Which movie to you think will sell more guns?

[quade 4]

Looking at the web site, Shoot 'em Up is a Frank Milleresque graphic novel type of film. Not too real, but action f'in' packed fun with guns.

However . . .

One of the things that has been facinating me lately is the preponderance of movies where a person, that normally wouldn't even consider carrying a gun, gets victimized and then arms themself to deter future violence.

This is where The Brave One takes it one step further.

I'd like to think that by the end of the movie the audience will come away thinking that maybe arming everyone on the planet isn't such a great idea, but . . . I have the feeling that, because of the way human nature works, most will say "See? That's exactly why we should all be armed!"

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Nightingale 0]

If the victim had been able to defend themselves to begin with, I wonder if they'd have been a victim at all.

[AWL71 0]

Quote

If the victim had been able to defend themselves to begin with, I wonder if they'd have been a victim at all.

You make a very good point. Guns just don't cause violence. They can deter it as well.

The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help.

[mnealtx 0]

I suppose if she'd just given her attackers what they wanted, she never would have been hurt, right? Much better for her to share milk and cookies and a round of "Kumbaya" with them, I suppose.

Now, with the sarcasm out of the way...while I'm not saying that everyone SHOULD be armed, I think that those that WISH to be armed should be allowed. Refer back to my argument about reason and force - if you have no way to FORCE me to do your bidding, then all that is left is reason.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[quade 4]

Quote

If the victim had been able to defend themselves to begin with, I wonder if they'd have been a victim at all.

President Ronald Reagan was surrounded by, arguably, the most well trained and armed security team on the planet. All of that ability to defend him did not stop John Hinckly Jr. from trying to "impress" Jodie Foster.

The person with the first shot usually has the advantage. Self defense FROM gunfire WITH gunfire seems nearly futile.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Nightingale 0]

so it's better to have no defense at all?

[Richards 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

If the victim had been able to defend themselves to begin with, I wonder if they'd have been a victim at all.

President Ronald Reagan was surrounded by, arguably, the most well trained and armed security team on the planet. All of that ability to defend him did not stop John Hinkly Jr. from trying to "impress" Jodie Foster.

The person with the first shot usually has the advantage. Self defense FROM gunfire WITH gunfire seems nearly futile.

So if they were not there he would have lived anyway?

My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

[quade 4]

Quote

so it's better to have no defense at all?

I think the point is that it's playing the odds of a situation.

The President of the U.S. absolutely needs to be protected in every way possible, yet that isn't enough to actually keep him 100% safe.

I, on the other hand, do not suffer imminent threat of being assassinated by either random nut jobs nor nefarious terrorist. Chances are neither do you.

So, what are we left with . . . honestly and in a majority . . . hoodlums on the street and family violence. I can't say for certain the tradeoffs and do the calculus of how attempting to solve one issue enables the other.

I'm sure people have to deal with that on an individual basis for themselves.

I've never seen any credible proof that more guns guarantees less violence.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[quade 4]

Quote

President Ronald Reagan was surrounded by, arguably, the most well trained and armed security team on the planet. All of that ability to defend him did not stop John Hinckly Jr. from trying to "impress" Jodie Foster.

The person with the first shot usually has the advantage. Self defense FROM gunfire WITH gunfire seems nearly futile.

So if they were not there he would have lived anyway?

[Clownburner 0]

Quote

Quote

If the victim had been able to defend themselves to begin with, I wonder if they'd have been a victim at all.

President Ronald Reagan was surrounded by, arguably, the most well trained and armed security team on the planet. All of that ability to defend him did not stop John Hinkly Jr. from trying to "impress" Jodie Foster.

The person with the first shot usually has the advantage. Self defense FROM gunfire WITH gunfire seems nearly futile.

While there's always a few die-hard psychos in the world, many (if not most) criminals would always prefer to deal with a potential victim who is unarmed vs someone who could be carrying a weapon.

Quote

"Analysis of murder rates in carry reform states shows that fears of reform opponents have been unfounded. Careful study of homicide trends in these states reveals that carry reform has not led to an increased homicide rate.

In Florida, for example, a murder rate that was 36% above the national average when carry reform went into effect in 1987, fell by 1991 to 4% below the national average.

The fact the permits are available does not mean that everyone will carry a gun. Usually only about 1% to 4% of a state's population will choose to obtain a permit.

Accordingly, states considering carry reform can enact such laws knowing that reform will not endanger public safety. Carry reform, at least sometimes, allows citizens to save their own lives by protecting themselves against criminal attack."

Source: Independence Institute http://www.i2i.org/main/article.php?article_id=643

7CP#1 | BTR#2 | Payaso en fuego Rodriguez
"I want hot chicks in my boobies!"- McBeth

[quade 4]

Quote

While there's always a few die-hard psychos in the world . . .

Yeah, let's talk about that for a minute. Considering his history, what was Hinckley doing with a gun?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

I've never seen any credible proof that more guns guarantees less violence.

Interviews with prison inmates show that they avoid people and homes that may have guns present. That seems like a pretty compelling argument that, at least, potential violence is lessened.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[quade 4]

Quote

Quote

I've never seen any credible proof that more guns guarantees less violence.

Interviews with prison inmates show that they avoid people and homes that may have guns present. That seems like a pretty compelling argument that, at least, potential violence is lessened.

