right.

I still stand by my original sentiments. I can see no reasons to justify gun ownership by civilians.

Arktic.
Posted: Wed, 31st Jan 2007, 4:00am

Post 97 of 388

Hendo

Force: 13107 | Joined: 16th Sep 2004 | Posts: 848

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

FXhome Team Member

Rating: +1

Arktic wrote:

I can't say that it's ONLY related to the tightening up of gun control laws in Australia, but it certainly seems as though they're doing something right.
Another factor that I think cannot be easily discarded is that Australia won the cricket international World Cups in both 1999 and 2003, so hence the general population has been more happy and less inclined to murder one another.

Let's just hope we win again in April 2007. biggrin



(On a serious note I'm not disagreeing with Arktic. My opinion is that strong gun control results in less crime and death.)
Posted: Wed, 31st Jan 2007, 12:53pm

Post 98 of 388

RusSEAL

Force: 1305 | Joined: 17th Jan 2006 | Posts: 106

VisionLab User VideoWrap User Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

Arktic wrote:

I'd be interested to hear exactly how you explain how this graph works out then - it's taken from the Australian Institue of Criminology, titled "Murder and manslaughter, rate per 100,000 persons, 1993-2005"

(sources: * Australian Institute of Criminology 2006. Australian crime : facts and figures 2005. Canberra: AIC. http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/facts/2005/
* Australian Bureau of Statistics 2006. Recorded crime, victims, Australia [various issues]. ABS cat. no. 4510.0. Canberra: ABS_)


Bear in mind that in 1996, the "National Firearms Agreement" legislation was passed in Australia, restricting the ownership of certain kinds of firearms and banning others outright. As you can see, between 1996 and 1998, the overall murder rate falls. There's a peak again between 1999 and 2000, but from then on, the number of murders is essentially falling, year upon year. Compare 1997 to 2005.

Has the number of HOMOCIDES (not just firearms-related deaths) fallen? A resounding 'yes'?

I can't say that it's ONLY related to the tightening up of gun control laws in Australia, but it certainly seems as though they're doing something right.

I still stand by my original sentiments. I can see no reasons to justify gun ownership by civilians.

Arktic.
By virtue of the 1996/97 passing of the Firearms Restriction act that would take the raw compiled statistical data from 1993 to 1997 out of the equasion- what we're seeing is a "cooking" of the numbers and statistical data for roughly 4 to 5 years of what's being promoted as a 10 to 12 year data compilation.

It is a criminology study that also only takes into account those instances that have been tried and found to be "murder" or "homicide" related.

The Australian Bureau of Statistics for the year 1997 reported 44% increase in armed robbery [something this graph does not identify...] an 8.6% increase in aggrevated assault [with or without a weapon is unclear] and in the state of Victoria proper an increase of 300% for homicide was reported...

In 1999- this information develops to show a sharper rise in both aggrevated assault and armed robbery data- 78% in some instance.

This data doesn't take into account the banning of Bowie Knives, handcuffs and other items that teh common/uncommon criminal has no interest in advertising that he has them...

The violent crime statistics shown below were retrieved on March 27, 2000, from the Australia Bureau of Statistics website:

VIOLENT CRIME Murder
1997 321
1998 284
TREND -11.5%


Attempted Murder
318
382
+20.1%

Manslaughter
39
49
+25.6%

Assault
124,500
132,967
+6.8%

Sexual Assault
14,353
14,568
+1.5%

Kidnaping/abduction
562
662
+17.8%

Armed Robbery
9,054
10,850
+19.8%

Unarmed Robbery
12,251
12,928
+5.5%

TOTAL
161,398
172,690
+7.0

The following in the Aussie's own words is the affect their Draconian gun measures have had on their people...

"The number of Victorians murdered with firearms has almost trebled since the introduction of tighter gun laws.
--Geelong Advertiser, Victoria, Sept. 11, 1997.

"Gun crime is on the rise despite tougher laws imposed after the Port Arthur massacre, but gun control lobbyists maintain Australia is a safer place. . . . The number of robberies involving guns jumped 39% last year to 2183, according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, and assaults involving guns rose 28% to 806. The number of gun murders, excluding the Port Arthur massacre, increased by 19% to 75."
--"Gun Crime Rises Despite Controls," Illawarra Mercury Oct. 28, 1998.

"Crime involving guns is on the rise despite tougher laws. The number of robberies with guns jumped 39% in 1997, while assaults involving guns rose 28% and murders by 19%."
--"Gun crime soars," Morning Herald, Sydney, Oct. 28, 1998.

"Murders by firearms have actually increased (in Victoria) since the buyback scheme, which removed 225,000 registered and unregistered firearms from circulation. There were 18 shooting murders in 1996-97, after the buyback scheme had been introduced, compared with only six in 1995-1996 before the scheme started."
--"Killings rise in gun hunt," Herald Sun, Melbourne, Dec. 23, 1998.

"Victoria is facing one of its worst murder tolls in a decade and its lowest arrest rate ever."
--Herald Sun, Melbourne, Dec. 11, 1999.

"The environment is more violent and dangerous than it was some time ago."
--South Australia Police Commissioner Mal Hyde, reported in The Advertiser, Adelaide, Dec. 23, 1999.

Some would say that the "books were cooked" for the information that the Bureau produced- I say not, since all other forms of armed conflict related to crime were in this report versus the measurements you've just provided.

One could also sum up the news articles sited as "these were crimes with guns" hence there's still a problem that the irradication of firearms would solve. They'd be correct in one sense- wrong in yet another, since the Bureau points out that the effective data for crime WITH weapons as part of daily Aussie life was statistically lower BEFORE the ban...

As I've mentioned earlier- weapons to the common person become a political and media tool to illicit control of the populace. The Aussies [as I remember them] are [not "were"] a self actualized people that have strong senses of right and wrong [same for Britons as well!]- their governments though are not interested in self governing- only in all encompassing institutional power.

May I entice everyone reading this to consider the politics:

There are three major parties in Australian politics: the center right (Liberal Party), the socialist camp (Labor Party) and the ultra-left (Australian Democratic Party) – this last one easily tilted the balance of power toward stringent gun control at the expense of freedom. Moreover, to add insult to injury, Australia has had to toe the party line of the United Nations on environmental issues, land/property rights, and now, gun control as well.

Firearms in the hands of citizenry shouldn't be criminalized- nor should it be mandetory either.

Certainly, as you stand beside your convictions that an armed citizenry is reprehensable- I stand beside my convictions that it is a necessary deterant to tyranny.

As I see it, Arktic, we both share the belief that one should 'love thy neighbor'- I will even state for the record that in many ways if indeed your country is safer for having the measures you entrust, I'm jealous and would only want that same level of governmental trust that you have.

But there are many in America, certainly myself lumped into that ubiquitous "many" group; who believe in "Trust, but Verify".

Where I can fully contend to a person's belief that firearms are an unwarranted or unneeded element of our society- I find it disconcerting that the reverse is not granted me. Those who would disagree with my views; the more the merrier- if nothing you keep me intellectually honest! But the governing body by which I supposedly have a say in the measure of my governance?

No- they serve the common man and the needs of the country.

The global/local Secular Progressive intimation that either my country, my place or myself is precluded some measure of criminality because of a God given right to self preservation by my own means and devices is confusing at best and downright insulting at worst.

I personally trust you as a stand-up fellow, as well as most of your fellow countrymen; I find your views on this and many subjects both intellectually honest as well as inspired- but I don't trust your governmental body and by extension I do not trust those in the UN Council [excluding UK, Aussie and a few others] who's interests do not include my country or the prospects of a republic.

I beg that we'll have to agree to disagree, Arktic; I love your style and panasche', but this old, obstinant mule is just too set in many of his ways to agree with what I see as too progressive a mindset... wink

May we all find peace and prosperity in this world! biggrin
Posted: Wed, 31st Jan 2007, 3:00pm

Post 99 of 388

SyroVision

Force: 2130 | Joined: 1st Dec 2005 | Posts: 478

VisionLab User FXpreset Maker FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

RusSEAL wrote:

Bear in mind that in 1996...May we all find peace and prosperity in this world! biggrin
There are many points that strike me as odd about this post.

The "sudden rise" (and may I point out the "rise" only went as high at 18 gun related deaths, that includes miss-fired ect in the year... as opposed to other countries without the ban where it would be in the 100s) in gun related crime has been seen throughout the world in countries that implement the ban, its a mix of outsiders saying "Ah so there is gun-amnesty in this country, so if we take our guns there we can sell them at riser prices" and also as you said, when people have a gun and they KNOW that their opponent doesn’t it makes them cocky.

It isn’t a surprise to see that were was a peek, but the on-going movements have made Australia safer. These idiots who have guns that they didn’t turn in when they were made illegal that DO choose to use them, get caught and sent to gaol. There is no slap on the wrist for shooting some one here in Aus.

Sure a few have gotten lucky, but either way they do gaol time, get fined, gain a record, loose the gun and loose their right to Medicare and all other sorts of benefits that make Australia a lovely place to live as a citizen.

The only gun issue in Australia is the people illegally importing them from Asia, these jerks are the issue (not Asians, the importers). But every time one is taken down its front page news because we LIKE hearing about it.

Something else I noticed is that, even though you compiled a very lovely list of statistics and quotes, allot of them have nothing to do with Guns...

Armed Robbery
9,054
10,850
+19.8%
Armed = Use of weapon, a baseball bat, a knife anything... not just guns... frankly considering how many banks are successfully robbed its kinda dumb to do it WITH a gun... because the chance of getting caught are sooooo high throwing an illegal object in the works just adds insult to injury by canseling your entire family out of the goverments benifit scheme.


The quotes from the news papers (Morning Herald, Geelong Advertiser ect) don’t bother me as they are about as credible as a Take5 magazine, and have a special section in their back pages of retractions for almost all storys.... Also the quotes you included from people, (can we have links please?)


So feel free to comment on any of the above...


My actual point, and really the ONLY thing I wanted to say was: If tomorrow the Aus government announced a Nationwide vote to re-legalise firearms and end the buy-back program, it would be voted against.

It is that simple.

People FEEL safer knowing there are not guns around in the streets.

In Australia, guns are not cool.
Posted: Wed, 31st Jan 2007, 8:49pm

Post 100 of 388

RusSEAL

Force: 1305 | Joined: 17th Jan 2006 | Posts: 106

VisionLab User VideoWrap User Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

[quote="SyroVision"]

RusSEAL wrote:

Bear in mind that in 1996...May we all find peace and prosperity in this world! biggrin
There are many points that strike me as odd about this post.

The "sudden rise" (and may I point out the "rise" only went as high at 18 gun related deaths, that includes miss-fired ect in the year... as opposed to other countries without the ban where it would be in the 100s) in gun related crime has been seen throughout the world in countries that implement the ban, its a mix of outsiders saying "Ah so there is gun-amnesty in this country, so if we take our guns there we can sell them at riser prices" and also as you said, when people have a gun and they KNOW that their opponent doesn’t it makes them cocky.

Sorry- never said anything about one "being cocky" sporting a weapon- confident perhaps and yes, there's fools out there that gain false bravado with something under theri jacket- but those are your words- not mine.

It isn’t a surprise to see that were was a peek, but the on-going movements have made Australia safer. These idiots who have guns that they didn’t turn in when they were made illegal that DO choose to use them, get caught and sent to gaol. There is no slap on the wrist for shooting some one here in Aus.

I 'd certainly agree with the penalty phase of Aussie Law- if our ne'r-do-wells were treated in like kind we also might not have neer the problems we do...

Sure a few have gotten lucky, but either way they do gaol time, get fined, gain a record, loose the gun and loose their right to Medicare and all other sorts of benefits that make Australia a lovely place to live as a citizen.

The only gun issue in Australia is the people illegally importing them from Asia, these jerks are the issue (not Asians, the importers). But every time one is taken down its front page news because we LIKE hearing about it.

Something else I noticed is that, even though you compiled a very lovely list of statistics and quotes, allot of them have nothing to do with Guns...

Armed Robbery
9,054
10,850
+19.8%
Armed = Use of weapon, a baseball bat, a knife anything... not just guns... frankly considering how many banks are successfully robbed its kinda dumb to do it WITH a gun... because the chance of getting caught are sooooo high throwing an illegal object in the works just adds insult to injury by canseling your entire family out of the goverments benifit scheme.

what intrigues me most about your analysis of the data is that you completely ignore that the crime itself, regardless of what weapon has been used- the crime has taken place- I made no mention of "gun related crime" being a solidifying accounting of the public crime record statistics- only that an embrazoned thug lot has increased their neffarious activities.

Would an "armed" citizen- using a ballbat- thwarting the crime have been counted in this instance- I doubt it. Had they used a gun- THEY'd be the ones serving jail- then, I ask you, what of the assailant? Pandora's box I'd presume.


The quotes from the news papers (Morning Herald, Geelong Advertiser ect) don’t bother me as they are about as credible as a Take5 magazine, and have a special section in their back pages of retractions for almost all storys.... Also the quotes you included from people, (can we have links please?)

Each of the newspapers listed with their referenced quotations is available by way of Google, Yahoo or any search engine you choose- the links and references are too numerous for me to expand upon here.

Since it's obvious you completely discount the validity of them in the first place I see no reason to go through each one only to have rebuke- I get that from cross family members.


So feel free to comment on any of the above...


My actual point, and really the ONLY thing I wanted to say was: If tomorrow the Aus government announced a Nationwide vote to re-legalise firearms and end the buy-back program, it would be voted against.

It is that simple.

Based on your government's extreme leftist ideology, of course it's that simple- it'd never be put to a vote of the people- it'd have never passed in the first place.

[b]People FEEL safer knowing there are not guns around in the streets.


Let's be less than emotional here- YOU feel safer with no guns on the streets- you can not hope to validate that feeling for each and every one of your countrymen, please don't be maudline.

And if what you say were to be true- I'm all the more jealous for it- if that is indeed the case, theirs [your's] is a Utopian Society to be mirrored and emulated.

I simply believe in "Trust but verify"- I do not share your trust in a Secular Progressive Government that wants its people placated and repressed- if that is a character flaw on my part- so be it, in another 40 some odd years I'll be dead-n-gone & one less "fool" dotting the landscape with his evil weaponry and self actualized ideology.


In Australia, guns are not cool.

Spoken like one of the "Just Say No" crowd from my generation- you'll excuse me if I don't put down my hashish pipe and applaud... razz

Syro- as I've stated several times in my posts, I really DO hope your's is a vision of the future for this world.

From what I've seen and heard and experienced in my life, I see your vision as niavte- again, if that makes me an old fool, so be it- I'll settle for both; old and foolish.

The most addle-minded comupance used in the anti-gun quorum is this indignant notion that "nobody needs a firearm- there's no reason to have them"- well, yes, that's true- but...

None of us has a need for a fast car-
None of us has a need for a computer-
None of us has a need for any form of extravegance-

For the Record, and the final time- if your society works well without the need for weaponry by anyone other than the police and military- excellent! Bravo!

All that I'd ask is that you look at the REAL reasons why that ban originated and under what cloke your government perpetuates its "divinity" over its citizens.

If you have the Utopian government you think you have- then I truly do envy you, The UK and anyone else under such a benevolent rule.

Personally- I may be governed, but I am my own ruler.

Excellent insight SyroVision- I wish we saw more eye-to-eye, but c'est la vie...
Posted: Thu, 1st Feb 2007, 12:34am

Post 101 of 388

CurtinParloe

Force: 841 | Joined: 16th Oct 2001 | Posts: 916

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

The last few posts illustrate why I never use statistics to try and prove anything wink

You make some interesting points about the portrayal of guns in film, RusSeal, and I'd like to mention a few things...

RusSEAL wrote:


The "Glorified Gun in Hollyweird" concept is a misnomer to the uninitiated.

The Gun is revered in many films because the artist little understands its true nature. Such films I've often labled as "hardware films" because the "character" in the movie is actually the gun/rifle/pistol itself- like the Judgement weapon in Judge Dredd, or RoboCop's incredibly modified M93-B Pietro Barretta or the General Electric Mini-gun in Predator. They are imbued with life so that the life that wields them is rendered a non-issue to the viewer.

The concept of "gun=bad: person with gun=bad" is then perpetuated in an effort to embue weaponry with a life- therefore a "life" that must be controlled percause of its potential for violence and destruction.
I'm afraid I don't follow your logic there.

The "Lawgiver" in the dreddful (if you'll excuse the pun) adaptation of the satirical Judge Dredd comic strip is the Judge's execution tool - see here). In Robocop, the eponymous hero is created by the gun, and then deals out justice with his own (in a remarkably similar way to the Judges of Judge Dredd). It's interesting that you chose those two, as both characters are the ones the audience are intended to empathise with, and both are dependent upon their respective guns for their strength. Even if it's all about the guns, they are on the side of good. Surely they only portray the "guns = bad" equation insofar as they are a product of the dystopian society in which they are prominent?
Predator is an interesting peculiarity in those three, as the predator only hunts those with weapons, and as such it supports your idea.


Back to task- the glorification of weaponry in film is just that- the weapon is the voyeuristic joy of the auteur. It is made the center of attention for one fo two reasons- lust or patriation.

Lust- as it is the desirous intention of the auteur to witness its gleam in the trick of played light- to placate its destructive power [notice how many times a weapon is "sweetened" in post production because it doesn't sound "beefy enough" to the director?] or alternatively, it is a representation of something that through political motivation is "upped in ante" in an effort to embue it with some mythical dragon's power that must be squelched and/or destroyed in an effort to bring it under control so that "no one" can wield its power...
I agree in part, although I'd argue that glorification of the gun is solely about lust, mainly because the difficulty in "demonising" the gun cinematically is that film itself has a voyeuristic quality, fetishising the thing it seeks to villify. As such, the gun is still made to be powerful.
My query, and the original point of the thread, is about how many of the films in this cinema serve to glorify the gun, how many of those do that as part of an agenda, and how many do it without even realising. Whilst I don't agree with the pro-gun arguments, it's all about balance...
Posted: Thu, 1st Feb 2007, 3:21am

Post 102 of 388

frodo1987

Force: 850 | Joined: 25th May 2006 | Posts: 68

EffectsLab Pro User

Gold Member

SyroVision wrote:

Consider : Everyone in a country has a Personal Firearm, bar those who cant afford them. Would you feel safer as an average person knowing that you have a gun, they have a gun and everyone is equaly (roughly) equipt?



Consider: No one in a country has a Personal Firearm, only the Police and Military have firearms (and only have them AT work). Would you feel safer as an average person knowing that you are as safe as any other citisen, however should something bad happen the police can deal with it?


What do you think?

Personaly, i choose the second.
I think you're approching this the wrong way - appealing to the emotions as you are. Asking how we feel. Do you think the black market will suddenly disappear if guns are illegal for the common folk? Do you think all criminals will suddenly think "Aw shucks, now guns are outlawed. I guess I'll have to find some other weapon to carry out my illegal activities with" as the good law-abiding citizens they are?

No sir, outlawing guns will only serve to make the public mere subjects to any and all gun-wielding fanatics who honestly don't care that they're breaking the law by having a gun. Why should they? They're already criminals.

On the other hand, if any citizen in America is allowed their Second Ammendment rights - and they ARE! - and is able to bear arms, then the criminal won't know just who is carrying one. This brings a new element of danger into the life of crime. 45-year-old Joe Six-pack might be packing a .45. Suddenly, it's not only blue-uniformed cops with weapons, but it could be anyone! Now Mr. Criminal has to decide if he really wants to risk his life like this.
Even if, in the end, he decides it's worth the risk, maybe Joe Six-pack IS packing a .45 - and uses it, possibly saving lives.

I'm not appealing to any emotions. I'm appealing to common sense.
Posted: Thu, 1st Feb 2007, 4:07am

Post 103 of 388

Kid

Force: 4177 | Joined: 1st Apr 2001 | Posts: 1876

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User Windows User

Gold Member

The thing is that it seems like common sense to you because you are missing half of the point.

Firstly if you have an argument with someone and it gets heated if you have a gun then these are much more likely to end in injury or death. If there is no gun then someone has to make much more of an effort to get one and use it. What it does is cut down hugely on heat of the moment incidents. As you say premeditated ones wouldn't be effected.

Secondly a criminal isn't going to rush out and commit crimes carrying a gun necessarily for 3 reasons.

1. It highlights him as a criminal and makes it much easier for the police to identify and arrest him.

2. If he is caught and there are different sentances it may be worth his while not to have one. Eg. Burgulary with a gun could be counted as Robbery and have much harsher punishments.

3. If his intention is to burgle someone then he is not out to kill them. If they dont have a gun then he doesnt need any weapon. You don't need a knife to protect you from someone else with a knife, you can just run away. His aim is to nick stuff and get away without injury, not confront you so that he can take it at any cost.

So you may think that ok gun crime will reduce but burgulary will increase? Seems like common sense but not according to the stats.

Burgulary is higher in the US than UK.
Gun crime is higher in the US than UK.
Overall murders are higher in the US than UK.

People arn't just meaner in the US, the laws do make a difference. The US would be better off with tighter controls. THAT is common sense.
Posted: Thu, 1st Feb 2007, 8:09am

Post 104 of 388

SyroVision

Force: 2130 | Joined: 1st Dec 2005 | Posts: 478

VisionLab User FXpreset Maker FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

frodo1987 wrote:

I think you're ... appealing to common sense.
You dont seem to follow, it was an example. A mock world where guns hadnt been made legal to the public in the first place.



None of us has a need for a fast car-
None of us has a need for a computer-
None of us has a need for any form of extravegance-

I wish we saw more eye-to-eye, but c'est la vie...
None of us has a need for a fast car- I need a fast car because i live 40 minets from work, and i have to be there in 20minets.
None of us has a need for a computer- As a digital artist, whos bank woudl be bear if not for his comuter i dissagree
None of us has a need for any form of extravegance - I dont see a car or a computer an extravigance... a car and computer are tools, like horses and screwdrivers... they are things we use to acomplish things...

Nike shoes, fast food and yoyos... SURE we dont need them... which is why i dont have/use them.


And yes i agree, i wish we coudl see eye to eye... but the fact remains... America has made a pig of itself politicaly and ethicaly, and based on that your average Australia activly does what ever they can to not be american... thus Starbucks and Krispy Kreme stores are close to nill in Aus... there is only one of each within driving distance from me. And i live in the city.

If a vote went up in Aus to re-legalise guns, it woudl be voted against. And sadly i know that Australia is one of the only countrys that i can be certain of that.
Posted: Thu, 1st Feb 2007, 3:29pm

Post 105 of 388

frodo1987

Force: 850 | Joined: 25th May 2006 | Posts: 68

EffectsLab Pro User

Gold Member

Firstly if you have an argument with someone and it gets heated if you have a gun then these are much more likely to end in injury or death. If there is no gun then someone has to make much more of an effort to get one and use it. What it does is cut down hugely on heat of the moment incidents. As you say premeditated ones wouldn't be effected.
I see what you're saying, but if a person is furious enough with someone to kill them with the gun he has in his pocket, then he's probably furious enough to at least attempt to kill them with his bare hands and/or any blunt object lying around.
Besides, if he's already a criminal, he'll easily have an illegally-obtained gun.

So you may think that ok gun crime will reduce but burgulary will increase?
No, I still think gun crime will increase. All your scenarios only dealt with burglars, and however accurate they might or might not be, burglary is not the only crime in which guns can be used.
A criminal can use a gun to subdue a woman he wishes to rape.
A criminal can use a gun in a random drive-by shooting.
A criminal can use a gun to murder someone.
But if there is an equal chance that everyone else was carrying a gun - not just the criminal - he'd think twice or even three times about committing crimes around any other people.

You dont seem to follow, it was an example. A mock world where guns hadnt been made legal to the public in the first place.
Perhaps you don't follow; whether or not they are legal to the public has no effect on lawbreakers getting them anyway. Example, illegal drugs have never been legal to the public, yet they amazingly wind up in the hands of adolescents. Could this be because they don't care that it's illegal?
Anyway, it would seem that your mock world is moot in the first place because guns are, in fact, legal and granted to U.S. citizens as a Second Ammendment right.
Posted: Thu, 1st Feb 2007, 4:33pm

Post 106 of 388

Kid

Force: 4177 | Joined: 1st Apr 2001 | Posts: 1876

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User Windows User

Gold Member

You keep bringing up your right to bear arms. It was in fact given so that the people could turn against the government in case they did not act in the interests of the majority. It was not intended so that you could go around shooting each other. For the original purposes it is no longer suitable. If the government wished to enforce its will it now has Apaches, Tanks, cluster bombs, chemical weapons and others, none of which your gun will protect you from.

Lets take a look at your examples. They all rely on the assumption that guns would be widely available. Its easy to say a criminal doesn't care about the law so he would just carry one, but where would he get one from? They would not be easily obtainable by any old crook. They would be more expensive and only available to your more elite criminal. Your everyday robber, rapist, thief wouldn't have access to them.
Posted: Thu, 1st Feb 2007, 4:57pm

Post 107 of 388

Kolchin

Force: 270 | Joined: 12th Mar 2005 | Posts: 87

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

But we could defeat the goverment. Ever heard of how a couple of Afghans beat up the elite Spetsnaz? And they started out with old bolt-action rifles.

And for the goverment to, as you seem to imply, nuke its people, it is losing it's assets.
A more intelligent way the goverment is enforcing its control is through extensive surveillance systems and tracking devices. Which it is doing.

And guns will always be available. Give me one case where outlawing guns did any good. Hitler was for gun control.
Only in conquered countries was it customary to take the citizens weapons. For the goverment to take guns from its poeple is to invite a dictatorship.

So my everyday rapist doesn't have a gun. He can take his prey without one. But if his prey has a gun...
If a criminal attacks your average person, he will win. As a criminal he can fight, is in control of the situation, and is armed.
But if the victim has a gun, it is now a 50-50 fight.

I'd rather stand up for myself than have some goverment do it.

For some strange reason, I trust my life to be protected that way.

Some people call it self defense. Don't think being a sheep is better.
Posted: Thu, 1st Feb 2007, 6:00pm

Post 108 of 388

RusSEAL

Force: 1305 | Joined: 17th Jan 2006 | Posts: 106

VisionLab User VideoWrap User Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

Ouch! Syro! Aye yi, yi, brotherman!

"... but the fact remains... America has made a pig of itself politicaly and ethicaly, and based on that your average Australia activly does what ever they can to not be american..."?

Harsh words, esteemed collegue- surely I would hope that such vitriol stems more from a governmental/political perspective than a personal one!

Again- I don't think you can put the words of every last one of your countrymen into their mouths. What you profess, though quite passionate is still nothing more than maudline feelings surfacing to make a point that has no founding or substantive proof.

I'll have 5 returning friends each year that come to enjoy the US- both for its uniqueness as well as its people. They're 100% Aussie through-n-through and have no interest in actually staying in the US- but they're not spiteful to the Krispy Kreams or Starbucks either.

You're Australian for crying out loud- I for one don't want you to be American- it's your uniqueness that gives you your charm!

Perhaps if you see me the way you stated me as an American, never having met or enjoyed company, I'd have every reason in the world to be a bit missive in our seeing eye-to-eye on anything let alone something as volatile as gun control...

I hold no grudge to you personally Syro'- and I'd love to see Australia/New Zealand- Truth be told- I'd probably [more than likely] enjoy every waking breath living and working there. For all my days to be sure. But if I said the exact same thing towards your homeland you've just said to me- would you even want me to? Simply put, the political climate you enjoy is the only thing that gives me want to at least ponder actually moving to live and work there- nothing more. You and your fellow countrymen are a wonderful people.

Please understand that I value your interpretations on a great many things- but if what you've stated is what you see as truth, I'm saddened that you'd see us general "bloke" Americans so shallowly.

Truly- you've cut too deeply- it's my sincerest wish that I've simply misinterpreted such a statement. But if you see this in me- nothing more than bits-n-bytes on some CRT- know that if your intent was to insult you've done so handily.


Now- on to more pleasantries: In this case, film theory!

CurtinParloe wrote:

The last few posts illustrate why I never use statistics to try and prove anything wink

HAHAHAHA!- Yes, CP, I'd whole heartedly agree with you on that! Honestly, it's a tit-for-tat that would/could expand into ad-nauseum!


You make some interesting points about the portrayal of guns in film, RusSeal, and I'd like to mention a few things...

RusSEAL wrote:


The "Glorified Gun in Hollyweird" concept is a misnomer to the uninitiated.

The Gun is revered in many films because the artist little understands its true nature. Such films I've often labled as "hardware films" because the "character" in the movie is actually the gun/rifle/pistol itself- like the Judgement weapon in Judge Dredd, or RoboCop's incredibly modified M93-B Pietro Barretta or the General Electric Mini-gun in Predator. They are imbued with life so that the life that wields them is rendered a non-issue to the viewer.

The concept of "gun=bad: person with gun=bad" is then perpetuated in an effort to embue weaponry with a life- therefore a "life" that must be controlled percause of its potential for violence and destruction.
I'm afraid I don't follow your logic there.

The "Lawgiver" in the dreddful (if you'll excuse the pun) adaptation of the satirical Judge Dredd comic strip is the Judge's execution tool - see here). In Robocop, the eponymous hero is created by the gun, and then deals out justice with his own (in a remarkably similar way to the Judges of Judge Dredd). It's interesting that you chose those two, as both characters are the ones the audience are intended to empathise with, and both are dependent upon their respective guns for their strength. Even if it's all about the guns, they are on the side of good. Surely they only portray the "guns = bad" equation insofar as they are a product of the dystopian society in which they are prominent?
Predator is an interesting peculiarity in those three, as the predator only hunts those with weapons, and as such it supports your idea.

Firstly- I love the pun- good chuckle! Now, here's how I've come to my conclusions:

The concept of gun-as-character is a representational tool of classic autureship or mise-en-scene; the "picture within the picture". Robocop's pistol is as much feared as it is glorified- "evil doers" in the film notice Robo- but they react solely to his weapon.

Instance: When Robo' first starts out on his mission as an officer he is cold, calculated and digital- the letter of the law is as sure as his bullets are true- his pistol is representative of a powerful amalgam of justice. The 'sweetened Basso Profundo of his weapon is made to impart power, authority and dominance over his adversaries. The muzzle flare and recoil reaction imparts mechanized precision and raw power completely controlled by a machine.

The operative word is "controlled"- obviously outside of Law Enforcement and especially the non-human hands of Robo, no one in the story can "control" their weaponry. Each and every character is portrayed in society as either a raging [or calculated] psychophant, drug dealer, mendicant or distraught individual.

Later on- when the Bodicker Gang is outfitted with Barrett 50s [talk about "swetening"!!! They're portrayed as Man-Cannons for crying out loud!] and subsequently ED 209 exacts his pound of rivets, Robo and his weapon is rendered minute to the situation- even the Snd FX are slightly muted in an effort to drive home the point that Robo and his vaunted weaponry are not as powerful as once thought.

Now, juxtapose this with Robo now in turmoil over his trying to right injustice, contend that he was once human and that an alterior motive within OCP to keep him "on a leash" has rendered his ability to do ANY of the three; you have incredible drama not because of the weapon but because of the human condition being restrained- aka unable to use his weapon!

The weapon, though not an "actual" character, is still in fact, a "character" as impetus [or perhaps "addition"] to RoboCop's persona...

Film Theory 203; Film Violence and The Gun- Professor Anthony Williams- Southern Illinois University, USA, 1986

Now, let's take the antithesis- The Lawgiver.

Here we have a human character who's character IS the weapon- yet one of many reasons the film lacks verisimilitude or depth. A Judge without his Lawgiver=nothing. A Judge with Lawgiver is just fine in this dystopic world- and "everyone else" with weaponry is evil.

Taking steps further and looking at Predator- "anyone with a weapon was hunted down"... True- but let's take a look at this a little more in-depth:

The Predator Alien is the total embodiment of a pure organic environment- its equipment and effects are made to look like bone or some form of symbiotic creature. Mason and his commandoes are an antithesis to this having man-made equipment and mechanical weapons.

Each man is killed off one-by-one having used one type of gun or another.

Well- no- that's not entirely true... Carl Weathers, Jesse Ventura and the others were "aced" having used their weapons against the creature- but Richard Chaves and Arnold are both acosted by the alien with nothing more than knives in their hands.

In the end, The Predator is done in by the very natural environment that he seemed so adapted to.

In the instance of Predator, those weilding a gun were "pasted" because of their reliance on them- Arnold's character survived despite them; you could even say that because he was forced to not use a gun, he had to find a different way to kill his enemy... And that, dear comrade, speaks [though quite on the tangent] metaphorically to crime in general-



Back to task- the glorification of weaponry in film is just that- the weapon is the voyeuristic joy of the auteur. It is made the center of attention for one of two reasons- lust or patriation.

Lust- as it is the desirous intention of the auteur to witness its gleam in the trick of played light- to placate its destructive power [notice how many times a weapon is "sweetened" in post production because it doesn't sound "beefy enough" to the director?] or alternatively, it is a representation of something that through political motivation is "upped in ante" in an effort to embue it with some mythical dragon's power that must be squelched and/or destroyed in an effort to bring it under control so that "no one" can wield its power...
I agree in part, although I'd argue that glorification of the gun is solely about lust, mainly because the difficulty in "demonising" the gun cinematically is that film itself has a voyeuristic quality, fetishising the thing it seeks to villify. As such, the gun is still made to be powerful.

Okay- I see where you're going with that part...

Still, if that's the case, the "fetishing" of guns [weaponry in general] begins where I just mentioned- with the director and/or DP- when the weapon has an embuement of it's own "personality" within the picture.

Lust, agenda or happenstance? I'm not sure about any and all pictures, but I have my notes on certain film studies..

Paul Verehoven having made RoboCop, Starship Troopers and Total Recall stands as the top grossing [pun intended] body-count director of all times. It is his use of violence and specifically gun-play that creates an anti-gun predilection [or at the very least an anti-violence case].

Only the most "lustful gunfetishist" in the audience admires the sheer magnetude of carnage and shell casings in a Verhoven film as there's no intent on lingering with the death of any one given character- your besiged with death and destruction in order to play out some visual form of "over saturation".


My query, and the original point of the thread, is about how many of the films in this cinema serve to glorify the gun, how many of those do that as part of an agenda, and how many do it without even realising. Whilst I don't agree with the pro-gun arguments, it's all about balance...
Certainly, I won't say that there's an equal part pro versus con gun show, film or special, but where this notion that "The Media" is somehow one or the other is patently false.

"The Media" if it's to be considered a combined and totalitarian package, exists only to feed itself.

If a film, TV show or play comes out and extolls some virtue of the gun culture then there will also be a paper, magazine article, news report, coffee talk show or "documentary" [Bowling for Columbine is not "documentary- sorry, I can disprove that one shot for shot] ranting and raving over the depravity of its existance- again, the some total of all things "Media" covering its bases in an effort to sell more of the same.

You raised some very good points- and I'm sure I didn't explain myself too well [the last Film Theory course I took was almost 20 years ago- I'm sure to have misinterpretted something!

Ah well- back to the contemplation of my navel and making film


Posted: Thu, 1st Feb 2007, 7:26pm

Post 109 of 388

Penguin

Force: 852 | Joined: 17th May 2006 | Posts: 560

EffectsLab Pro User FXpreset Maker FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Rating: +1

You know the longer your posts are the less people read them.
Posted: Thu, 1st Feb 2007, 7:32pm

Post 110 of 388

Jabooza

Force: 2743 | Joined: 21st Jul 2006 | Posts: 1446

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXpreset Maker FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Darth Penguin wrote:

You know the longer your posts are the less people read them.
Yeah, I'm one of those people who don't. wink
Posted: Thu, 1st Feb 2007, 9:37pm

Post 111 of 388

frodo1987

Force: 850 | Joined: 25th May 2006 | Posts: 68

EffectsLab Pro User

Gold Member

You keep bringing up your right to bear arms. It was in fact given so that the people could turn against the government in case they did not act in the interests of the majority. It was not intended so that you could go around shooting each other.
I beg your pardon...when did I ever say/imply everyone should go around shooting each other?
I was saying that among other things, the average gun-toting citizen would now be on equal terms with, or even outnumber the average criminal.

Its easy to say a criminal doesn't care about the law so he would just carry one, but where would he get one from?
Where do drug dealers get drugs? It's called the Black Market.

They would not be easily obtainable by any old crook. They would be more expensive and only available to your more elite criminal.
And here's where the gangster crime lord is revived. Elite criminals who have a bunch of heavies under them - heavies who are supplied with as many guns as they could ever need to do their boss's dirty work.
Posted: Thu, 1st Feb 2007, 10:00pm

Post 112 of 388

Sollthar

Force: 13360 | Joined: 30th Oct 2001 | Posts: 6094

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

It's amusing how your chain of arguments entirely assumes a "criminal" won't adapt to the fact the average citizen has a gun.

If a civillian is armed and actually carries his gun with him in order to defend himself (meaning to threaten or kill him) - surely every criminal in his right mind will adapt to that by either
- getting a BETTER, BIGGER or STRONGER weapon
or
- shoot first and ask questions later, just to be sure.


Sounds like a hell of a way to keep people safe... tard
Posted: Thu, 1st Feb 2007, 11:18pm

Post 113 of 388

CurtinParloe

Force: 841 | Joined: 16th Oct 2001 | Posts: 916

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

RusSEAL...

RusSEAL wrote:


Now- on to more pleasantries: In this case, film theory!
Firstly- I love the pun- good chuckle! Now, here's how I've come to my conclusions:

The concept of gun-as-character is a representational tool of classic autureship or mise-en-scene; the "picture within the picture". Robocop's pistol is as much feared as it is glorified- "evil doers" in the film notice Robo- but they react solely to his weapon.

Instance: When Robo' first starts out on his mission as an officer he is cold, calculated and digital- the letter of the law is as sure as his bullets are true- his pistol is representative of a powerful amalgam of justice. The 'sweetened Basso Profundo of his weapon is made to impart power, authority and dominance over his adversaries. The muzzle flare and recoil reaction imparts mechanized precision and raw power completely controlled by a machine.

The operative word is "controlled"- obviously outside of Law Enforcement and especially the non-human hands of Robo, no one in the story can "control" their weaponry. Each and every character is portrayed in society as either a raging [or calculated] psychophant, drug dealer, mendicant or distraught individual.

Later on- when the Bodicker Gang is outfitted with Barrett 50s [talk about "swetening"!!! They're portrayed as Man-Cannons for crying out loud!] and subsequently ED 209 exacts his pound of rivets, Robo and his weapon is rendered minute to the situation- even the Snd FX are slightly muted in an effort to drive home the point that Robo and his vaunted weaponry are not as powerful as once thought.

Now, juxtapose this with Robo now in turmoil over his trying to right injustice, contend that he was once human and that an alterior motive within OCP to keep him "on a leash" has rendered his ability to do ANY of the three; you have incredible drama not because of the weapon but because of the human condition being restrained- aka unable to use his weapon!

The weapon, though not an "actual" character, is still in fact, a "character" as impetus [or perhaps "addition"] to RoboCop's persona...

Film Theory 203; Film Violence and The Gun- Professor Anthony Williams- Southern Illinois University, USA, 1986

Now, let's take the antithesis- The Lawgiver.

Here we have a human character who's character IS the weapon- yet one of many reasons the film lacks verisimilitude or depth. A Judge without his Lawgiver=nothing. A Judge with Lawgiver is just fine in this dystopic world- and "everyone else" with weaponry is evil.

I see where you're going with the analyses of Robocop and Judge Dredd, I just think you're making a bit of a leap with your final conclusion in respect of those two. In Robocop the gun may well be a "character" as impetus, but I don't follow how that equates to "gun=bad", as my interpretation is that Murphy's reclamation of his gun power allows him to triumph. In Dredd, the perps have guns, and story logic dictates that Dredd must have his Lawgiver, which again is at odds with the "gun=bad" assertion.
In both cases, the gun is the solution to crime. Unfortunately, I haven't seen them for a while, so I can't present a detailed antithesis.


Okay- I see where you're going with that part...

Still, if that's the case, the "fetishing" of guns [weaponry in general] begins where I just mentioned- with the director and/or DP- when the weapon has an embuement of it's own "personality" within the picture.

Lust, agenda or happenstance? I'm not sure about any and all pictures, but I have my notes on certain film studies..

Paul Verehoven having made RoboCop, Starship Troopers and Total Recall stands as the top grossing [pun intended] body-count director of all times. It is his use of violence and specifically gun-play that creates an anti-gun predilection [or at the very least an anti-violence case].

Only the most "lustful gunfetishist" in the audience admires the sheer magnetude of carnage and shell casings in a Verhoven film as there's no intent on lingering with the death of any one given character- your besiged with death and destruction in order to play out some visual form of "over saturation".

With the "gun fetishisation" point, I suppose I'm arguing that the reason behind it is less relevant than the fact that it is. As someone who considers himself a "reader" of films, you (and I) would pick up things that the average target demographic might not. In trying to avoid a flame war for that comment, I'll quote the thread about "Dead Man's Shoes" I read earlier today on IMDB:
Instead of being a sweet action film, it tried to be a pretentious art film...people dont rent gangster/action movies for there plots. Just focus on the violence and quit hoodwinking people into thinking they're getting something a-la Boondock Saints, or evening Standing Tall.[sic]
As I was saying, someone like this would never pick up that Verhoeven's films are anti-gun (an opinion I share), but instead just get positive reinforcement from the "guns on show". Perhaps this gun fetishist (hehehe, nice name!) is the exception, but in my experience this isn't the case.


Certainly, I won't say that there's an equal part pro versus con gun show, film or special, but where this notion that "The Media" is somehow one or the other is patently false.

"The Media" if it's to be considered a combined and totalitarian package, exists only to feed itself.

If a film, TV show or play comes out and extolls some virtue of the gun culture then there will also be a paper, magazine article, news report, coffee talk show or "documentary" [Bowling for Columbine is not "documentary- sorry, I can disprove that one shot for shot] ranting and raving over the depravity of its existance- again, the some total of all things "Media" covering its bases in an effort to sell more of the same.
Ah, I love a good media scrap biggrin
While I concede your point that there are pro- and anti-gun streams in the media at large, I would also argue that different cultures have different media ideology behind them - just compare the three news channels CNN, BBC and Al Jazeera, and I doubt you'll see the same news story covered the same way. I'm afraid to say I'm with Chomsky there. twisted
As such, I'd consider what I've seen of American media streams to lean towards the pro-gun side of the fence, as opposed to British media streams, which I'd consider more "on-the-fence". I'd even go as far as to suggest that this is a major factor in the polarity of the posts in this very thread.

RusSEAL wrote:


You raised some very good points- and I'm sure I didn't explain myself too well [the last Film Theory course I took was almost 20 years ago- I'm sure to have misinterpretted something!
Hehehe, it's nice to talk film theory with someone who bviously knows what he's talking about ("u soxxorz" isn't what I'd consider a thoughtfully postulated argument) smile
Posted: Fri, 2nd Feb 2007, 12:01am

Post 114 of 388

Dancamfx

Force: 2558 | Joined: 7th Sep 2006 | Posts: 873

VisionLab User FXpreset Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

I think guns are awsome! And when I say that I dont mean that there cool because you can kill things with them. I've been fasinated all my life about how guns work and how they are developed. By far the greatest marvel man has created.
Posted: Fri, 2nd Feb 2007, 12:30am

Post 115 of 388

CurtinParloe

Force: 841 | Joined: 16th Oct 2001 | Posts: 916

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

Dancamfx wrote:

By far the greatest marvel man has created.
Hmm...
Posted: Fri, 2nd Feb 2007, 1:00am

Post 116 of 388

CX3

Force: 3137 | Joined: 1st Apr 2003 | Posts: 2527

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User MacOS User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

By far the greatest marvel man has created.
Umm...
Posted: Fri, 2nd Feb 2007, 1:29am

Post 117 of 388

Arktic

Force: 9977 | Joined: 10th Nov 2003 | Posts: 2785

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

RusSEAL - I can appreciate that you have your opinion on this subject, but I think we're just going to have to disagree.

Maybe it's to do with how we've been raised, maybe it's the cultural differences, who knows. I think that several incidents when I was younger (most notably the Dunblane massacre) have influenced my opinions on civilians owning handguns, to the extent that I don't think anyone could really change my opinions. I mean, don't get me wrong, I enjoy shooting as a sport, and I can see the benefits for hunting etc, but I simply can't see justification for private ownership of such dangerous and deadly weapons.

As I say, just one of those 'agree to disagree' things.

Cheers,
Arktic.

PS -
Hitler was for gun control.
I'd say this thread has been Godwinised wink
Posted: Fri, 2nd Feb 2007, 2:38am

Post 118 of 388

frodo1987

Force: 850 | Joined: 25th May 2006 | Posts: 68

EffectsLab Pro User

Gold Member

If a civillian is armed and actually carries his gun with him in order to defend himself (meaning to threaten or kill him) - surely every criminal in his right mind will adapt to that by either
- getting a BETTER, BIGGER or STRONGER weapon
or
- shoot first and ask questions later, just to be sure.
First, option A:
Ok. Fine. Let some addle-brain try to sneak around with an AK-47 in his pants. See how long it takes him to get arrested. By the time he gets it out, he'll probably already have a few slugs in him. I find that amusing. biggrin

Next, option B:
Yeah, he could do that. But soon as he does, who's to say he won't get a bullet in the back of the head from a conscientious person? If he does, I'd wager that fewer criminals would try that for themselves. Wouldn't you agree?
Posted: Fri, 2nd Feb 2007, 10:11am

Post 119 of 388

Sollthar

Force: 13360 | Joined: 30th Oct 2001 | Posts: 6094

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

First, option A:
Ok. Fine. Let some addle-brain try to sneak around with an AK-47 in his pants. See how long it takes him to get arrested. By the time he gets it out, he'll probably already have a few slugs in him. I find that amusing.

Next, option B:
Yeah, he could do that. But soon as he does, who's to say he won't get a bullet in the back of the head from a conscientious person? If he does, I'd wager that fewer criminals would try that for themselves. Wouldn't you agree?
You find it amusing if someone gets shot, hm? And a conscientious person would kill criminals, therefor others won't do the same.

I guess there's two principals we disagree on:

First, shooting people isn't fun. This is the real life.

Secondly, if anything is achieved through FEAR - which is your arguments basic principle, making anyone afraid of the fact he could be shot - I think it's the wrong way. Fear has never done anything good. If anything, fear lets people get out of control.


Well, the US does lead any murder charts in the whole world, except for countries who are at war. I'd suspect someone would wonder why that is... But seems I'm wrong.

As I've stated before though. In switzerland, we all have guns. Every male citizen gets a gun and keeps it at home. Still, we have less then 5% of the US murder rate (calculated to proportional number of citizens).
Shooting people just isn't considered amusing here, nor an actual option in any sort of fight.
Posted: Fri, 2nd Feb 2007, 12:20pm

Post 120 of 388

Bryce007

Force: 1910 | Joined: 5th Apr 2003 | Posts: 2609

VideoWrap User Windows User

Gold Member

As you know, In America, We aren't required to own a gun. Thus, A criminal isn't Guaranteed to be on the business end of an (AR-15 is it?), whereas in Switzerland, there's a 100% chance you will. So I think, aside from mindset, no one is going to waltz into a house to loot if the absolute risk is there.


(This is where I could bring up the racial tension/overwhelming illegal alien flood that Switzerland doesn't share with the U.S...)
Posted: Fri, 2nd Feb 2007, 1:08pm

Post 121 of 388

Kid

Force: 4177 | Joined: 1st Apr 2001 | Posts: 1876

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User Windows User

Gold Member

It always amuses me when people complain about immigrants in the US and arn't indians.
Posted: Fri, 2nd Feb 2007, 1:42pm

Post 122 of 388

RusSEAL

Force: 1305 | Joined: 17th Jan 2006 | Posts: 106

VisionLab User VideoWrap User Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

Darth Penguin wrote:

You know the longer your posts are the less people read them.
You know- the more terse your comments, the easier it is for me to disregard any respect for your opinion.

Duly noted and equally ignored, esteemed Penguin.
Posted: Fri, 2nd Feb 2007, 1:50pm

Post 123 of 388

RusSEAL

Force: 1305 | Joined: 17th Jan 2006 | Posts: 106

VisionLab User VideoWrap User Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

Arktic wrote:

RusSEAL - I can appreciate that you have your opinion on this subject, but I think we're just going to have to disagree.
***Culled for the expediency of the reading challanged***
I'd say this thread has been Godwinised wink
"Godwins Law!"

BWAHAHAHA!!! Nice shot across the bow, Arktic- too funny! razz

On your platform you've noted, we are in full agreement- with the exception of a very small minority of forum members that can't get their kit wired, it is this dichotomy you mention that allows us all to at least toss into the arena of ideas differing views and opinions; neither all-together correct, but certainly not all-together wrong either.

You're an exceptional person Arktic- I always enjoy our conversation s whether by agreements or as reparte'! biggrin cool

And CP- "I want to party with you "Lee Harvey"!

Film theory discourse can be exceptionally exciting under the right curcumstances- I'm honored you'd "poke me with a fork"- you're keeping me honest in the debate- Bravo!
Posted: Fri, 2nd Feb 2007, 3:39pm

Post 124 of 388

Sollthar

Force: 13360 | Joined: 30th Oct 2001 | Posts: 6094

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

Bryce wrote:

This is where I could bring up the racial tension/overwhelming illegal alien flood that Switzerland doesn't share with the U.S...
No, the tension here is generally less aggressive then in the US - which was kind of my point. We don't generally shoot each other or fear each other, regardless of race.

In simple numbers, our "alien flood" isn't less overwhelming then yours. At least not last time I checked on some statistics - switzerland was one of the countries with the highest immigration rates.


Bryce wrote:

As you know, In America, We aren't required to own a gun. Thus, A criminal isn't Guaranteed to be on the business end of an (AR-15 is it?), whereas in Switzerland, there's a 100% chance you will. So I think, aside from mindset, no one is going to waltz into a house to loot if the absolute risk is there.
Oh no no, you missed my point. Not literally "everyone" has a gun, only people who do military service - I for examply never did and therefore don't own a gun, neither do most of my friends.
Plus, those who do don't even THINK about using it for self defense. They usually keep it in the basement, unloaded. It's just a tool like a hammer to then. A tool they need FOR military service, but have no use for outside of this military service

Plus, the actual number of break-ins isn't lower then in the US. Nor are comparable crimes like robberies. The difference really starts when it comes down to actual shoot-outs and killed-by-gun-victims. There wo don't hold a candle to the US.


Maybe americans are just generally more violent then other civilized people, who knows. I still think the problem is the culturally very imbedded "Wild West" values, while most of europe has gone past that age a couple of hundred years ago.
But the US is still a teenager compared to european countries. I have hope it'll "grow up" and grow out of some of it's current habits.
Posted: Fri, 2nd Feb 2007, 4:20pm

Post 125 of 388

Waser

Force: 4731 | Joined: 7th Sep 2003 | Posts: 3111

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

SuperUser

Kid wrote:

It always amuses me when people complain about immigrants in the US and arn't indians.
psssst! Help me! I'm surrounded by crazy people!
Posted: Fri, 2nd Feb 2007, 5:47pm

Post 126 of 388

Bryce007

Force: 1910 | Joined: 5th Apr 2003 | Posts: 2609

VideoWrap User Windows User

Gold Member

Kid wrote:

It always amuses me when people complain about immigrants in the US and arn't indians.
I am Indian wink
Posted: Fri, 2nd Feb 2007, 5:50pm

Post 127 of 388

Sollthar

Force: 13360 | Joined: 30th Oct 2001 | Posts: 6094

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

Rating: +1

They're only called "indians" because because columbus thought he was in india anyways. smile
Posted: Fri, 2nd Feb 2007, 6:58pm

Post 128 of 388

frodo1987

Force: 850 | Joined: 25th May 2006 | Posts: 68

EffectsLab Pro User

Gold Member

You find it amusing if someone gets shot, hm? And a conscientious person would kill criminals, therefor others won't do the same.

I guess there's two principals we disagree on:

First, shooting people isn't fun. This is the real life.
Congratulations. You've somehow managed to completely misinterpret almost everything I said.
What I find amusing is the mental picture of someone walking around with a large gun in his pants and attempting to draw it anywhere near quickly.
And I never said anything about shooting people being fun. Stop making things up.

Secondly, if anything is achieved through FEAR - which is your arguments basic principle, making anyone afraid of the fact he could be shot - I think it's the wrong way. Fear has never done anything good. If anything, fear lets people get out of control.
Not at all. Why does anybody obey the law? For FEAR of the consequences (sometimes among other things - like good morals). You can't stand there and honestly say that fear of consequences is a bad thing.

Shooting people just isn't considered amusing here, nor an actual option in any sort of fight.
I don't think it's considered an option either, unless lives are at stake. Judging by what you just said, you don't think even that warrants the use of a gun. Perhaps you should re-evaluate your priorities.
Posted: Fri, 2nd Feb 2007, 9:33pm

Post 129 of 388

Sollthar

Force: 13360 | Joined: 30th Oct 2001 | Posts: 6094

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

Congratulations. You've somehow managed to completely misinterpret almost everything I said.
Why thank you. smile
Apologies then, it's what I understood from what you wrote. You're welcome to reelaborate though.

Why does anybody obey the law? For FEAR of the consequences (sometimes among other things - like good morals). You can't stand there and honestly say that fear of consequences is a bad thing.
I can stand there and say that fear of consequences is a bad thing, because that's exactly what I do. In fact, I disagree entirely.

I don't do certain things because I genuinly believe they're wrong. I could download illegal movies off the internet - I have no fear in the slightest they'll knock on my door and arrest me for it. I still don't do it, because I think it's wrong.

As you said, there's other motivators for people to do or not do something. The moral understanding that doing something is right/wrong, out of respect for someone elses wishes/feelings, out of the idea you get a reward (which would be the exact opposite).

As you might know, I'm a school teacher. Part of my study is human psychology. The motivation "fear of consequences" is proven to not only be the least effective of all methods - it's also morally very dodgy, at least for me. You seem to think otherwise.

Yes, it's a possibility to stop crime by making criminals too afraid. FEAR is a possibility. I do argue it's the worst ones of all. I'd rather find out WHY the criminals are criminals in the first place and try to solve that problem. Or find another solution.

I suggest reading some of plato's work or some of Immanuel Kant's ethical studies, they elaborate much more profoundly why controlling actions through fear is the lowest state in ethical evolution.

Judging by what you just said, you don't think even that warrants the use of a gun. Perhaps you should re-evaluate your priorities.
Perhaps I should re-evaluate my priorities? Why so, any arguments? Perhaps you should evaluate yours...?

Yes, I don't even think that warrants the use of a gun. The average joe should NOT be allowed to carry a gun around and potentially shooting people, as he's absolutely untrained for this.
The decision of taking someone's life should not be made by a random person.

I've been threatened with a weapon before. And no, I didn't even think about taking the other guys life. I'm not a caveman anymore. Eye for an eye doesn't work for me.
Posted: Fri, 2nd Feb 2007, 9:53pm

Post 130 of 388

frodo1987

Force: 850 | Joined: 25th May 2006 | Posts: 68

EffectsLab Pro User

Gold Member

I don't do certain things because I genuinly believe they're wrong.
Well, to be perfectly frank, most criminals don't share your convictions.

The motivation "fear of consequences" is proven to not only be the least effective of all methods - it's also morally very dodgy, at least for me. You seem to think otherwise.
Yes I do, and for this reason; lawbreakers generally don't have very good morals. Any arguement here? Ok.
Now, while people like you try to find out why they don't, fear of consequences is the one thing that might keep them in check.
Make no mistake, I'm not insulting your psychological pursuits, but while you're mind probing, what else will keep them from continuing in their occupation?

As you said, there's other motivators for people to do or not do something. The moral understanding that doing something is right/wrong, out of respect for someone elses wishes/feelings, out of the idea you get a reward (which would be the exact opposite).
With the utmost respect for you as a person, what do you think this is? Kindergarten?
Try telling a murderer 'that's not nice' or 'if you don't kill anyone today, I might give you a cookie'. The only thing they're going to be affected by at this point is punishment. Period.
Afterwards (or during the sentence), they can go through rehab and the like.

Perhaps I should re-evaluate my priorities? Why so, any arguments?
What's more important, saving perhaps several lives, or examining a head case?
Besides, not every shot has to be lethal. There are many places to shoot people, causing them to cease and desist, without fatally wounding them.
Posted: Fri, 2nd Feb 2007, 10:08pm

Post 131 of 388

Sollthar

Force: 13360 | Joined: 30th Oct 2001 | Posts: 6094

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

Well, to be perfectly frank, most criminals don't share your convictions.
I don't believe that's true. Most "criminals", if we're always going to refer to that word (which is a summary of people who have almost no common reference, except for the fact they're breaking some law. I'm sure even you or myself could be counted among them, I know I have broken certain laws in my life) are criminals not because they think being a criminal is fun, but for other reasons (social need, complex psychological or social causal-sets). And these reasons are the problem.

lawbreakers generally don't have very good morals. Any arguement here? Ok.
Actually, no. No agreement here, sorry. My image of lawbreakers is a bit more complex then yours. Some might even have better morals then you or me.
(Plus, "morals" and "law" are two different things for me)

Make no mistake, I'm not insulting your psychological pursuits, but while you're mind probing, what else will keep them from continuing in their occupation?
That's the question. If the US method is so successful... then why is, statistics show that the US is leading the murder charts I wonder? Quite obviously, the plan doesn't quite do the trick. And our plan seems to do: While we have a similar rate of crimes, a fraction of ours end with bloodshed.

With the utmost respect for you as a person, what do you think this is? Kindergarten?
Is this trying to be particularly clever or insulting? Not quite sure why you'd write that really.
I've made a list of different motivations for people to do or not to do something, nothing more, nothing less. If that's Kindergarten to you, then yes: I believe we live in a big Kindergarten.

Try telling a murderer 'that's not nice' or 'if you don't kill anyone today, I might give you a cookie'.
Heh, that's not what I said, but your - quite odd - interpretation of what I said. Surely I don't expect a murderer to change his way of life if I promise him a cookie. If that was aimed to make me look like an idiot, it's failed. smile

What's more important, saving perhaps several lives, or examining a head case?
Saving lives. Which is exactly why I think an average joe should NOT have a gun. I look at the US where your method of "saving lives" leads to attroucious murder numbers and I simply come to the conclusion, what you suggest isn't actually saving lifes, it's destroying lifes. For reasons I've named several times already within this thread.

Arming the average citizen will not decrease the amount of deaths and injuries, it will INCREASE the amount of deaths and injuries. Less lives saved.

There are many places to shoot people, causing them to cease and desist, without fatally wounding them.
Good to know.
Posted: Sat, 3rd Feb 2007, 6:46am

Post 132 of 388

frodo1987

Force: 850 | Joined: 25th May 2006 | Posts: 68

EffectsLab Pro User

Gold Member

I don't believe that's true. Most "criminals", if we're always going to refer to that word (which is a summary of people who have almost no common reference, except for the fact they're breaking some law.
Must we mince words, or do you really know what I'm talking about?
If you and criminals are so similar, tell me this; if you find yourself running out of money, would you consider plotting a robbery?

Plus, "morals" and "law" are two different things for me
Believe it or not, morals are the reason law was invented.

If the US method is so successful... then why is, statistics show that the US is leading the murder charts I wonder? Quite obviously, the plan doesn't quite do the trick.
Actually, not a heck of a lot of people here carry. Not as many as probably should. And anyway, you dodged the question.

Is this trying to be particularly clever or insulting? Not quite sure why you'd write that really.
To convey incredulity. I specified that no insult was intended in the first part of that quote.

I've made a list of different motivations for people to do or not to do something, nothing more, nothing less.
And they were 'that's not nice', and 'if you don't, you'll get a reward'. To reiterate, tell that to a murderer and document the reaction. I'm truly curious to see what happens.

Saving lives. Which is exactly why I think an average joe should NOT have a gun.
Thus giving evil people no opposition until the cops arrive - by then it may be too late for someone.

I look at the US where your method of "saving lives" leads to attroucious murder numbers and I simply come to the conclusion, what you suggest isn't actually saving lifes, it's destroying lifes.
I already addressed this up there ^^^ a ways, if you want to re-apply it.

Arming the average citizen will not decrease the amount of deaths and injuries, it will INCREASE the amount of deaths and injuries. Less lives saved.
You say that as if an injury is a life lost. While you can't say with surety that deaths will increase, injury without death might. And if those injuries or yes, even deaths, are among the ranks of the criminals/offenders or whatever you wish to call them, that's a step or two toward discouraging crime with effect.
Not to mention it keeps them from killing in the future.
Posted: Sat, 3rd Feb 2007, 9:55am

Post 133 of 388

Sollthar

Force: 13360 | Joined: 30th Oct 2001 | Posts: 6094

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

Must we mince words, or do you really know what I'm talking about?
I've been trained for the last few years in scientific and exact debating - sorry. Using and defining correct terms is vital, if a discussion should ever leave the "regulars table level".

My problem is, you refer to a "criminal" as someone with the sole intention of killing. And that is simply not the case. A low percentage of criminals even resorts to violence, yet alone ever kills someone.
Having a look at murders, scientifically - eg statistically - more then half planned killings don't happen randomly, but between people who know each other and have some sort of relationship: Family, Friends, relatives.

You seem to use the word "criminal" like some people use the word "terrorist" - in a very stereotypical way, as if the majority of these people just wait for their chance to kill. And I don't think that's actually the case in the real world.

We can talk about "murderers" if you want, however, we should both be aware of the fact that we're talking about a small minority of people (who get a lot of media attention obviously), where again most of which are no danger to you if you're not related or connected to them in any way.

If you and criminals are so similar, tell me this; if you find yourself running out of money, would you consider plotting a robbery
I live in a country with a good wellfare. Should I find my social existance threatened - then yes. I would consider plotting a robbery.
I believe so would you. An arguable assumption supported by the "Milgram-Experiment" - good morals is a luxury people have if they are fortunate in enough to be able to afford them. If they're not, they will change.

Believe it or not, morals are the reason law was invented.
Heh, that's again a bit simplistic. I recommend reading Platos "the state" or Theodore Adorno's work over public laws.
Morals are not the reason law was invented - is that what they teach in US highschools? (Not supposed to be an attack, merely a sincere question?)
While morals are definately a part of law creation, they are by far not the only one. There's also cathecorical, economical, social, psychological, educational and rethorical reasoning for laws.

It's a fact every lawyer has to deal with, that laws and morals don't always go hand in hand. Also a reason why dealing with laws is an interesting matter.

Actually, not a heck of a lot of people here carry. Not as many as probably should. And anyway, you dodged the question.
Ah, sorry. What was the exact question? "What else will keep them from continuing in their occupation?"

That's what police is for. I've no problem with armed police forces. They should be allowed to carry a gun and be trained for it. It's their job.
I assume your going to wonder next "what if the police is too late?" - my answer is still:
While this is very unfortunate for the person in question, there must be another solution then arming everyone. Arming everyone will get even MORE people killed. You're welcome to name a country where everyone has a gun for self-protection where NOT many people actually get killed.
I can give you a list of countries where people carry guns and actually use them again supposed "criminals".

To convey incredulity. I specified that no insult was intended in the first part of that quote.
Ah, alright then. Though "Not to insult you, but you're an idiot" is still insulting. smile
But I see, felt like a random thing to write. Sorry for misinterprating then.

And they were 'that's not nice', and 'if you don't, you'll get a reward'. To reiterate, tell that to a murderer and document the reaction. I'm truly curious to see what happens.
Heh, again, you reduce what I said to "talking" to people and tell them "That's not nice" or "You get a X if you kill somene". Which is still not what I said.
I'm talking about a changein our way to think, and changing the way parts of our society work accordingly.

Most societies are built on "punishments", it's the principle a simple mind can comprehend. Disregard the law, and you will be punished.

Scientific long time research in schools (and don't come with "the real world is no school", because the psychological mannerisms within a social environment are similar, wheter you look at "school", "bowling clubs", "lan parties" or "countries") has shown a massive difference in pupils behavior when the punishment for bad behaviour was replaced by a reward system for good behaviour.
Bad behaviour didn't disappear entirely of course, but was massively reduced. (I could explain why if you're interested, though I'm not sure how familiar you are with psychology?)

All I'm saying, a similar system should show similar results when applied to society. I'm not claiming to know exactly how this is supposed to work - give them money? Implement a force system like in fxhome? (Which is a similar thing and I'd say fxhome allows for some good research what positive it does - ever noticed people really do care about force even though it's worth absolutely nothing?).
I don't know, what I'm sure of though, is that the "punishment" deal is - as I've said again where you've ignored me - scientifically proven to be the least effective "educational method". And that's what it's all about, education.

Thus giving evil people no opposition until the cops arrive - by then it may be too late for someone.
That's true. And very unfortunate. As I've said before. If you're only looking at the small picture, giving him a gun might have saved his life. Looking at the big picture and all the reactions that come with the fact everyone has a gun, I'd say he had rather died and saved many other lifes.

While you can't say with surety that deaths will increase
As I've also said before: To me, the main problem isn't really the guns. It's the fear.
I hear Bryce and you talking about the evil "criminals" lurking in the shadows, which shows me, you're actually afraid of the potential chance of getting killed and demand a defens. And I say THAT is the problem.

And combine fear with guns, then I can say with surety, that deaths will increase, as shown by the US, several countries in Africa and south europe.
Posted: Sat, 3rd Feb 2007, 1:45pm

Post 134 of 388

RusSEAL

Force: 1305 | Joined: 17th Jan 2006 | Posts: 106

VisionLab User VideoWrap User Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

You bring up some very interesting and valid points Sollthar, but I find them somewhat confusing...

You mention "Scientific & Exact debate" yet your clarifications rely on unsupported theoretical political conjecture; simple, hand picked vocabulary definitions all intermixed with "statistics" which is a known non-scientific interpretational data manipulation...

Case to wit:

"The definition of "Criminal"- if one sets the standard by which the term is to be used, one should either stay within the confines of statistical data or agree to the notion that we'll be waxing poetic [if you will] over the more-or-less literary or vocabulary definition of the term.

Then we begin the interpretation of a welfare state followed by a willingness to commit a felony based on survival mindset... I'll concede that I must be misinterpreting your rhetorical assumption that with superior welfare one would still be compelled to Armed Robbery- if said welfare were in fact superior, then compelled felonious activity shouldn't enter the equation, should it..?

You site the Milgram-Experiment as a supposition to this underlying premise when it is a known fact that this was conducted solely under theoreticals. As a theory [unlike the hypothesis] though it is true that "good morals are a luxury one can only posses because they can afford them" that is why the theory remains so and not a law. If this Experiment were to prove conclusive the n it would be a law of socio-personal dynamics; it obviously is not.

Please site to me then such roll models as Whoopie Goldberg, George Washington Carver, Martin Luther King, Abraham Lincoln, Oprah Winfrey- et al, etc... All these people and more have risen above the ashes of what you might site as an "inferior" welfare state, abject poverty and unbelievable oppression [in some if not all instances] because of a superior moral high-ground. I'm sorry but the premise you present just doesn't support "logic"- it supports "feelings".

Again, you use theoretical logic and manipulative statistical references to substantiate the "Police-too-late" premise...

"Though it's unfortunate" for the dead in-question? Sorry- but I simply refuse to be one of those sorry blokes that dies just so no "More get killed". I'd just as soon see the intruder die for use in your statistical mathematics.

Statistically, the "I'll show you a country if you show me your's" is old, banal and proves nothing but body counts registered- not crimes thwarted.

What intrigues me in many anti-gun persons analysis of "fear" is the use of the countries USA [always "first" on the list], Africa "and several other countries" for their premise. For the Philippines where gun control is so tight the possession of a gun warrants the death penalty, I'm sure you can show me some Utopian state that lives in Valhalla bliss with nary a bullet in a locked safe.

I'd suggest that for such places as "Africa" look at the driving political structure that sets the standard by which your data stems- "Africa" if we count Mogadishu,Somalia and Dharfur- where only the warlords and their thugs seem to be armed- aka, gun control [of a sort] your analysis is not helped by the comparison.

Unlike the emotionally charged preposition of many forum members, I harbor no such propensity- [well... No more so than it 'concerns me that an emotional lot wants to deride logics to an issue of individual self defense...]

I simply wish clarity to understanding your position and unlike the unfortunate "idiot" comment [I really think that was a moment of "cheekiness" by our esteemed Frodo- or at least I'd rather err on the side of congeniality] I see you as quite intelligent, but perhaps misguided with regard to the weapons issue.

As I've mentioned to Arktic, CP and others- I simply disagree with the analysis you present as surely as you disagree with mine [though I'll concede the possibility of premature Alzheimer's or some such malady if it were to turn out that I were somehow wrong with my beliefs..! wink]

Sorry to disagree so much on this one minute issue, but thankfully there is so much, much more that we can agree on- especially in an artistic environment of general and filmatic creativity as FXHome!

I'll always end by wishing you and everyone worldwide the best for yourself, your city, your country and our world!
Posted: Sat, 3rd Feb 2007, 2:50pm

Post 135 of 388

Penguin

Force: 852 | Joined: 17th May 2006 | Posts: 560

EffectsLab Pro User FXpreset Maker FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

RusSEAL wrote:

Darth Penguin wrote:

You know the longer your posts are the less people read them.
You know- the more terse your comments, the easier it is for me to disregard any respect for your opinion.

Duly noted and equally ignored, esteemed Penguin.
I wasn't meaning any insult to what you said... actually I'm not quite sure what you said smile I was just letting you know that not many people read that post.
Posted: Sat, 3rd Feb 2007, 3:28pm

Post 136 of 388

Bryce007

Force: 1910 | Joined: 5th Apr 2003 | Posts: 2609

VideoWrap User Windows User

Gold Member

Sollthar wrote:



If you and criminals are so similar, tell me this; if you find yourself running out of money, would you consider plotting a robbery
I live in a country with a good wellfare. Should I find my social existance threatened - then yes. I would consider plotting a robbery.
I believe so would you. An arguable assumption supported by the "Milgram-Experiment" - good morals is a luxury people have if they are fortunate in enough to be able to afford them. If they're not, they will change.
I really couldn't tell if this was sarcasm....

Are you saying that you would steal someone else's money simply because you had none of your own?
Posted: Sat, 3rd Feb 2007, 3:58pm

Post 137 of 388

Sollthar

Force: 13360 | Joined: 30th Oct 2001 | Posts: 6094

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

Welcome to the debate then RusSEAL smile

RusSEAL wrote:

You mention "Scientific & Exact debate" yet your clarifications rely on unsupported theoretical political conjecture; simple, hand picked vocabulary definitions all intermixed with "statistics" which is a known non-scientific interpretational data manipulation..
My "scientific debate" was aimed at the "do we mince words" comment. And yes, in every scientific debate, the definition of words used in question is a basic principle that needs to be sorted in order to talk about the same thing. Everything else is your interpretation in what I said. wink
Supporting theories, models and experiments (such as the mentioned Milgram experiment, Plato or Adorno) and statistic data (such as the actual kill counts, which I know are a bit more complex then simple math) are known scientific data - added with an interpretation based on those models.
At least that's what my university teaches us and what I0ve been drilled to for the last years. Obviously, science is NEVER free of interpretation.
Maybe the american image of scientific differs from that - I'd be curious then as to how that is, care to share light on the subject?

Yeah, I just want to make sure what were talking about concerning "criminals". And I assume, we're talking about the minority that uses lethal force. If not, feel free to state otherwise.

I'll concede that I must be misinterpreting your rhetorical assumption that with superior welfare one would still be compelled to Armed Robbery- if said welfare were in fact superior, then compelled felonious activity shouldn't enter the equation, should it..?
I have to agree with you. Wellfare isn't the only factor that defines over criminals or non-criminals.
I do come from a set of belief where most "criminals" are criminals in the first place, because that's what chose as the best option for them. A mindset we swiss often get ridiculed for - but it's our way of looking a things: A "bad person" isn't a bad person to begin with, but because one or more likely several factors of society made him that way. And the solution lies in changing society, not in fighting the actual criminal.

You site the Milgram-Experiment as a supposition to this underlying premise when it is a known fact that this was conducted solely under theoreticals. As a theory [unlike the hypothesis] though it is true that "good morals are a luxury one can only posses because they can afford them" that is why the theory remains so and not a law. If this Experiment were to prove conclusive the n it would be a law of socio-personal dynamics; it obviously is not.
Hm, I don't really understand what you're saying here, sorry. Keep in mind, I'm swiss, not english or american. While my english vocabulary might be suitable for an everyday basis of chats about movies - It's unfortunately true that might not be the case for a higher level of debate, even though I try. Could you rephrase that? smile

Please site to me then such roll models as Whoopie Goldberg, George Washington Carver, Martin Luther King, Abraham Lincoln, Oprah Winfrey- et al, etc... All these people and more have risen above the ashes of what you might site as an "inferior" welfare state, abject poverty and unbelievable oppression [in some if not all instances] because of a superior moral high-ground
I don't see where this would contradict? Low wellfare doesn't equal EVERYONE will turn into a criminal. People have shown to have strength and rise above any expectations from all sorts of origins and misery. I salut the human ability to surpass any expectations.
However, that doesn't neclet the fact not all human beings are as strong as a role model. And those not strong enough to rise on their own merit, need support.
(I assume this is mainly the teacher in me speaking again) smile

"Though it's unfortunate" for the dead in-question? Sorry- but I simply refuse to be one of those sorry blokes that dies just so no "More get killed". I'd just as soon see the intruder die for use in your statistical mathematics.
Well, understandable. Don't think I'd like to be killed for the world being a better place. However, I do believe that the needs of many surpass the needs of few - and while I certainly won't enjoy getting shot for someone else to live, given my current ethics and morals, I would.
I can fully understand why someone else wouldn't. But I still argue that this person might save his own life, but in the long run, endangers other lifes in doing so. A classic "circle", if you will.

Statistically, the "I'll show you a country if you show me your's" is old, banal and proves nothing but body counts registered- not crimes thwarted.
I agree on the second part, not on the first. While I go with the "don't believe any statistics you didn't fake for yourself" saying and am well aware numbers can be used to support anything if used right - it's still one of the few things we have.
Looking at current sistems actually in use and see what the results are. And as I said before - maybe the US leads the murder charts because they're all savages. Maybe it has nothing to do with fact people carry guns in order to use them. I suspect it has, supported (note: supported, not proven) by some of the models I've refered to over this thread.

You've taken a lot of time disproving what I said, so I'd be curious if you have anything to support what you said.

What intrigues me in many anti-gun persons analysis of "fear" is the use of the countries USA [always "first" on the list], Africa "and several other countries" for their premise.
The concept of "fear" is where I see the problem.
I am legally allowed to carry a gun, so are other swiss. But we don't because currently, we see no use for it. In a few years, we won't even have a military anymore.
Now another person carrying a gun, who actually believes there's some sort of danger coming ahead, is likely to use it. And therefore likely to misuse it.

That's the only thing. And yeah, the americans appear frightened to me. And many other europeans. I listen to their presidents talk, to some of their residents talk, and concepts of "evil" everywhere in the world pop up quite often.

"Africa" if we count Mogadishu,Somalia and Dharfur- where only the warlords and their thugs seem to be armed- aka, gun control [of a sort] your analysis is not helped by the comparison.
Yeah, I didn't mean to put the US and the african countries on the same level. That was my whole point. Is there an example serving in favorite for the "if you arm every guy, you have less crime" argument? Which is basically what this is all about.

I simply wish clarity to understanding your position and unlike the unfortunate "idiot" comment [I really think that was a moment of "cheekiness" by our esteemed Frodo- or at least I'd rather err on the side of congeniality] I see you as quite intelligent, but perhaps misguided with regard to the weapons issue
Thank you. For the record, I just really enjoy debating - this is nothign personal to me, even though we're talking about a serious issue.
I could name several models which would support your side of the argument, but then, where would be the fun? biggrin
And perhaps I am wrong. Perhaps handing out guns to every civillian would in fact decrease violence (assuming that's our common goal). I just sincerely believe the opposite is the case.

I simply disagree with the analysis you present as surely as you disagree with mine
Good! The debate would be boring as hell if we'd just sit here and nod at each other in agreement, wouldn't it? smile
Being in disagreement is absolutely no bad thing, it's the basis on moving forward. You have a thesis, I have an antithesis, now it's time to build the synthesis.

Sorry to disagree so much on this one minute issue, but thankfully there is so much, much more that we can agree on- especially in an artistic environment of general and filmatic creativity as FXHome!
Don't apologize for disagreeing. I'm thankful you do. Because apart from the reasons mentioned above, this discussion also helps me to evaluate my own views by having them "clench" against yours or frodos. It's how I "learn" and "evolve in my opinions and world views".



Bryce wrote:

I really couldn't tell if this was sarcasm....

Are you saying that you would steal someone else's money simply because you had none of your own?
Not "simply", but yes. I am saying, that given the wrong circumstances I would steal someone elses money. I might even hurt, or even kill someone.

I can afford the luxury of sitting in front of my computer and debate with people from the other side of the world about how criminals are evil and how they should be allowed to be shot - because I don't lack anything. I've got enough money, I've got a solid social background and society gives me the impression I'm generally well liked the way I am. I have no real reason to do anything "criminal". If I had one, I'd probably do so. And I'd arrgue everyone would. It's just a matter of WHAT has to happen for you to become a criminal.
Posted: Sat, 3rd Feb 2007, 4:34pm

Post 138 of 388

frodo1987

Force: 850 | Joined: 25th May 2006 | Posts: 68

EffectsLab Pro User

Gold Member

My problem is, you refer to a "criminal" as someone with the sole intention of killing.
Actually, no, I'm referring to criminals in this case as someone determined to get what he wants even if it involves killing innocent people. I'm not saying all criminals are that way. Is there a word that encompases all that meaning? I'm using 'criminal'.

I live in a country with a good wellfare. Should I find my social existance threatened - then yes. I would consider plotting a robbery.
I believe so would you. An arguable assumption supported by the "Milgram-Experiment" - good morals is a luxury people have if they are fortunate in enough to be able to afford them. If they're not, they will change.
Uh huh. Sadly enough, I about halfway agree with that. But there are many people with solid enough morals that will not be shaken, or moved to do illegal things even in trying times.
Although, apparently you don't think much of your own moral convictions. Do you think your morals aren't good enough to withstand such times?

Morals are not the reason law was invented...
When do you believe law was created? As in all law. The idea of set rules for a society, no matter which kind.

That's what police is for. I've no problem with armed police forces. They should be allowed to carry a gun and be trained for it. It's their job.
I assume your going to wonder next "what if the police is too late?"
Happens all the time.

You're welcome to name a country where everyone has a gun for self-protection where NOT many people actually get killed.
As of yet, I can't even name a country where everyone carries a gun. So I guess that means your assumptions are somewhat unproven. Granted, so are mine - about it saving lives - but I guess we'll probably have to find out firsthand.

Though "Not to insult you, but you're an idiot" is still insulting.
But I see, felt like a random thing to write.
Do you still think that's what I meant?
And what felt random, what you wrote, or what I wrote?

Heh, again, you reduce what I said to "talking" to people and tell them "That's not nice" or "You get a X if you kill somene". Which is still not what I said.
You said "The moral understanding that doing something is right/wrong, out of respect for someone elses wishes/feelings," in other words, 'that's not nice', "out of the idea you get a reward (which would be the exact opposite)" and 'if you don't, you get a reward'. Was this explanation really necessary?

I'm talking about a changein our way to think, and changing the way parts of our society work accordingly.
I'm pretty sure criminals are the ones who need to change their ways of thinking, not the innocent.

...a massive difference in pupils behavior when the punishment for bad behaviour was replaced by a reward system for good behaviour.
Bad behaviour didn't disappear entirely of course, but was massively reduced.
What country was this in?
In America, public schools are in bad shape because much bad behavior goes unpunished. Those kids think that if they do it right, there will be no consequences.

I don't know, what I'm sure of though, is that the "punishment" deal is - as I've said again where you've ignored me - scientifically proven to be the least effective "educational method".
The 'least effective' because it's now the 'least used'. Way way waaaaay back when America was in it's early years, the punishment system was all they had. And it worked.
A few hundred years later, psychologists rose up and began attributing bad behavior to mental disorders of some kind or another.
All I know is, since they've been doing so, and proposing different ways to achieve order, society has gotten worse as a whole. Maybe someone should revive punishment for a while and see how that goes.

If you're only looking at the small picture, giving him a gun might have saved his life. Looking at the big picture and all the reactions that come with the fact everyone has a gun, I'd say he had rather died and saved many other lifes.
You're trying to tell me that if you gave him a choice, he'd say 'Well, I guess I won't wound him and save my life and the lives of others around me, because if I use a gun, lots of people will die'? Does that make sense?

To me, the main problem isn't really the guns. It's the fear.
I hear Bryce and you talking about the evil "criminals" lurking in the shadows, which shows me, you're actually afraid of the potential chance of getting killed and demand a defens.
No, not really. I've never been afraid of criminals lurking in the shadows, but the fact is evil people do exist in this country. It's common sense to find ways to prevent their success. Combine that with the right to keep and bear arms, and hey, it might work.

And combine fear with guns, then I can say with surety, that deaths will increase, as shown by the US, several countries in Africa and south europe.
I already told you that not a whole lot of folks carry in the U.S. So don't list us as an example of why guns don't work.
And the fact of the matter remains, neither you nor I can see the future. I'm not saying what will definitely happen, I'm saying what probably will happen.
Posted: Sat, 3rd Feb 2007, 6:49pm

Post 139 of 388

Sollthar

Force: 13360 | Joined: 30th Oct 2001 | Posts: 6094

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

Is there a word that encompases all that meaning? I'm using 'criminal'.
Alright, I can live with the word since I now understand what exactly you're referring to.

But there are many people with solid enough morals that will not be shaken, or moved to do illegal things even in trying times.
Although, apparently you don't think much of your own moral convictions. Do you think your morals aren't good enough to withstand such times?
Good question... Really good question. Yes, I believe there are people who will never kill anyone, no matter the circumstances.
If I'm one of them, I really can't tell. I'd like to think my moral convictions are very strong. I know I'm a very strict person when it comes to principals, and I get told so by many people who know me. If they will stand the test of bad times or not, I really can't say. I hope so. But I simply don't know. :I
You think yours would?

When do you believe law was created? As in all law. The idea of set rules for a society, no matter which kind.
Hm, I don't know when the first laws were created. There have been laws way before mankind learned how to write them down - it's assumed that prehistoric societies had sets of laws and forms of punishment too - in written form, there have been many lawbooks - mostly religious nature.
When the first official law was created, I don't know. I doubt anyone does really (Of course, religious people would "claim" otherwise)

I guess we'll probably have to find out firsthand.
That's what'll probably happen, yeah. I'm curious to see the results.

Do you still think that's what I meant? And what felt random, what you wrote, or what I wrote?
The remark felt random. But it's alright, guess I've misinterprated that one then. No big deal. smile

You said "The moral understanding that doing something is right/wrong, out of respect for someone elses wishes/feelings," in other words, 'that's not nice', "out of the idea you get a reward (which would be the exact opposite)" and 'if you don't, you get a reward'. Was this explanation really necessary?
What explanation? I don't get what you're referring to here, sorry.

I'm pretty sure criminals are the ones who need to change their ways of thinking, not the innocent.
Are you familiar with systemic thinking? Not systematic, systemic. It claims the world is a system with factors that are not independent.
Ergo: Both need to change their ways of thinking, not just one. Both.

What country was this in?
I think it was finland or sweden, I'm not sure.

Way way waaaaay back when America was in it's early years, the punishment system was all they had. And it worked.
Well yeah, if you punch enough fear into mankind, they'll probably do what you ask. It's a basic principle most religions are founded on too: Fear of punishment.
However, the "moral" question here is if a man who doesn't kill for the fear of consequences is the actual goal - or a man who doesn't kill because he feels other alternatives are better? I'd choose the later.

All I know is, since they've been doing so, and proposing different ways to achieve order, society has gotten worse as a whole.
Has it? Why would you say so? I don't follow the "the world is going downhill vibe" at all. In fact, I think it's as great today as never before. What was so much better yesterday then today? Sounds like you have a depressing view of the world, sorry to hear that.

You're trying to tell me that if you gave him a choice, he'd say 'Well, I guess I won't wound him and save my life and the lives of others around me, because if I use a gun, lots of people will die'? Does that make sense?
Heh, no. Obviously, the person in question would have been a saint to sacrifice himself. I'm argueing it WOULD be the better thing, yes. Though I'm not sure how many people would have the courage to do so.

the fact is evil people do exist in this country.
Maybe there are evil people, maybe there aren't. And yes, if there are, it is common sense to prevent their success. We're not disagreeing there - wo only disagree on the method.

I already told you that not a whole lot of folks carry in the U.S.
Yeah, I know. I didn't think literally EVEROYNE would... smile

So don't list us as an example of why guns don't work.
Well, I'd love to list you as an example of how your gun law prevents crime. But that's just not the case, is it?

neither you nor I can see the future. I'm not saying what will definitely happen, I'm saying what probably will happen.
Same here. We're debating assumptions. Last time I checked, neither you or me are psychic. Not that I'd mind... smile
Posted: Sat, 3rd Feb 2007, 10:43pm

Post 140 of 388

frodo1987

Force: 850 | Joined: 25th May 2006 | Posts: 68

EffectsLab Pro User

Gold Member

Good question... Really good question. Yes, I believe there are people who will never kill anyone, no matter the circumstances.
Excuse me, I can't tell if you're twisting what I said, or just misunderstood me. I was talking about crossing the line from legal actions to illegal actions.

You think yours would?
Yes.
I assume you'll either ask why, or make a remark about my being high and mighty or something....so I'll be brief in my answer. Especially since forum rules don't look kindly on discussing religion.
My moral strength comes from a source outside my fallible self.

When the first official law was created, I don't know. I doubt anyone does really (Of course, religious people would "claim" otherwise)
Out of curiosity, why did you put the word 'claim' in quotations?

What explanation? I don't get what you're referring to here, sorry.
The explanation of my choice of words. Next time, could you please read the previous posts if you have a question? I'm not being rude, but it distracts from the issue a lot.

Both need to change their ways of thinking, not just one. Both.
Am I correct in assuming then that you don't believe in absolute truth? Or absolute right or wrong?

Well yeah, if you punch enough fear into mankind, they'll probably do what you ask.
You really think that's the only reason you don't go out everyday and kill everyone in your path? No sir, I believe you did mention that you did, in fact, have some morals, correct?
So then it's not simply 'fear of punishment' for all people.
However, when a person goes against morality and/or the set, recorded law for the society, there must be punishment. Not revisions of the law to accomodate their actions.

However, the "moral" question here is if a man who doesn't kill for the fear of consequences is the actual goal - or a man who doesn't kill because he feels other alternatives are better?
Whichever works for different people. Some people need to be afraid of the consequences because at the point they're at, they don't feel other alternatives are better.

What was so much better yesterday then today? Sounds like you have a depressing view of the world, sorry to hear that.
Obviously, I'm not talking about since yesterday. Or even a day-to-day basis necessarily. I'm referring to the history of my country.
And the world ain't all sunshine and roses either. Read newspapers. Listen to the radio. Watch the news. I'm sure we both agree that the world needs help.

I'm argueing it WOULD be the better thing, yes. Though I'm not sure how many people would have the courage to do so.
So you really think one person using a gun in self defense and the defense of others will always cause more innocents to die?

Well, I'd love to list you as an example of how your gun law prevents crime. But that's just not the case, is it?
...And that's because (you knew this was coming) not a whole lot of folks carry guns in the U.S.!

Same here. We're debating assumptions. Last time I checked, neither you or me are psychic.
And yet, last time I checked, you said
Arming the average citizen will not decrease the amount of deaths and injuries, it will INCREASE the amount of deaths and injuries.
Posted: Sat, 3rd Feb 2007, 11:25pm

Post 141 of 388

Sollthar

Force: 13360 | Joined: 30th Oct 2001 | Posts: 6094

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

Excuse me, I can't tell if you're twisting what I said, or just misunderstood me. I was talking about crossing the line from legal actions to illegal actions.
Ah, I misunderstood you then.
I've already crossed the line from legal to illegal actions several times. You never crossed a red light? Made a movie and used copyrighted materials? Downloaded anything off the net? Stole a candy when you were a boy? Took hime the scissors from school and never brought them back?
Kudos to you then.

Yes. I assume you'll either ask why, or make a remark about my being high and mighty or something...
No, not at all. I just think that if you don't even accept the possibility you're not perfect and could fail morally (which is the logical conclusion if you're 100% sure your morals would stand any test) make you a bit too sure of yourself. Apart from not being on par with what most religions claim about the human nature.

Out of curiosity, why did you put the word 'claim' in quotations?
Because that's what it is. Many religious people "claim" to know the truth, like other people "claim" to know a different truth. Yet matter of fact is, both of them don't know. Hence I put "claim".

Next time, could you please read the previous posts if you have a question? I'm not being rude, but it distracts from the issue a lot.
You are being rude, bit at least. Your first sentence is nothing but a sarcastic remark - as if I DIDN'T read what you wrote. I've read what you wrote and didn't understand, I still don't. And your mildly rude answer didn't change that yet. Stop typing "I'm not rude" - just don't be. smile
I'm not trying to fool you. When I write that I don't understand something, I don't understand it and need it rephrased.

Am I correct in assuming then that you don't believe in absolute truth? Or absolute right or wrong?
Of course I don't believe in absolute truth or absolute right or wrong. The concept of a cathegoric imperative has been long obsolete in philosophy for centuries.
I'm constructivist: Ethics and morals are entirely subjective - And while there might or might not be an objective truth is not even of importance, since human lack the ability to grasp it in any way due to constructivistic limits.
(I'm a bit puzzled what that has to do with the whole thing?)

You really think that's the only reason you don't go out everyday and kill everyone in your path?
No, and neither does my statement imply that. The word "only" has never been mentioned by me in that context.

So then it's not simply 'fear of punishment' for all people.
Yes, as I've said. We seem to agree on something. smile

However, when a person goes against morality and/or the set, recorded law for the society, there must be punishment. Not revisions of the law to accomodate their actions.
Do you even realize what you're saying here?? I'm shocked...

You do realize that the american or swiss set of laws came out of societies with entirely different laws - and most of what we do today on an everyday basis was outlawed 1000 years ago? And laws have been changed accordingly?

If punishment was the only reaction for those that go against the law, laws wouldn't evolve and adapt. And - fortunately - they do that regularly. Laws, morals, culture is in a constant change.

Or would you really still have gladiators fight to death, be killed for not saying our daily prayers, have women forced into arranged marriages or killed for witchcraft - just to name a few of those "adaptions"?

(and no, I don't argue for legalizing "murders" - I'm responding to that shockingly shortsightened remark and nothing else)

Some people need to be afraid of the consequences because at the point they're at, they don't feel other alternatives are better.
Agreed. "Some" people. Not all of them.

And the world ain't all sunshine and roses either. Read newspapers. Listen to the radio. Watch the news. I'm sure we both agree that the world needs help.
We both agree that the world isn't a perfect place, yes. I disagree that it's worse then it ever was. I don't wanna live in the middle-ages, or back at roman times. I'm quite happy with what we achieved today. Which doesn't mean we still have a long way ahead of us.

So you really think one person using a gun in self defense and the defense of others will always cause more innocents to die?
No. I really think that a society in which numerous people carry a gun in order to defend themselves will cause more people to die then a society in which guns are not carried by the average pleb.
(If I'm not mistaken, should you be christian, is also how super role model jesus dealt with violence. Or maybe I missed the part where he pulled his MP out and killed those who tried to crucify him. I wasn't always paying full attention in religion classes) smile

And yet, last time I checked, you said : Arming the average citizen will not decrease the amount of deaths and injuries, it will INCREASE the amount of deaths and injuries.
Erm.. yeah. I fail to see what that has to do with debating assumptions though...?
Posted: Sun, 4th Feb 2007, 2:37am

Post 142 of 388

Fill

Force: 1257 | Joined: 1st Jul 2005 | Posts: 1652

CompositeLab Lite User EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

Well, as many have said, "Guns are the reasons that people are killed" I have to disagree. I'm not promoting guns but you people obviously don't live where I live. If someone wants to kill another person, they'll do anything to accomplish such a thing. There was a family a block away from my house of three children and one mother killed by the father and husband and he did not use a gun He strangled them to death.

It's not the gun that does the crime it's the man that pulls the trigger. If a criminal wants someone killed they could use many methods. But since a gun is such a simple thing to use, I guess in a morbid way, it's more popular. What I'm trying to say is that guns are just tools. A filmmaker can use Effects Lab to to make cool light saber effects but can Effects Lab sit on a hard drive and do such a thing by itself? No. Someone must use the tool. The same applies to guns.

Think of what man used before guns. When they didn't exist the same crimes took place.

I guess the whole point of this post is to point out that man in it's natural ways will always find a new way to do something whether it's killing, computing, transportation, or a new way of life.
Posted: Sun, 4th Feb 2007, 2:51am

Post 143 of 388

Hybrid-Halo

Force: 9315 | Joined: 7th Feb 2003 | Posts: 3367

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 3 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

You don't get killed by stray pieces of metal that have missed their target at a nearby knife fight though. Guns however...

I think that Fire-arms are so embedded within American Culture and the generally accepted way of life that it's become impossible to see the simplicity of this subject. The fact that Guns are mortally dangerous is reason alone to disallow the general public access to them. Let alone those who may use them or be tempted to use them to break the law.

Of course, this won't happen. As movement or laws to restrict gun ownership would simply result in the law-abiding citizens become un-armed in an environment in which the law breakers would remain armed. I highly doubt that it'd even be possible.

The self defence argument I find amusing - Everyone is defending themselves against people who are defending themselves from them. Your country must be a wonderful and safe feeling place to live for this to have happened.

-Hybrid.
Posted: Sun, 4th Feb 2007, 3:39am

Post 144 of 388

RusSEAL

Force: 1305 | Joined: 17th Jan 2006 | Posts: 106

VisionLab User VideoWrap User Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

Darth Penguin wrote:

RusSEAL wrote:

Darth Penguin wrote:

You know the longer your posts are the less people read them.
You know- the more terse your comments, the easier it is for me to disregard any respect for your opinion.

Duly noted and equally ignored, esteemed Penguin.
I wasn't meaning any insult to what you said... actually I'm not quite sure what you said smile I was just letting you know that not many people read that post.
No harm no foul [penguin, bird... Did I really have to go for the worst pun?!] in this case DP!

Let's both take the witticism as nothing more than levity!

No- the esoteric nature of film theory reads like a person trying to read a dry psychological textbook while strung out on crystal meth... It makes sense so long as everyone in the room is high. eek
Posted: Sun, 4th Feb 2007, 4:06am

Post 145 of 388

RusSEAL

Force: 1305 | Joined: 17th Jan 2006 | Posts: 106

VisionLab User VideoWrap User Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

Hybrid-Halo wrote:

The self defense argument I find amusing - Everyone is defending themselves against people who are defending themselves from them. Your country must be a wonderful and safe feeling place to live for this to have happened.

-Hybrid.
You anecdote reminds me of an old Zen parable:

A Bhudist monk happens into a busy street in a small burgh.

There seems to be an uproar within the burgh as one side of the street has one group angrily shouting at the other side who is in like-turn doing the same.

The monk stops at some point half way along the thin stretch of street lined with respective mob. He simply turns and looks to one group and then in childlike fashion turns to look at the other...

After vain attempts to persuade or cajole the monk into seeing their side of whatever vitriol has rankled them- either side of the street sends a representative to talk to the addle-minded monk.

Once the representatives are close to the monk, he asks only three separate questions and receives the same 3 answers from both parties...

Monk: Why do you fight?
Rep 1, Rep 2: We fight against oppression!

Monk: Oh..? and who would you allow to oppress you so?
Rep1, Rep 2: I allow no man to oppress me!

Monk: If no one oppresses you- then why do you fight?
Rep 1, Rep 2: *****blank stare*****

The monk walks out of the burgh, a much quieter place than when he arrived.

Guns, no guns- knives, cudgels or rocks... Truth be told; my travels in this world have led me to some conclusions that you younger folks might find too damn simple or far too simple as to be almost obtuse...

1: "The Good Old Days" weren't always good and tomorrow ain't as bad as it seems.
2: Any truly civilized country is only a measure of civility by the criminals it keeps [Cicero].
3: "We all here, cause we ain't all there"- Cajone Joe, a Cajun I once met in Louisiana- probably smarter in common sense than most people are in "horse sense"...

May we all one day garner the clarity of an itinerate Zen Bhudist Monk or that of Cajone Joe...
Posted: Sun, 4th Feb 2007, 4:33am

Post 146 of 388

Kid

Force: 4177 | Joined: 1st Apr 2001 | Posts: 1876

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User Windows User

Gold Member

Buddhist monks arn't above it all. Check out what happened in my home town.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/hampshire/dorset/2928881.stm

Spookily enough I must have walked past that exact suitcase coming back from Reading that day.
Posted: Sun, 4th Feb 2007, 8:13am

Post 147 of 388

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Sounds like everybody needs to take a few steps back and realize that there are moments like this that measure what you would do for survival.

Don't understand? Well then, my friend, you need a good dose of "Cover's Story".
Posted: Mon, 5th Feb 2007, 12:39pm

Post 148 of 388

RusSEAL

Force: 1305 | Joined: 17th Jan 2006 | Posts: 106

VisionLab User VideoWrap User Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

Kid wrote:

Buddhist monks arn't above it all. Check out what happened in my home town.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/hampshire/dorset/2928881.stm

Spookily enough I must have walked past that exact suitcase coming back from Reading that day.
You must have been one of the villagers on that side of the street...

Congratulations for managing to take that full, spread eagle plunge into the emptied pool of ideology.

What your analogous or inferenced link has to do with my parable; other than some form of dismal, sad attempt at come-upance; boggles the mind.

Zen Bhuddism as a philosopy [or "way of thinking" if that helps] imparts an almost addle mineded approach to solving some of life's problems. Some time ago it was grasped as some form of religious ideology that for at least a few seems to work for them- all save the blighter you managed to dredge up for no cogetive reason.

"It is, because it is" is one of many mantras led by those who follw Zen as a mindset.

Oddly enough thogh, the monk in my story, who for the type of Zen he would have studied; would most likely have dove right in after you to experience your brand of "enlightenment" with such a post.

We're all falable, mortal creatures- I placed no higher moral code on my protaganist's philosophy/religion; only on his common sense... Something yet again totally missed by a few.
Posted: Mon, 5th Feb 2007, 1:37pm

Post 149 of 388

Sollthar

Force: 13360 | Joined: 30th Oct 2001 | Posts: 6094

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

Ahw, RusSEAL. You disagree with me, challenge me, make we write a whole paragraph in response and then you ignore me. sad

*me goes cry*
Posted: Mon, 5th Feb 2007, 1:44pm

Post 150 of 388

Xcession

Force: 42802 | Joined: 21st Mar 2001 | Posts: 1964

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 3 Pro User Windows User

SuperUser

Someone needs to pep this thread up a little. It started out interesting, but now the sheer volume of unreadably over-written prose, quoting and pendantry is really bogging it down. Someone please say something using words and syntax that the younger forum members can join in with.
Posted: Mon, 5th Feb 2007, 2:38pm

Post 151 of 388

Kid

Force: 4177 | Joined: 1st Apr 2001 | Posts: 1876

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User Windows User

Gold Member

I think russeal has seen that his argument has no common sense, scientific or statistical backing and has instead decided to waffle us to death. razz
Posted: Mon, 5th Feb 2007, 2:53pm

Post 152 of 388

Orin Warren

Force: 658 | Joined: 2nd Oct 2006 | Posts: 461

Windows User

Member

That what I would do to win a fight, I love waffleing people to death. But I'm sorry to enter this debate so late and I must say I didn't read of it just yet. But if I'm right was the debate about guns in movies? if so I see they don't need to be if the movie doesn't call for it, but if it does then okay go ahead!
But one can make an action movie with out guns by useing sword fighting or hand to hand combat if they take their time. Right now I'm working on a movie thats going to use all kinds of styles of fighting. Their are going to be guns, but guns run out of bullets so go to the next best thing. I hope this helps in some small why.
Posted: Mon, 5th Feb 2007, 3:14pm

Post 153 of 388

drspin98

Force: 470 | Joined: 14th May 2005 | Posts: 438

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Pro User Windows User

Gold Member

O.W. Love the photo under your post!
Posted: Mon, 5th Feb 2007, 4:59pm

Post 154 of 388

Orin Warren

Force: 658 | Joined: 2nd Oct 2006 | Posts: 461

Windows User

Member

So do I, So do I wink
Posted: Mon, 5th Feb 2007, 6:25pm

Post 155 of 388

Hybrid-Halo

Force: 9315 | Joined: 7th Feb 2003 | Posts: 3367

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 3 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

Hehe, That's from Project One - The film I did the effects for razz

Once again - that guns are in some way cool was never in doubt.

-Hybrid.
Posted: Mon, 5th Feb 2007, 7:23pm

Post 156 of 388

frodo1987

Force: 850 | Joined: 25th May 2006 | Posts: 68

EffectsLab Pro User

Gold Member

Sorry for the wait. I was watching the Super Bowl yesterday, so I didn't have a lot of computer time. Now back to business.....

I just think that if you don't even accept the possibility you're not perfect and could fail morally (which is the logical conclusion if you're 100% sure your morals would stand any test) make you a bit too sure of yourself.
That's why I stated that I am helped by an outside source. It's not that I'm so sure of my own perfection.

Many religious people "claim" to know the truth, like other people "claim" to know a different truth. Yet matter of fact is, both of them don't know. Hence I put "claim".
Yeah, I understand why you said the word, I just didn't know why you put it in quotes. The word implies doubt as to the validity of the statement the word refers to, so I was just wondering.

You are being rude, bit at least. Your first sentence is nothing but a sarcastic remark - as if I DIDN'T read what you wrote. I've read what you wrote and didn't understand, I still don't.
I'm sorry. That was my fault. I meant to say 're-read'.
I was referring to my explanation of my statement showing the comparison between what you said, and what I said - showing that they mirrored each other.

Of course I don't believe in absolute truth or absolute right or wrong.
Let me ask you this; is it ever good, or okay, or all right, humanly speaking, to murder a random person at any time?

The concept of a cathegoric imperative has been long obsolete in philosophy for centuries.
Are you absolutely sure about that?

I'm a bit puzzled what that has to do with the whole thing?
Nothing directly, I just wanted to know what I was dealing with. This makes my job, saying it's right to defend yourself and others from evil, a lot harder. But on the flip side, I guess it also makes yours harder too - saying it's not good or right.

No, and neither does my statement imply that. The word "only" has never been mentioned by me in that context.
Ok, so it's one of the reasons? If it wasn't there, would you consider going out everyday and killing everyone in your path?

Do you even realize what you're saying here?? I'm shocked...
I was clearly speaking within the context of criminal violence and the wrongness thereof.

Agreed. "Some" people. Not all of them.
Good. Then we agree that the 'others' have such morals as prevent them from taking such illegal actions. So the fear designed to prevent the 'some' doesn't apply so much to the 'others'.
This casts new light on your assertion that fear of consequences is a bad thing. This means that this fear affects only the ones it's designed to work on.
That, my friend, is a very good thing.

I really think that a society in which numerous people carry a gun in order to defend themselves will cause more people to die then a society in which guns are not carried by the average pleb.
Well, since they're only carrying them for protection, and not for violence's sake, I say it's in the best interests of the lives people that we give it a shot (no pun intended.... unsure ). And anyway, we're still not talking about killing people in self-defense necessarily.

If I'm not mistaken, should you be christian, is also how super role model jesus dealt with violence. Or maybe I missed the part where he pulled his MP out and killed those who tried to crucify him.
For the record, Sollthar brought this up, not I. I worsh my proverbial hands..... razz
His death was the reason Jesus was born - to die for the sins of the whole world. It wasn't a matter of self-defense, and as such, it is irrelevant to the conversation at hand. May I ask that you refrain from bringing up off-topics in which you do not believe anyway?

Erm.. yeah. I fail to see what that has to do with debating assumptions though...?
For you to say *paraphrase* 'this will definitely happen for sure, at least, I assume so' is a contradiction.

Last edited Mon, 5th Feb 2007, 7:32pm; edited 1 times in total.

Posted: Mon, 5th Feb 2007, 7:27pm

Post 157 of 388

Xcession

Force: 42802 | Joined: 21st Mar 2001 | Posts: 1964

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 3 Pro User Windows User

SuperUser

Rating: +1/-1

Is there any risk that you'll get back to the actual topic, rather than picking holes in eachother's grammar or phrasing? This is getting tedious as hell.
Posted: Mon, 5th Feb 2007, 7:28pm

Post 158 of 388

Hybrid-Halo

Force: 9315 | Joined: 7th Feb 2003 | Posts: 3367

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 3 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

Xcession wrote:

Is there any risk that you'll get back to the actual topic, rather than picking holes in eachother's grammar or phrasing? This is getting tedious as hell.
Agreed. I was tempted to delete that last cacophony of quotations.
Posted: Mon, 5th Feb 2007, 7:35pm

Post 159 of 388

frodo1987

Force: 850 | Joined: 25th May 2006 | Posts: 68

EffectsLab Pro User

Gold Member

Rating: +1

Whatever for? You're not exactly being forced to read it, but if anyone cares, at least they can. That's what a forum is for.
Posted: Mon, 5th Feb 2007, 7:37pm

Post 160 of 388

Bryce007

Force: 1910 | Joined: 5th Apr 2003 | Posts: 2609

VideoWrap User Windows User

Gold Member

Xcession managed to echo my thoughts on the last, oh, 5 pages.


Nothings more fun than arguing at a near atomic level!
Posted: Mon, 5th Feb 2007, 7:38pm

Post 161 of 388

Xcession

Force: 42802 | Joined: 21st Mar 2001 | Posts: 1964

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 3 Pro User Windows User

SuperUser

Because I do care and do want to read it. The debate at the heart of this is of particular interest to me, but your banal pedantry is making the entire thread worthless. At least do us a favour and reply to eachother without quoting individual lines. A solid block of text which discusses the point and not someone's use of punctuation, is all we ask.
Posted: Mon, 5th Feb 2007, 7:40pm

Post 162 of 388

Waser

Force: 4731 | Joined: 7th Sep 2003 | Posts: 3111

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

SuperUser

Rating: +1

Posted: Mon, 5th Feb 2007, 7:42pm

Post 163 of 388

Hybrid-Halo

Force: 9315 | Joined: 7th Feb 2003 | Posts: 3367

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 3 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

frodo1987 wrote:

Whatever for? You're not exactly being forced to read it, but if anyone cares, at least they can. That's what a forum is for.
I think you'll find that the people who do find this an interesting topic are being put off posting because you and Sollthar have turned this thread into a two person quotations war.

I'm reading this thread as things progress and I've started to just skip the long, drawn out postings. You can reply without quoting every single word someone says, the whole thing is just so pedantic - no argument is waterproof in every sense so you guys need to put away your microscopes and start addressing the topic at hand.

If you want to continue your discussion then you're free to private message each other. This is however - a forum topic. Mine and Xcession's post are in the hopes of bringing this thread back on topic and back into something people can discuss - which is exactly what a forum is for.

-Hybrid.
Posted: Mon, 5th Feb 2007, 8:18pm

Post 164 of 388

Orin Warren

Force: 658 | Joined: 2nd Oct 2006 | Posts: 461

Windows User

Member

I agree with Halo and Xcession,
This has become to hard to read with all the quotes! You don't know where it came from or who said it, I might understand if I read the whole thing. But I didn't so if any one did come in they would be lost in this choas as I am. Now can we stop fighting and get back to the deabte. And I'm sorry if I sounded harsh.
Posted: Mon, 5th Feb 2007, 9:06pm

Post 165 of 388

Sollthar

Force: 13360 | Joined: 30th Oct 2001 | Posts: 6094

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

I seriously don't get the issue - neither of us was discussing anyone elses punctuation or grammar...? Clarifying phrasing is important, seeing our words are the main mean of communication we have through a written board.

As normal with complex debates, they're soon spawning side topics which are directly or indirectly relevant to the point. The ability to quote like that and keep several sidetopics trackable is the biggest advantage for me when debating in a forum. I'm a bit perplexed as to why this exact advantage should now be ignored? neutral


Well, since so many people seem to have a problem with it being as it is, I'll respect that and stop then.

Thanks a lot frodo for the discussion. Different to others obviously, I've very much enjoyed it.
Posted: Mon, 5th Feb 2007, 9:28pm

Post 166 of 388

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

Sollthar wrote:

As normal with complex debates, they're soon spawning side topics which are directly or indirectly relevant to the point. The ability to quote like that and keep several sidetopics trackable is the biggest advantage for me when debating in a forum. I'm a bit perplexed as to why this exact advantage should now be ignored? neutral
Side-topics and defining terms are both valid, inevitable and important parts of any decent debate. I think what xcession, hybrid and some others have problems with is more the presentation than the content.

The style of quoting a single sentence-or-two, then replying with a similarly short sentence, results in your posts and, thus, the entire debate becoming piecemeal, difficult to read and very fragmented. The result is that the debate is taken to such a precise level that it becomes impossible for other people to easily become involved, without having to similarly reduce things to an infinitesimal degree - and thus the actual point/drive of the thread is lost. Rather than posts having a clear structure and several specific points, they become a collection of miniature points with no clear through-route.

If we could just refrain from the micro-quoting and make our points in a less fractured manner, it would make the debate far easier to follow. Clarity is of course important, but in this case I think it's actually made the discussion even more obtuse, rather than more defined.

Nobody has a problem with complex debates, I'm sure, or thread drift or tangents. It's just the presentation. smile
Posted: Mon, 5th Feb 2007, 9:59pm

Post 167 of 388

Sollthar

Force: 13360 | Joined: 30th Oct 2001 | Posts: 6094

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

Hmm... Seems my way of debating isn't very compatible with a public forum then, as I honestly thought this was one of the, if not the most interesting and most precise debate I've had on fxhome yet.

Though as I'm not unfamiliar with other people finding my way of debating too pedantic and unmanagable, I'll accept the concerns and draw back from the thread then. No hard feelings. smile

It's just the presentation.
I'll make sure to add some flowers or nice patterns to my quotes next time. smile


Nah, just kidding. I know what you mean.
Posted: Mon, 5th Feb 2007, 10:04pm

Post 168 of 388

Fill

Force: 1257 | Joined: 1st Jul 2005 | Posts: 1652

CompositeLab Lite User EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

Are we debating.. about debates?
Posted: Tue, 6th Feb 2007, 7:16pm

Post 169 of 388

frodo1987

Force: 850 | Joined: 25th May 2006 | Posts: 68

EffectsLab Pro User

Gold Member

Well, Sollthar summed it up really well in his last two posts. I guess if it's that big a problem to you all, then we'll stop.
Thanks to you Sollthar for a good, challenging, civil debate!
Posted: Wed, 7th Feb 2007, 1:35am

Post 170 of 388

CurtinParloe

Force: 841 | Joined: 16th Oct 2001 | Posts: 916

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

Thanks for an interesting read, everyone. Occasionally it even strayed into the topic I wanted to talk about wink
Posted: Wed, 7th Feb 2007, 2:47am

Post 171 of 388

ben3308

Force: 5210 | Joined: 24th May 2004 | Posts: 6433

VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

I just wanted to jump into the debate really quickly and say that I live in Oak Cliff, the worst crime district of Dallas, Texas; which is factually the most dangerous city in the United States, with the highest general, murder and violent crime rates than anywhere else in the country and I'm not usually as afraid of being shot as I am of being mugged, beaten or stabbed.

I'm a middle class white male, so where I live (mostly minority neighborhood rampant with different types of crime) I am the prime target, and I have to agree that if I carried a gun around, I'd be better suited for protection than without one. In fact, I've actually carried an airsoft gun around upon going to places with large parking lots like Walmart and such, just in case something happens. Most often, the hoodlums and thugs here partake in gang beatings and things of the sort, so with a gun, the victim wields the power.

That being said, I'm not too gung-ho about guns, even if every other Texan is supposed to own one (which hardly anybody does). If you've seen Borat, the scene where's he's at the gun store buying a gun to "shoot Jews" was shot at Ray's Gun Shop, about a mile and a half away from my house. Just some trivia, right there.
Posted: Wed, 7th Feb 2007, 9:42am

Post 172 of 388

CurtinParloe

Force: 841 | Joined: 16th Oct 2001 | Posts: 916

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

ben3308 wrote:

I just wanted to jump into the debate really quickly
Too late wink
Posted: Wed, 7th Feb 2007, 12:30pm

Post 173 of 388

RusSEAL

Force: 1305 | Joined: 17th Jan 2006 | Posts: 106

VisionLab User VideoWrap User Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

Sollthar wrote:

Ahw, RusSEAL. You disagree with me, challenge me, make we write a whole paragraph in response and then you ignore me. sad

*me goes cry*
No, No!

I've got to study up before I can answer your talking points!

Honestly, it's obvious that you've got quite the scholarly mentality! I can tell that in order to properly debate with you, I'll have to be "two steps ahead, just to be one step behind you"!

This old fart has to do his homework before I can show up to class!

By all means, if people are getting a headache from trying to decipher the quoted text versus the rebuttle text we can always continue this as an IM or e-mail if you wish!

Lively conversation and healthy debate [especially when I can learn something so valuable] is something I truly enjoy!

By the way, Sollathar- NEVER sell yourself short when it comes to the communication gap we may have with language! You handle English incredibly well! [Ummm- perhaps better than I do at times! redface] The fact that you're interested in my perspective is humbling!

Now...

Kid- yes, I like "waffles"; especially with strawberry preserves. razz

My parable was analogous to Hybrid's. Mine was simply a note about how boiling down the difference of opinion to nothing more than the essential worth that any person places on "intellectual property" makes a stalemated argument moot.

At any time you'd like to get back to "facts & figures" I'll offer the same invitation to you as well- true debate devoid of "feelings" [unless that's a parameter to the debate] I will always welcome.

I value your side of the debate so long as there's value to be had. I would expect nothing less from you.

Peace!
Posted: Mon, 16th Apr 2007, 4:57pm

Post 174 of 388

petet2

Force: 2899 | Joined: 27th Dec 2005 | Posts: 1043

VisionLab User VideoWrap User Windows User

Gold Member

Another appalling tragedy hits the headlines with at least 20 people killed, a direct result of a society where guns are available in supermarkets.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6560685.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4371403.stm

My thoughts are with all the victims and their families.
Posted: Mon, 16th Apr 2007, 5:09pm

Post 175 of 388

Waser

Force: 4731 | Joined: 7th Sep 2003 | Posts: 3111

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

SuperUser

I was just about to post something about this. Jesus christ.
Posted: Mon, 16th Apr 2007, 5:11pm

Post 176 of 388

Sollthar

Force: 13360 | Joined: 30th Oct 2001 | Posts: 6094

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

It's always sad when uninvolved people have to die for another ones rage.

May they rest in peace.
Posted: Mon, 16th Apr 2007, 6:34pm

Post 177 of 388

Corby

Force: 477 | Joined: 4th Dec 2006 | Posts: 93

EffectsLab Pro User Windows User

Gold Member

then there's the old saying "if you outlaw guns, then only outlaws will have guns". I don't know if you guys have already mentioned that and talked about(i'm unfortunately too lazy to read 12 pages right now but will later) I am a strong supporter of the second amendment which was made specifically for the purpose of in case the government infringed on the rights of the people and no longer did what was best for the people. as V said, "People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people"
Posted: Mon, 16th Apr 2007, 8:10pm

Post 178 of 388

petet2

Force: 2899 | Joined: 27th Dec 2005 | Posts: 1043

VisionLab User VideoWrap User Windows User

Gold Member

Maybe we should add "...and if only outlaws have guns school kids don't get to shoot their class mates" to that quote. If only outlaws (and the police) had guns then there would be a whole lot less guns in the world which would (in my opinion) make the world a whole lot safer place to live (and if it's harder to get guns then it's harder for outlaws to get guns and so less outlaws have guns, etc...).

It was a long and at times heated debate and there were some supporters of the right to bear arms who made their points eloquently. I still disagree with their point of view and I know I didn't convince them. That's democracy and I respect their views as I hope they respect mine.

But now isn't the time to reopen that debate, now is the time to mourn for the 31 dead students and their families.
Posted: Mon, 16th Apr 2007, 8:16pm

Post 179 of 388

Sollthar

Force: 13360 | Joined: 30th Oct 2001 | Posts: 6094

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

Yeah, throwing in such a random quote at a point like this seems slightly questionable Corby.


Working as a teacher myself I'm speechless that 31 students are erased just like that. It's always tragic.
Posted: Mon, 16th Apr 2007, 8:28pm

Post 180 of 388

Waser

Force: 4731 | Joined: 7th Sep 2003 | Posts: 3111

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

SuperUser

I've been a supporter of the 2nd amendment for a while, but I always did so with a heavy heart. I hate guns with a passion (in real life), but always felt like it really was a person's right to own one. Stuff like this always makes me question where I stand on the issue, and I feel like my opinion is being whittled down to thinking that I don't care if it's a right. Times change, and maybe the 2nd amendment does too.
Posted: Mon, 16th Apr 2007, 8:29pm

Post 181 of 388

Corby

Force: 477 | Joined: 4th Dec 2006 | Posts: 93

EffectsLab Pro User Windows User

Gold Member

I never meant to sound as if I was "erasing" those kids. I fully agree that it was VERY tragic and wasnt something anyone would want. I agree that we'll all just have to agree to disagree about gun control.
Posted: Mon, 16th Apr 2007, 8:33pm

Post 182 of 388

Sollthar

Force: 13360 | Joined: 30th Oct 2001 | Posts: 6094

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

I didn't mean you, I meant the killer who "erased" them.

I agree that we'll all just have to agree to disagree about gun control.
Honestly, agreeing to disagree is a weak thing in my eyes. It's just another way of saying "Let's do nothing".
Because agreeing to disagree is the beginning of any development, not it's end... It's where an intelligent debate should begin.


Well, anyways. This is the wrong time to reopen this debate. And I said I'll stay out of it anyways not anger Tarn and xcession with my pedanticness... wink

Last edited Mon, 16th Apr 2007, 8:47pm; edited 2 times in total.

Posted: Mon, 16th Apr 2007, 8:34pm

Post 183 of 388

Rawree

Force: 3250 | Joined: 27th Jun 2002 | Posts: 1925

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

Corby wrote:

I never meant to sound as if I was "erasing" those kids. I fully agree that it was VERY tragic and wasnt something anyone would want. I agree that we'll all just have to agree to disagree about gun control.
He wasn't saying that you'd erased them, it was a comment about the kind of inhuman scum who shot up the university.

Oh and I'm with Sollthar on the issue of "agreeing to disagree", it always seems like such a cop out and in my eyes is as good as an admission that your argument doesn't hold up but you don't want to admit it (be it to others or yourself).
Posted: Mon, 16th Apr 2007, 8:37pm

Post 184 of 388

Hybrid-Halo

Force: 9315 | Joined: 7th Feb 2003 | Posts: 3367

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 3 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

Uh oh, I have some friends at that Uni. Time to make some phone calls.

Surprised to see the term "shocked" being used so much in the media coverage. Is it really that big a surprise? Check out the timeline...

"if you outlaw guns, then only outlaws will have guns"
Of course if guns are outlawed only outlaws will have them as be exact definition of that law - if you owned a gun you'd be a law breaker/outlaw.

-Hybrid.
Posted: Mon, 16th Apr 2007, 9:10pm

Post 185 of 388

Corby

Force: 477 | Joined: 4th Dec 2006 | Posts: 93

EffectsLab Pro User Windows User

Gold Member

the reason I said "agree to disagree" was because I'm just freaking tired of arguing with people on the internet and I have decided not to post in these kind of threads for a while until I feel like arguing again. So I will only be posting in non-debate threads for awhile.
Posted: Mon, 16th Apr 2007, 9:18pm

Post 186 of 388

Sollthar

Force: 13360 | Joined: 30th Oct 2001 | Posts: 6094

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

I'm just freaking tired of arguing with people on the internet and I have decided not to post in these kind of threads for a while until I feel like arguing again
Why you'd post here to begin with then is beyond me. unsure


Yeah, the "if you outlaw guns, then only outlaws will have guns" phrase sounds like something out of a bad propaganda book. While the phrase itself is definately catchy, it's nothing but rethorical nonsense if you look a bit closer with little actual value.

I hope nothing happend to your friends Hybrid-Halo...
Posted: Mon, 16th Apr 2007, 9:33pm

Post 187 of 388

ben3308

Force: 5210 | Joined: 24th May 2004 | Posts: 6433

VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

I brought up this FXhome topic during a seminar at school about two weeks ago, and we spent all of AP English last week discussing the issue of gun control and politics. We're learning to write effective arguments (which I'm usually good at) and so we watched Bowling for Columbine to see how a very compelling argument can be supported.

Especially after seeing the movie and the recent events, I've resolved something: guns don't kill people, people kill people. Sure, you can outlaw guns. But just as drugs are outlawed, they are still sold rampantly. In fact, in the movie it said somewhere around 70% of all gun crimes in the US are with black market guns. So I don't think gun control is the problem, I think it's people control. I think the US and our political (at least since 9/11) scare tactics get us so tightly wound in fear and paranoia that eventually one in a few will snap and go ballistic on everyone.

We need to instill a higher sense of happiness and optimism in the American public. Just at school, while painting a happy portrait of Bill Cosby, I was surprised to see that everything was shut down to watch the news about the Virginia massacre. And while I of course deeply regret what happened and feel for the people and whose families are involved, I can't help but feel that showing "The Situation Room" across 1/4 of the TVs in the school only perpetuates the sense of fear. I myself know that I went from happy (but with a still caution and reserve for self preservation) to paranoid and scared somebody was going to come into my school.

People need to change first. Look at September and October of last year. One school shooting occurs, and of course, the nation is horrified. But for a whole month the media pollutes the air with images and news of the shooting and this inspires another shooting less than a month later. Two days after that, another copycat shooter tries the same thing and kills people.

We need to lower the tension in America. That's our problem. Coming from a state who glorified independence was gained primarily through guns and bloodshed (a la the Alamo) and being someone whose family has suffered both loss and gain at the hands of guns, I believe we have the human right to protect ourselves through whatever means necessary, just perhaps not the right to use those means without proper education or discipline.

Last edited Mon, 16th Apr 2007, 9:44pm; edited 1 times in total.

Posted: Mon, 16th Apr 2007, 9:44pm

Post 188 of 388

Rawree

Force: 3250 | Joined: 27th Jun 2002 | Posts: 1925

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

I do tend to think of the "guns don't kill people" thing as another piece of rhetoric that's always trotted out in these discussions but that's neither here nor there.

I'm not sure how the 70% figure works as an argument against gun control though; I'd confidently say that the amount of gun crime comitted in the UK with black market weapons is hovering around the 100% mark and yet there's substantially lower instances of gun crime occurring. Of course criminals will always have guns but if some deaths can be prevented through tighter control isn't that worth it?

Of course the idea of gun control ever becoming reality in America is sadly laughable.
Posted: Mon, 16th Apr 2007, 9:48pm

Post 189 of 388

Plainly

Force: 1537 | Joined: 27th Dec 2006 | Posts: 767

VisionLab User FXpreset Maker Windows User

Gold Member

The thing with guns it that it is a handy tool for paranoid people. Also, in war, other then bombs and nuclear thingys (that includs bombs, of course...), it's best to use guns then swords. If your enemy has guns and you decide to use swords instead, then you have no chance.

So if you understand the preceding paragraph correcly, you might think that I'm for having a gun, right?


Absolutely not.

Because if you can be violent, it is easier to be violent. You know what I mean? If you have a gun with you in the street at night, and then you see a gang coming near you, your first thought would be to shoot them. If you don't have a gun, though, then you'd simply run into the first building you'd see.

Anyways.

To tell you the truth, I wouldn't mind that much being shot (if I die on the spot, anyways). Cause I mean, if you get shot, then you simply die. But if you die in another way - drown for example -, then it's long and painful. Ugg. I'd hate to drown!

CurtinParloe wrote:

There are images glamorizing guns in so many film posters; The Terminator, Casino Royale, Hot Fuzz, and even Pirates of the Caribbean.
For Pirates of the Caribbean, there aren't any gunfights, though, so I wouldn't say it really counts.

PS- Nice topic. wink
Posted: Mon, 16th Apr 2007, 9:55pm

Post 190 of 388

Rawree

Force: 3250 | Joined: 27th Jun 2002 | Posts: 1925

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

Plainly Canadian wrote:


To tell you the truth, I wouldn't mind that much being shot (if I die on the spot, anyways). Cause I mean, if you get shot, then you simply die. But if you die in another way - drown for example -, then it's long and painful. Ugg. I'd hate to drown!
Whilst there are one or two legitimate points embedded in your whole post I really do take issue with this statement almost to the point that it makes that irrelevent and I'm sure there are a huge number of people in the world who could quite easily get offended by it.

This is just looks like some kind of assumption based on movie portrayals and an apparent lack of common sense but does illustrate one problem with movie portrayals of guns - the way in which they become so distanced from what they're actually for and what they actually do. They're designed to kill people and so I think it's safe to say it hurts.
Posted: Tue, 17th Apr 2007, 1:17am

Post 191 of 388

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Rawree wrote:

Of course the idea of gun control ever becoming reality in America is sadly laughable.
Just as I can't make a statement about the UK without living there, you haven't the right to make likewise towards America. Both are sides are bias, but I'd say mine is more credible since I have experience with the control living in the country myself.

And IMO, say whatever you like about your country's gun control- but don't make a point to defame another's without credibility, please.

If there's anything I hate more than anything it's people pulling the "oh, America!" rant without actually experiencing America. And I'm serious about that.
Posted: Tue, 17th Apr 2007, 2:13am

Post 192 of 388

petet2

Force: 2899 | Joined: 27th Dec 2005 | Posts: 1043

VisionLab User VideoWrap User Windows User

Gold Member

I think it is acceptable to comment on different countries and cultures around the world without having lived there as long as your opinions are based on valid facts and research and not just tabloid headlines.

There are a number of regimes around the world about which I am critical and I have not lived in any of them. That doesn't make my opinion invalid per se.

As for the comment on gun control it is worthy of note that the current president has allowed the ban on assault weapons (put in place by his predecessor) to lapse which can be fairly taken as an indication of his position on the right to bear arms. Also Virginia, where today's terrible events have talken place, is a state which does not require background checks when buying guns.

Last edited Tue, 17th Apr 2007, 2:21am; edited 1 times in total.

Posted: Tue, 17th Apr 2007, 2:16am

Post 193 of 388

Penguin

Force: 852 | Joined: 17th May 2006 | Posts: 560

EffectsLab Pro User FXpreset Maker FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

I don't think it's sadly laughable. There are lots of gun controll supporters in America. Of course, it isn't the reality now, but that doesn't mean it can't ever be.
Posted: Tue, 17th Apr 2007, 2:18am

Post 194 of 388

Bryce007

Force: 1910 | Joined: 5th Apr 2003 | Posts: 2609

VideoWrap User Windows User

Gold Member

petet2 wrote:

I think it is acceptable to comment on different countries and cultures around the world without having lived there as long as your opinions are based on valid facts and research and not just tabloid headlines.

There are a number of regimes around the world about which I am critical and I have not lived in any of them. That doesn't make my opinion invalid per se.
Not invalid, but inexperienced.
Posted: Tue, 17th Apr 2007, 2:19am

Post 195 of 388

hatsoff2halford

Force: 1360 | Joined: 6th Feb 2005 | Posts: 360

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Pro User Windows User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

I agree with Rawree, gun control will never be a reality in America. Guns are glorified to the max here, people love them.

On another note, just last friday there was a bomb threat written in my school bathroom to apparently happen this friday, the 20th. And, a tree was burned in the front walk way to our school, as well. After seeing what happened at Virgina Tech, this is some scary stuff. However, I will still be attending school, as threats like this have happened every year for the past 5 years.
Posted: Tue, 17th Apr 2007, 2:26am

Post 196 of 388

petet2

Force: 2899 | Joined: 27th Dec 2005 | Posts: 1043

VisionLab User VideoWrap User Windows User

Gold Member

Bryce007 wrote:

Not invalid, but inexperienced.
I'm not sure I understand the point that you are making here - it isn't acceptable to have a view on anything you haven't personally experienced? That seems a little naive.

Extrapolating that argument means that George Bush can't be critical of Saddam Hussain as he has never lived in Iraq.
Posted: Tue, 17th Apr 2007, 2:33am

Post 197 of 388

Penguin

Force: 852 | Joined: 17th May 2006 | Posts: 560

EffectsLab Pro User FXpreset Maker FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

hatsoff2halford wrote:

I agree with Rawree, gun control will never be a reality in America. Guns are glorified to the max here, people love them.

On another note, just last friday there was a bomb threat written in my school bathroom to apparently happen this friday, the 20th. And, a tree was burned in the front walk way to our school, as well. After seeing what happened at Virgina Tech, this is some scary stuff. However, I will still be attending school, as threats like this have happened every year for the past 5 years.
Well it might be very unlikely for the near future, but if you say it will never be reality then you are almost saying that things like what happned at Virginia Tech are unavoidable so we shouldn't even try to stop them.
Posted: Tue, 17th Apr 2007, 3:07am

Post 198 of 388

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

hatsoff2halford wrote:

I agree with Rawree, gun control will never be a reality in America. Guns are glorified to the max here, people love them.
Who are all these people this side of the conversation resorts to? All these gun-crazies apparently make up American society and they are glorified.

I hardly, hardly, hardly hear any positive press or glorification of guns in TEXAS at that! The Gun Shows are all booed and the posters for them are graffitied. If anything, guns are cursed. And if you're referring to the movies portrayal of guns, I suggest you look universally at film and it's representation of guns, not just America or Hollywood.

Hot Fuzz, bud.
Posted: Tue, 17th Apr 2007, 8:15am

Post 199 of 388

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

Rating: +1

Atom wrote:

Rawree wrote:

Of course the idea of gun control ever becoming reality in America is sadly laughable.
Just as I can't make a statement about the UK without living there, you haven't the right to make likewise towards America.
Haven't the right?? Whatever happened to that freedom of speech thing? If you're so busy defending the Second Amendment, surely you should respect the First as well? Rawree has the right to say whatever he damn well pleases - doesn't mean you have to agree with it, obviously, but he most definitely has the right to say it.

And of course you can comment on things you've not directly experienced. You can comment on rape and murder being horrific without directly experiencing them. You can criticise a football player without being an expert player yourself. You can criticise Sudan for the situation in Darfur without having lived there, and you can criticise America for its flaws as well. By the same token, you, Atom, can perfectly legitimately criticise the UK - in fact, I'd welcome you to, as getting outside points of view is vital if you're interested in improving yourself and being properly self-aware.

Both are sides are bias, but I'd say mine is more credible since I have experience with the control living in the country myself.
Partly true, but you will also be suffering from goldfish bowl syndrome (technical term!), whereby you can't necessarily see the whole of where you are as easily as people that are already external and looking in. The same goes for anyone in any country - when you're 'inside' a system, it's very difficult to analyse it objectively. It's the same reason it's difficult to be properly aware and analyse your own personal impulses, whereas an outside observer might be able to interpret your actions with less bias.

Doesn't always work that way, of course, and you'll always get ignorant people making ignorant statements about stuff they don't know, but I will always maintain that it's important to get both internal and external viewpoints on just about everything, if you're wanting to get a balanced overview.

Plainly Canadian wrote:

To tell you the truth, I wouldn't mind that much being shot (if I die on the spot, anyways). Cause I mean, if you get shot, then you simply die. But if you die in another way - drown for example -, then it's long and painful. Ugg. I'd hate to drown!
That's a remarkably naive concept of how guns work. I suggest forgetting the way guns function in James Bond movies and shoot-em-ups - people don't just fall over and stop immediately, with no pain. Guns are messy and horrible and there is absolutely no guarantee of being killed instantly. Being shot in the stomach, for example, I hear is one of the most painful ways to die.

More to the point, why on earth are you pondering ways of being killed? Seems like a rather odd thing to consider. smile
Posted: Tue, 17th Apr 2007, 9:25am

Post 200 of 388

Mantra

Force: 1888 | Joined: 25th Nov 2002 | Posts: 551

EffectsLab Lite User MacOS User

Gold Member

Tarn wrote:

Atom wrote:

Rawree wrote:

Of course the idea of gun control ever becoming reality in America is sadly laughable.
Just as I can't make a statement about the UK without living there, you haven't the right to make likewise towards America.
Haven't the right?? Whatever happened to that freedom of speech thing? If you're so busy defending the Second Amendment, surely you should respect the First as well? Rawree has the right to say whatever he damn well pleases - doesn't mean you have to agree with it, obviously, but he most definitely has the right to say it.

And of course you can comment on things you've not directly experienced. You can comment on rape and murder being horrific without directly experiencing them. You can criticise a football player without being an expert player yourself. You can criticise Sudan for the situation in Darfur without having lived there, and you can criticise America for its flaws as well. By the same token, you, Atom, can perfectly legitimately criticise the UK - in fact, I'd welcome you to, as getting outside points of view is vital if you're interested in improving yourself and being properly self-aware.
Thanks for making the points I was going to raise Tarn.
Mantra

Page 1 of 2: 1, 2 | Next