Lets not become AustraliaSign The Petition
God Bless America
Lets not become AustraliaSign The Petition
God Bless America
Dont Let America Fall like Autralia. Sign The Petition to Halt any attempt to Alter the Second Amendment
I too grew up with violent movies, videogames and the like. I own enough guns and know the difference between reality and fantasy and right from wrong. The only way I'd use any of my guns on another person would be to defend myself, family or property. I grew up in a home with both parents, neither alcoholics or drug users but also neither religious. My dad worked alot and was not around most of the time so there were a few things I guess that could have turned south for me but it didn't. I surrounded myself with good friends and carried myself over the years. I've played almost every major game that has sparked controversy, Grand Theft Auto (since the 1st on on PC), Mortal Kombat, Battlefield Bad Company series, Call of Duty, Doom, Splatterhouse etc etc, not to mention all the movies I've collected and watch, and I actually watch movies that are too violent to even get put on a major screen. Yet I know it's all fake and the people in the movies are not dead. I'd say the most of blame if there is any at all should go on the parents and the schools. I was definitely an "outcast" during my entire school years. The teachers know who gets picked on and no one likes or will give any part of existence to. They need to step up and try and help these kids who are outcasts. Believe it or not when I was in 6th grade goin into the 7th grade I used to play DOOM online with eric harris from columbine. I actually have some of his .wad files he made (they're the files the levels are made from). He never seemed out of the ordinary until I played some of his levels. Just beyond crazy. But I didn't really think twice about it at the time. My daughter just turned 3. She has no idea what a gun is because I keep them away from her view at ALL times and everything is locked up. I also don't let her watch violent shows or movies and she has no idea what the violent video games are. I am working very hard to keep it that way, but I can only do so much. She is getting to the age where she wants to do what ever I'm doing and watch whatever I'm watching. So as a parent I have to shift my interests to more of a medium or something that is viewable for her as well as myself. Again I think the blame is on parents and school administration. They're around our kids for the majority of the day and can clearly see if some of the kids need some extra help or attention.
This argument does a disservice to our cause, sir. It was the only thing in LaPierre's speech that I was disappointed with. The hypocritical media immediately picked up on this ridiculous line of thinking and called it out for the terrible argument it is, which is the same as their own argument against the gun itself. The point is that it took away from he valid points LaPierre made and shifted the focus, making it look like the NRA is looking to shift the blame. Not a smart move IMO.
For example, in the original "Ocean's Eleven", the conspirators failed, which was required under the old movie code (criminal activity had to have a punishment) unlike the remake of the same film well after the collapse of the code. Explicit violence was also not permitted in film under the code, hence the significance of the release of Bonnie and Clyde.
The US Supreme Court has examined the 2nd Amendment, and has made its meaning clear: modern military weapons were meant by the Founders to be held by ordinary citizens. Let's not "roll over" and let them make "common sense" laws that outlaw modern military weapons (so-called assault rifles, and hi-cap magazines), when the 1st Amendment has culpability. Cause and effect must be understood, as with my forklift example above.
If you want to compare countries in terms of how likely they are to experience mass shootings (which would be germane to your point), you can't look at which country has had the one with the single highest body count. You have to look at, you know, how likely they are to experience mass shootings. If you think Norway (or any other country) beats the U.S. on this score, you need to do a little more reading.
Meanwhile, all of Europe (and Oz) watches the same movies we do.
So, back to my original point, you're going to have to come up with something else.
We've pretty well reviewed the pros and cons of my first two points. My third point is worth looking at, too. I didn't propose putting guns only in a positive light, as one member misread it.
What I was pointing out is that an Apple computer with a recognisable Apple logo, is only used in film and television, by "sympathetic characters". It's one of the ways to spot the good guys. Brand placement is very closely guarded, and yet promoted, by marketing customers, and is one of the reasons that films often use just one brand of cars even when a mix of L.E. and civilian vehicles. Remember how chuffed Ford was with its Taurus in the RoboCop series of films?
My background is in law and intellectual property, so I see an opportunity for gun makers to take control of this under the doctrine of "configuration trademarks", which applies when a product's ornamental design distinguishes it both from the function of the item, and from its competitors' offerings.
We're all gunnies on this site, and can quickly distinguish a Beretta 92 from a SIG 226 on screen. And gun makers have been scrambling to get their products in movies and their posters. Certainly I can recall being chuffed when my holster designs appeared in Miss Congeniality's poster, on a character's hip in Con Air, and the M12 made its first film appearance in Arnie's Commando (at least the former and the latter being "sympathetic" characters).
With their products being so recognisable (though that ship has sailed for the 1911), My proposal is/was that they take back control of which characters use their products in film, television, and games under the protection of configuration trademarks.
Concealed is concealed, "Michael."
So which is it OP? You condemn "violent" movies and video games and you imply they should be "regulated", then you say our 1st and 2nd amendment rights are sacrosanct... which is it sir? Stop being a hypocrite, and stop trying to justify your ridiculous anti - 1st amendment agenda. It's NOT ok, not even when you claim to do so in the defense of the 2nd amendment. A true American knows the constitution protects ALL our God given rights...
1. Self-serving tools such as Feinstein will never "see the light."
2. Self-serving tools such as Feinstein don't actually hold the First Amendment sacrosanct. They pretend to, but start talking about God, religion, or anything she doesn't believe in, and see how much she values your right to speak freely.
3. Even if the above two assumptions are wrong, your argument is still hypocritical and undermines your overall point.
One could argue that video games and movies are much more violent today than they were 20 years ago. Doom came out in 1993. Since then, there have been numerous video games that focus on war, espionage, etc., where year after year killing is portrayed in a much more realistic and violent manner than the year before.
Yet since 1992, the violent crime has dropped FIFTY PERCENT. In 1992 the US had a violent crime rate of 757 per 100,000 people, and murder rate of 9.3 per 100,000. Fast forward 20 years, and after steady decline, that number has dropped in 2011 to a violent crime rate of 386.3 per 100,000 people and a murder rate of 4.7 per 100,000. Video games and violent movies have become worse, and our violent crime and murder rates have steadily declined to half of what they were 20 years ago. So tell me, where is the connection?
My local Maccas (McDonalds) is featuring a children's film connection, feeling that the connection will cause an increase in sales worth paying for. Connection made.
Gun violence task force to meet with members of video game industry – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs . Connection made.