And yet makes family violence a bit more easy.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

so it's better to have no defense at all?

I think the point is that it's playing the odds of a situation.

The President of the U.S. absolutely needs to be protected in every way possible, yet that isn't enough to actually keep him 100% safe.

I, on the other hand, do not suffer imminent threat of being assassinated by either random nut jobs nor nefarious terrorist. Chances are neither do you.

So, what are we left with . . . honestly and in a majority . . . hoodlums on the street and family violence. I can't say for certain the tradeoffs and do the calculus of how attempting to solve one issue enables the other.

I'm sure people have to deal with that on an individual basis for themselves.

I've never seen any credible proof that more guns guarantees less violence.

Without armed people around him he would have been dead. What kind of odds are those?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[CanuckInUSA 0]

As far as these movies are concerned? Who knows what they will do. I know when I was a teenager and I came out of the movie theater after watching "The Warriors" and I wanted to kick some ass in the subway on the way home. Thankfully something in the back of my head said "no ... that was just a movie".

There is no easy answer to guns. If we were all level headed people then there would be no problems with everyone carrying a weapon for personal protection. But we are not all level headed and we don't all act rationally.

Unless you are armed 24/7 and never sleep, you will always be at risk of being caught off guard by somone who wants to do you harm. Just look at what happened in Seattle last year when an armed gunman stormed a house after a rave party and shot many people dead. There was guns in the house, but since this gunman caught everyone by surprised, the guns in the house did not offer the protection too many pro-gun people constantly say that they would.

Now before you think I am "anti-gun". I am not. I have changed my views. I am kind of neutral when it comes to guns and let me close by saying: "It is not the gun that kills people, it is the person behind the gun that kills".

Try not to worry about the things you have no control over

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I've never seen any credible proof that more guns guarantees less violence.

Interviews with prison inmates show that they avoid people and homes that may have guns present. That seems like a pretty compelling argument that, at least, potential violence is lessened.

And yet makes family violence a bit more easy.

I'm sure you have proof of your supposition, showing that it's due to the presence of the firearm and not just that the person is a scumbag.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Unless you are armed 24/7 and never sleep, you will always be at risk of being caught off guard by somone who wants to do you harm. Just look at what happened in Seattle last year when an armed gunman stormed a house after a rave party and shot many people dead. There was guns in the house, but since this gunman caught everyone by surprised, the guns in the house did not offer the protection too many pro-gun people constantly say that they would.

That's stretching a bit, however, a gun in the safe doesn't do you any good.

Quote

Now before you think I am "anti-gun". I am not. I have changed my views. I am kind of neutral when it comes to guns and let me close by saying: "It is not the gun that kills people, it is the person behind the gun that kills".

Absolutely - gun control is like blaming gasoline and matches for arson, or spoons for obesity.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[quade 4]

Quote

Without armed people around him he would have been dead. What kind of odds are those?

How do you figure that?

No Rambo came to the rescue. Marshal Dillion didn't shoot the gun out of Hinckley's hand. No shots where fired back at Hinckley.

Hinckley fired six shots in three seconds and then immediately gave up when he ran out of bullets.

It was Hinckley's incompetence at firing the weapon that saved the President.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[quade 4]

Quote

As far as these movies are concerned? Who knows what they will do. I know when I was a teenager and I came out of the movie theater after watching "The Warriors" and I wanted to kick some ass in the subway on the way home. Thankfully something in the back of my head said "no ... that was just a movie".

Thank you.

At least you understood and responded to the point of the thread.

Just like when skydiving movies come out there is an increase in tandem students, I have been thinking that I might want to do a study of certain types of movies and gun sales.

Would be difficult.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[quade 4]

Quote

I'm sure you have proof of your supposition, showing that it's due to the presence of the firearm and not just that the person is a scumbag.

Well, it is 12 times more likely to be fatal according to the American Bar Association Special Committee on Gun Violence.

While not scientific proof, it is statistically accurate. I'd call an entire order of magnitude and then some . . . rather significant.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

I'm sure you have proof of your supposition, showing that it's due to the presence of the firearm and not just that the person is a scumbag.

Well, it is 12 times more likely to be fatal according to the American Bar Association Special Committee on Gun Violence.

While not scientific proof, it is statistically accurate. I'd call an entire order of magnitude and then some . . . rather significant.

I asked for proof that having the weapon available CAUSED the violence, not that the violence was more likely to be fatal.

Again, you blame the tool for the action of the user.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[quade 4]

Quote

Again, you blame the tool for the action of the user.

No sir. It is you and others like you that ignore how these tools actually get used.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Again, you blame the tool for the action of the user.

No sir. It is you and others like you that ignore how these tools actually get used.

Really? Almost 80 million gun owners DIDN'T commit crimes today. You still try to infer that there is some sort of connection between the tool and how it is used. An evil person will do evil with any tool at hand. Choirboys don't become murderers simply because they pick up a handgun.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[BIGUN 1,422]

No sir. It is you and others like you that ignore how these tools actually get used.

Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

[quade 4]

Quote

Almost 80 million gun owners DIDN'T commit crimes today.

What number is that? Members of the NRA? Some figure provided by the NRA?

Absolutely nobody knows how many guns there are in the US let alone gun owners.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver