[ ]   [ ]   [ ]                        [ ]      [ ]   [ ]

Live Music - thisbody - Feb 6, 2023 - 1:45am
 
Counting with Pictures - yuel - Feb 6, 2023 - 12:47am
 
Wordle - daily game - NoEnzLefttoSplit - Feb 5, 2023 - 11:18pm
 
Things You Thought Today - ScottFromWyoming - Feb 5, 2023 - 9:44pm
 
The Dragons' Roost - haresfur - Feb 5, 2023 - 9:36pm
 
USA! USA! USA! - haresfur - Feb 5, 2023 - 9:35pm
 
Ukraine - haresfur - Feb 5, 2023 - 9:30pm
 
February 2023 Photo Theme - Odd Perspectives - haresfur - Feb 5, 2023 - 9:27pm
 
Bug Reports & Feature Requests - jarro - Feb 5, 2023 - 4:15pm
 
Are you ready for some football? - Manbird - Feb 5, 2023 - 4:01pm
 
Messages in a bottle. - oldviolin - Feb 5, 2023 - 1:45pm
 
Radio Paradise Comments - miamizsun - Feb 5, 2023 - 1:33pm
 
Pernicious Pious Proclivities Particularized Prodigiously - R_P - Feb 5, 2023 - 12:23pm
 
• • • BRING OUT YOUR DEAD • • •  - oldviolin - Feb 5, 2023 - 11:36am
 
Earworm - ScottFromWyoming - Feb 5, 2023 - 11:13am
 
Dialing 1-800-Manbird - oldviolin - Feb 5, 2023 - 9:23am
 
Republican Party - Red_Dragon - Feb 5, 2023 - 9:02am
 
What Did You Do Today? - GeneP59 - Feb 5, 2023 - 8:44am
 
Today in History - Red_Dragon - Feb 5, 2023 - 7:58am
 
Better Playlist - Steve - Feb 5, 2023 - 5:44am
 
Things I Saw Today... - KurtfromLaQuinta - Feb 4, 2023 - 9:17pm
 
RP app for LG OLED TV - jarro - Feb 4, 2023 - 6:59pm
 
Remembering Duane Allman - oldviolin - Feb 4, 2023 - 5:59pm
 
Talk Behind Their Backs Forum - oldviolin - Feb 4, 2023 - 5:09pm
 
• • • The Once-a-Day • • •  - oldviolin - Feb 4, 2023 - 5:07pm
 
Audio Settings - 2020xradio - Feb 4, 2023 - 4:54pm
 
Name My Band - oldviolin - Feb 4, 2023 - 4:26pm
 
China - Red_Dragon - Feb 4, 2023 - 2:58pm
 
Immigration - R_P - Feb 4, 2023 - 11:56am
 
The Abortion Wars - R_P - Feb 4, 2023 - 11:32am
 
COVID-19 - Red_Dragon - Feb 4, 2023 - 10:53am
 
Omitted from Rock and Roll Hall of Fame - Proclivities - Feb 4, 2023 - 10:06am
 
Annoying stuff. not things that piss you off, just annoyi... - Coaxial - Feb 4, 2023 - 9:31am
 
It's the economy stupid. - Isabeau - Feb 4, 2023 - 4:07am
 
Casting from the app.... - cbemoore - Feb 4, 2023 - 1:30am
 
Linking to "What's Playing" - ladron - Feb 3, 2023 - 6:41pm
 
Out the window - GeneP59 - Feb 3, 2023 - 2:17pm
 
TV shows you watch - kcar - Feb 3, 2023 - 1:31pm
 
Love is... - Isabeau - Feb 3, 2023 - 1:12pm
 
Music To Get A Haircut To - Red_Dragon - Feb 3, 2023 - 11:58am
 
R.I.P. Jeff Beck - black321 - Feb 3, 2023 - 11:53am
 
Eclectic Sound-Drops - Peyote - Feb 3, 2023 - 9:54am
 
I want an iPhone!!! - Steely_D - Feb 3, 2023 - 9:49am
 
American History - rgio - Feb 3, 2023 - 6:12am
 
Outstanding Covers - miamizsun - Feb 3, 2023 - 3:54am
 
Evolution! - R_P - Feb 2, 2023 - 5:29pm
 
Guns - westslope - Feb 2, 2023 - 3:42pm
 
Canada - westslope - Feb 2, 2023 - 3:19pm
 
RightWingNutZ - Isabeau - Feb 2, 2023 - 1:18pm
 
More reggae, less Marley please - NoEnzLefttoSplit - Feb 2, 2023 - 10:30am
 
Podcast recommendations??? - marko86 - Feb 2, 2023 - 8:51am
 
Let's build a city - Red_Dragon - Feb 2, 2023 - 8:46am
 
How to Sync to Current Feed? - otto802 - Feb 2, 2023 - 8:13am
 
Upcoming concerts or shows you can't wait to see - Antigone - Feb 2, 2023 - 7:13am
 
Nuclear power - saviour or scourge? - Steve - Feb 2, 2023 - 6:40am
 
Work - sunybuny - Feb 2, 2023 - 5:53am
 
Race in America - R_P - Feb 1, 2023 - 8:42pm
 
NASA & other news from space - Steely_D - Feb 1, 2023 - 8:03pm
 
YouTube: Music-Videos - Steely_D - Feb 1, 2023 - 7:50pm
 
Derplahoma! - ScottFromWyoming - Feb 1, 2023 - 7:30pm
 
RP App for Android - nickferrante10 - Feb 1, 2023 - 11:11am
 
The end of the world - miamizsun - Feb 1, 2023 - 7:17am
 
January 2023 Photo Theme - Friends - Coaxial - Feb 1, 2023 - 5:30am
 
Lyrics that are stuck in your head today... - oldviolin - Jan 31, 2023 - 6:23pm
 
Revelation,Armageddon, the end of the world (we can stop ... - oldviolin - Jan 31, 2023 - 6:16pm
 
• • • Things Magicians Exclaim • • •  - oldviolin - Jan 31, 2023 - 5:37pm
 
What Makes You Cry :) ? - oldviolin - Jan 31, 2023 - 4:33pm
 
What the hell OV? - oldviolin - Jan 31, 2023 - 3:39pm
 
Photography Forum - Your Own Photos - miamizsun - Jan 31, 2023 - 2:14pm
 
Post your favorite 'You Tube' Videos Here - Manbird - Jan 31, 2023 - 1:53pm
 
Germany - R_P - Jan 31, 2023 - 1:33pm
 
Economix - westslope - Jan 31, 2023 - 1:28pm
 
• • • • Name My Possum • • • - Bill_J - Jan 31, 2023 - 11:51am
 
The Obituary Page - GeneP59 - Jan 31, 2023 - 9:21am
 
Surfing! - kurtster - Jan 31, 2023 - 4:17am
 
Index » Regional/Local » USA/Canada » Guns Page: 1, 2, 3 ... 483, 484, 485  Next
Post to this Topic
westslope

westslope Avatar

Location: BC sage brush steppe


Posted: Feb 2, 2023 - 3:42pm

 Steely_D wrote:
.....

The police (good ones and bad ones, some in our family and some that we're friends with) are all put much more severely in harm's way by the proliferation of armed citizens. So, why aren't the police and their family at the forefront of the "we need to control guns" movement? It's counterintuitive that the police would be in any way 2ndA proponents, since it makes their job so much more dangerous. And yet, they absolutely aren't in the voices asking for reasonable restrictions to keep artillery off the streets.

So the folks that push for us all to be armed are really...hurting...our law enforcement personnel.

No disagreement.  

In Canada, police chiefs tend to be public proponents of gun control.  I seem to vaguely recall some US police chiefs calling for more gun control.

westslope

westslope Avatar

Location: BC sage brush steppe


Posted: Feb 2, 2023 - 3:30pm

 Red_Dragon wrote:


WASHINGTON (AP) — The most expansive federal report in over two decades on guns and crime shows a shrinking turnaround between the time a gun was purchased and when it was recovered from a crime scene, indicating firearms bought legally are more quickly being used in crimes around the country.

It also documents a spike in the use of conversion devices that make a semiautomatic gun fire like a machine gun, along with the growing seizure of so-called ghost guns, privately made firearms that are hard to trace.

..................

Not happy news....  




Red_Dragon

Red_Dragon Avatar



Posted: Feb 2, 2023 - 9:08am

First sweeping federal gun crime report in 20 years released
kurtster

kurtster Avatar

Location: where fear is not a virtue
Gender: Male


Posted: Feb 1, 2023 - 11:44pm

 westslope wrote:
 Lazy8 wrote:

You said knuckles, I figured brass. Fighting with a bare, closed fist is a good way to break fingers.

Who in their right mind would use a closed fist to hit the hard parts of a potential attacker?     Drunk, macho idiots in the bar?   Men of Great Stature who enjoy fighting for fun?    The knuckles would be used to strike soft tissue areas such as the neck/wind pipe.
 

Latest Slap Fighting News...
Red_Dragon

Red_Dragon Avatar



Posted: Feb 1, 2023 - 4:47pm

 Steely_D wrote:
The latest Jon Stewart podcast episode is as entertaining as always, despite the serious and complex subject matter.

Regarding guns, there's a moment when they talk about how much money is diverted to enhancing the police force weaponry in order to combat the rising violence of the citizenry - and then a very good point is made:

The police (good ones and bad ones, some in our family and some that we're friends with) are all put much more severely in harm's way by the proliferation of armed citizens. So, why aren't the police and their family at the forefront of the "we need to control guns" movement? It's counterintuitive that the police would be in any way 2ndA proponents, since it makes their job so much more dangerous. And yet, they absolutely aren't in the voices asking for reasonable restrictions to keep artillery off the streets.

So the folks that push for us all to be armed are really...hurting...our law enforcement personnel.


This has long puzzled me as well.
Steely_D

Steely_D Avatar

Location: Biscayne Bay
Gender: Male


Posted: Feb 1, 2023 - 4:19pm

The latest Jon Stewart podcast episode is as entertaining as always, despite the serious and complex subject matter.

Regarding guns, there's a moment when they talk about how much money is diverted to enhancing the police force weaponry in order to combat the rising violence of the citizenry - and then a very good point is made:

The police (good ones and bad ones, some in our family and some that we're friends with) are all put much more severely in harm's way by the proliferation of armed citizens. So, why aren't the police and their family at the forefront of the "we need to control guns" movement? It's counterintuitive that the police would be in any way 2ndA proponents, since it makes their job so much more dangerous. And yet, they absolutely aren't in the voices asking for reasonable restrictions to keep artillery off the streets.

So the folks that push for us all to be armed are really...hurting...our law enforcement personnel.
westslope

westslope Avatar

Location: BC sage brush steppe


Posted: Feb 1, 2023 - 2:43pm

 Lazy8 wrote:

You said knuckles, I figured brass. Fighting with a bare, closed fist is a good way to break fingers.


Who in their right mind would use a closed fist to hit the hard parts of a potential attacker?     Drunk, macho idiots in the bar?   Men of Great Stature who enjoy fighting for fun?   

The knuckles would be used to strike soft tissue areas such as the neck/wind pipe.

A knife is a good tool and a difficult weapon. I feel naked without mine, but I'm not going to kid myself that I can protect myself with it.

I agree.   When my Gerber shorty was sitting in an outer pocket of my frame pack in South America or Africa, I knew it would take me close to 25 seconds to access it.   That would be too long for many situations.

The short skinny blade in a belt holster is a piss-poor weapon if confronted by a determined predacious black bear or a territorially nervous Grizzly bear.   But it still gives me a small confidence boost.  In actual attack, I would be using the knife or any other available weapon as best I could.   Taking the blade out of the holster costs about 1 to 3 seconds.   I would rapidly stab the nose (muzzle) area and the eyes if given a chance.    Hopefully, that little bit of extra confidence and commitment to go down fighting will deter an attack in the first place.

Please note that other BC resident anglers on popular salmon mainstem rivers do notice the knife on my 196cm carcass.   Good.  I have no intention of being pushed around.   As for my fellow anglers who are cool, a few words and they relax quickly.    Thankfully, keen ethical outdoor enthusiasts tend to quickly recognize each other.  

....
You'd think with it being perfectly legal for any sniveling coward to carry weapons here the streets would be running with blood. They're not. The usual prediction that liberalizing carry laws will lead to every conflict devolving into a gun battle simply isn't born out by events. Turns out hysterical fear doesn't drive reality.

Nice strawman argument.    Politics in your future? 

But yeah Lazy one, I agree.  The USA does not have a violent gun problem.  US institutions such as schools do not run with blood.  Americans are perfectly happy with their perceived 'security' and recognize that the USA is far safer  than most countries. 

Good enough to be your campaign manager?  



NoEnzLefttoSplit

NoEnzLefttoSplit Avatar

Gender: Male


Posted: Feb 1, 2023 - 8:52am

not really wanting to weigh in on any particular side here so, here's me just trying to organise my thoughts:
  • a "civilised" society in my view would feature a predominant culture where conflicts were not solved by violence but by other methods (arbitration, courts, discussion, etc.)
  • I don't buy into the argument that ethnically diverse countries have a harder time establishing a non-violent culture. There are many historical examples of multi-ethnic cities/countries remaining peaceful over long periods.
  • Cultures that promote the sanctity of life and get their citizens to buy into a set of rules that are conducive to the common good seem to be faring better in the violent crime statistics and in my experience are way nicer to live in
  • Conversely, those countries I have been where the value of a human life is set pretty low, are kind of scary to be in.
To sum that up, there does seem to be an inverse relationship between higher violence in failed states and lower levels of violence in states with established mores and norms that facilitate a peaceful resolution of conflicts.

It appears to me that the gun lobby want to have the individual freedoms of a failed or non-existent state apparatus but nevertheless enjoy the benefits of a smoothly working society without any of the frictional losses caused by social/racial tension and violence. Maybe I'm naive, but these appear diametrically opposed.

 
.. was that long-winded enough?
Lazy8

Lazy8 Avatar

Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana
Gender: Male


Posted: Feb 1, 2023 - 8:24am

 westslope wrote:
2.   Brass knuckles!?!!   If you constantly carry brass knuckles around with you, please share why you do this.   Do you use them to tenderize meat?   Perhaps smash dried-out fertilizer clumps?   Crush nuts and seeds for muesli?

You said knuckles, I figured brass. Fighting with a bare, closed fist is a good way to break fingers.

Knives:  Some of us have been actively using knives since a very young age.  We carry them as multi-tools when not dressing/skinning animals or cleaning/filleting fish.   The knives are there all the time.

A knife is a good tool and a difficult weapon. I feel naked without mine, but I'm not going to kid myself that I can protect myself with it.

@Lazy8:  Here is the theory.   For most of us, violent attacks are an extremely low probability event.   So the idea is to be able live one's life without hiring a permanent security guard or having to lug around what could be kilos of weapons.     

This strategy is hard.  For one, who understands mathematical reasoning?  Is not math just 'arithmetic'?   Why think strategically when all your fellow patriots, i.e., the peer group, are thinking about instant moral gratification?  

This strategy is hard because assessing a situation quickly is hard and acting to maim or kill another fellow human being without hesitation is incredibly hard for most ordinary and likable people.

The problem with guns is that it makes it easy for untrained, snivelling cowards to not bother assessing the situation (because they do not know how) and to empty the gun into whoever presumambly because a river of blood distracts from the feces and urine in the shooter's underwear.

Somehow I manage to live my life without a security guard or lugging around kilos of weapons because I live among people who don't kill each other very often, and I'm good at math. I do know people who regularly carry weapons, but not by the kilo—they don't have to weigh much to stop a fight—and that isn't a problem either. If shit got real I'd be very glad to be in their company.

You'd think with it being perfectly legal for any sniveling coward to carry weapons here the streets would be running with blood. They're not. The usual prediction that liberalizing carry laws will lead to every conflict devolving into a gun battle simply isn't born out by events. Turns out hysterical fear doesn't drive reality.

4.  Gee, I thought Egypt, Israel and Morocco provided sufficient precedent for denying fundamental rights.    

Ah, is joke! I laugh!

On second thought, no I don't. There are an awful lot of people who would take such a proposal seriously.
westslope

westslope Avatar

Location: BC sage brush steppe


Posted: Jan 31, 2023 - 1:04pm

 Lazy8 wrote:

Your suggestion 1 is ongoing. We don't have a consensus on what counts as political violence: it's a protest if it comes from our tribe, it's a riot/insurrection if it comes from The Other.

Suggestion 2 is a mixture of good and awful. We have really good non-lethal weapons now, but where they are needed most they're banned. Which predictably disadvantages the law-abiding.

Teaching people to carry knives and brass knuckles? Seriously? Knives as fighting tools are for experts and pretty useless against anyone armed with something with more range,. I don't expect we'll convince people to become experts at hand-to-hand combat any more than we'll get 80 year old grandmothers into excellent physical condition. You can use pepper spray or a taser from a wheelchair tho,

Suggestion 3: Instead of surrendering the streets to violent elements how about we try and have fewer violent elements? We will never appease our way out of violence.

Suggestion 4: You start out condemning political violence and end by proposing it on a massive scale. Yeah, tell me how safe the streets are in North Korea. Now go negotiate with those black leaders about how their neighborhood needs all its doors kicked in to sweep for contraband, but the suburb where the white people live doesn't and see how quick you get buy-in. Not interested.





2.   Brass knuckles!?!!   If you constantly carry brass knuckles around with you, please share why you do this.   Do you use them to tenderize meat?   Perhaps smash dried-out fertilizer clumps?   Crush nuts and seeds for muesli?  

Knives:  Some of us have been actively using knives since a very young age.  We carry them as multi-tools when not dressing/skinning animals or cleaning/filleting fish.   The knives are there all the time.  

@Lazy8:  Here is the theory.   For most of us, violent attacks are an extremely low probability event.   So the idea is to be able live one's life without hiring a permanent security guard or having to lug around what could be kilos of weapons.     

This strategy is hard.  For one, who understands mathematical reasoning?  Is not math just 'arithmetic'?   Why think strategically when all your fellow patriots, i.e., the peer group, are thinking about instant moral gratification?  

This strategy is hard because assessing a situation quickly is hard and acting to maim or kill another fellow human being without hesitation is incredibly hard for most ordinary and likable people.

The problem with guns is that it makes it easy for untrained, snivelling cowards to not bother assessing the situation (because they do not know how) and to empty the gun into whoever presumambly because a river of blood distracts from the feces and urine in the shooter's underwear.   


4.  Gee, I thought Egypt, Israel and Morocco provided sufficient precedent for denying fundamental rights.    

Red_Dragon

Red_Dragon Avatar



Posted: Jan 30, 2023 - 2:11pm

Seven lives over $100
R_P

R_P Avatar



Posted: Jan 28, 2023 - 10:57am

 rgio wrote:
Movies are not the problem.  (...)

Teens around the globe are playing at similar levels, but the murders are almost all in the US.  Guns don't kill people, but access sure does

Seems pretty obvious, except to the Manichean gymnasts.

Might want to make Sesame Street R-rated so 6-year olds won't shoot their teacher.

PS: There's an amazing (OTT) violent climax in Tarantino's last movie. I don't think many are repelled by it, but rather vicariously get a thrill from it (due to a setup).
Lazy8

Lazy8 Avatar

Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana
Gender: Male


Posted: Jan 28, 2023 - 9:25am

 westslope wrote:
There might be a few measures that could be contemplated in the USA and other countries.

1.  Start a debate on political violence and politically punish political leaders that support political violence. Socially trash celebrity narcissists like Elon Musk who support political violence.

2.  Educate people about security and the limitations of firearms.   Propose alternatives to firearms such as excellent physical conditioning, knives, mace, pens, pencils, knuckles, heels of the hand, knees, etc.  

During half a decade of hitchhiking and backpacking through South American and Africa, the only people who asked and then expressed shock that I was unarmed were Americans.  These well intentioned individuals had no understanding of how dangerous it would be to pack a firearm while travelling, let alone the challenges of illegally crossing borders with the weapon.   The whole notion of strategic interactions never occured.   

The problems:

- the usefulness of firearms can be severely limited in close quarter conflict. 
- uneducated and poorly trained security forces in low-resource countries can be nervous and trigger happy 
- popular American cultural imports exhort people to shoot first and ask questions later.    
- a hidden firearm takes time and effort to access.

3.   Teach people how to read a street.    Teach people how to avoid gratuitously antagonizing someone carrying a firearm or other deadly weapon.  

4.   Invade and occupy the problem areas in Chicago and Washington DC.  Completely sweep all homes and buildings for weapons.  Establish the equivalent of Martial Law for a period.   Ignore non-violent narcotics offenses while providing increased levels of public health services.    Ramp up capital available for local entrepreneurs.

Turn the neighbourhoods into weapons-free zones.  Use a massive police and military presence in order to accomplish that.    Make sure key Black American leaders and communities are on side before proceeding.  Evacuate the area of unarmed civilians before sending armed units in.    Clean house.   Setup community-based security organizations that share the function with municipal police forces going forward.  

Set up a perimeter and keep the weapons out, at least until the court issues an injunction.  


My suggestions are silly and they have no hope of being realized.        Next?  

Your suggestion 1 is ongoing. We don't have a consensus on what counts as political violence: it's a protest if it comes from our tribe, it's a riot/insurrection if it comes from The Other.

Suggestion 2 is a mixture of good and awful. We have really good non-lethal weapons now, but where they are needed most they're banned. Which predictably disadvantages the law-abiding.

Teaching people to carry knives and brass knuckles? Seriously? Knives as fighting tools are for experts and pretty useless against anyone armed with something with more range,. I don't expect we'll convince people to become experts at hand-to-hand combat any more than we'll get 80 year old grandmothers into excellent physical condition. You can use pepper spray or a taser from a wheelchair tho,

Suggestion 3: Instead of surrendering the streets to violent elements how about we try and have fewer violent elements? We will never appease our way out of violence.

Suggestion 4: You start out condemning political violence and end by proposing it on a massive scale. Yeah, tell me how safe the streets are in North Korea. Now go negotiate with those black leaders about how their neighborhood needs all its doors kicked in to sweep for contraband, but the suburb where the white people live doesn't and see how quick you get buy-in. Not interested.




rgio

rgio Avatar

Location: West Jersey
Gender: Male


Posted: Jan 28, 2023 - 8:52am

 Proclivities wrote:

Yes, smoking still appears in some films but I wouldn't say it's being "glorified".  The amount of smoking shown in films in the last 20 or 30 years is dramatically lower than it was before (compared to the 1940s-1960s when everyone smoked in movies) - and most of it appears in R-rated films, not youth-oriented films.  Smoking on television has been almost non-existent for about 40 years.


Movies are not the problem.  

20% of teenage males are addicted to video games (now a clinically defined and diagnosable mental disorder).  

In case you haven't picked up a handset in a while, here's a look at what you're missing.  Pay attention to the weapons being used and the rounds fired (bottom right).

Adam Lanza (Sandy Hook), James Holmes (Aurora, CO), and Jared Lee Loughner (Tucson - shot Gabby Giffords and killed six others) are just a few among a long list of mass murderers who spent a tremendous amount of time playing first-person shooter video games.

Teens around the globe are playing at similar levels, but the murders are almost all in the US.  Guns don't kill people, but access sure does. 



Lazy8

Lazy8 Avatar

Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana
Gender: Male


Posted: Jan 28, 2023 - 8:19am

 haresfur wrote:
I think you have it backwards - at least for the people most at risk of becoming extremely violent. Sure, wimps like myself can't deal with seeing lots of violence, or actually more to the point, lots of cruelty, but many people brought up or exposed to a culture of violence become hardened to it and become extremely violent, too. Look at how people come out of prison after years of living in a violent environment. They are the recidivists. Especially sexual violence - many men who were assaulted in prison come out and commit violence on their partners. (Sorry, I can't cite statistics so if you doubt it you will have to read up yourself.)

Look at the people who hold dog fights and cock fights. Look at the men subjected to violence in their homes and witnessing violence against their mothers. They are the most likely to follow in their father's footsteps. Look at combat veterans who have a higher than average rate of becoming abusers. Hollywood gore isn't going to change that and I believe it in fact makes it worse.

I'm not claiming one social change will cure psychopaths or end cruelty. It also won't brighten your teeth or cure baldness, and if this were all that changed I doubt it would have the effect we're looking for. It's one piece of the puzzle.


Proclivities

Proclivities Avatar

Location: Paris of the Piedmont
Gender: Male


Posted: Jan 28, 2023 - 5:06am

 westslope wrote:

..- the entertainment industry (Hollywood for short) would stop glorifying tobacco.  All kinds of characters smoke tobacco on screen these days that one would not expect to see addicted to tobacco in 'real life'.  This glorification of tobacco risks hurting those of low and modest socio-economic status more than others.  Not cool.  ...

Yes, smoking still appears in some films but I wouldn't say it's being "glorified".  The amount of smoking shown in films in the last 20 or 30 years is dramatically lower than it was before (compared to the 1940s-1960s when everyone smoked in movies) - and most of it appears in R-rated films, not youth-oriented films.  Smoking on television has been almost non-existent for about 40 years.

haresfur

haresfur Avatar

Location: The Golden Triangle
Gender: Male


Posted: Jan 27, 2023 - 8:20pm

 Lazy8 wrote:

I think I heard my cue. I know you were just being snidely dismissive, but I'm going to take this response seriously for a moment.

This may not make sense to most of you reading this, but you can apply moral suasion without coercion. Something can be a good idea and not be mandatory,

Tarantino, I'd submit, is not part of the problem I'm talking about. Violence in his films is shocking. It hurts. There are consequences.

Take, for instance, Pulp Fiction. Two of the protagonists (unintentionally) shoot someone inside a car. The scene is bloody, and they spend a good part of the film figuring out how to hide and then dispose of the body. One of them decides to give up the gangsta life in the process.

Or the cartoonish revenge fantasy Inglorious Basterds. The protagonists beat captured prisoners to death with a baseball bat in realistic detail and carve swastikas into the foreheads of others. Never mind how absurd it is that they carried a baseball bat into a secret mission behind enemy lines (or Brad Pit's awful allegedly Tennessee Jewish accent), or the ridiculous counterhistorical plot, he depicts violence without sanitizing it. Or consider Django Unchained. Or just skip it. Whatever.

My point is that his work stands counter to the normal depictions of violence, the tidy deaths of most war films/westerns/gangster movies. You could watch Arnold Schwarzenegger's complete ouvre (save, perhaps, for the Terminator franchise) without seeing anyone actually suffer in a gunfight. They get shot and they drop, mostly without blood. The body counts would be appalling if you ever saw the bodies to count them. Gunshot wounds are gruesome, but you'd hardly know that from TV and cinema.

All that said...I would never propose forcing Ahnold to make movies like Quentin, and you don't have too.

Going back to the example of gay marriage (and acceptance of gays generally) you don't have to go back very far to see gay people caricatured as buffoons or depicted strictly as villains in Hollywood movies. That still happens now and then but for the most part Hollywood is over that stereotype. And that transition happened on the way to getting Prop. 8  overturned. That happened without legal stricture, it just became...uncool.

And the same thing could happen with violence.  Sanitized violence could become uncool. And it would, for the most part, stop.

This thought first came to me as a teenager when I saw a showing of Scorsese's Taxi Driver. I was no stranger to the genre of action movies where the hero blasts all the bad guys in the finale, saving the heroine. Scorsese made me reassess that ending by showing what that would actually mean to the human beings those bad guys are, what a toll it would take on the hero of that vignette, and how actually crazy the idea is. I'd like to see more Scorsese and less Schwarzenegger. And I'd like to see us repelled (rather than entertained) by violence.


I think you have it backwards - at least for the people most at risk of becoming extremely violent. Sure, wimps like myself can't deal with seeing lots of violence, or actually more to the point, lots of cruelty, but many people brought up or exposed to a culture of violence become hardened to it and become extremely violent, too. Look at how people come out of prison after years of living in a violent environment. They are the recidivists. Especially sexual violence - many men who were assaulted in prison come out and commit violence on their partners. (Sorry, I can't cite statistics so if you doubt it you will have to read up yourself.)

Look at the people who hold dog fights and cock fights. Look at the men subjected to violence in their homes and witnessing violence against their mothers. They are the most likely to follow in their father's footsteps. Look at combat veterans who have a higher than average rate of becoming abusers. Hollywood gore isn't going to change that and I believe it in fact makes it worse.
Lazy8

Lazy8 Avatar

Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana
Gender: Male


Posted: Jan 27, 2023 - 7:50pm

 R_P wrote:
In short, "Hollywood" needs to get woke on violence (and vices). "Listen, Mr. Tarantino..."


Cue free speech proponents & artists. And Marvel/Di$ney.

I think I heard my cue. I know you were just being snidely dismissive, but I'm going to take this response seriously for a moment.

This may not make sense to most of you reading this, but you can apply moral suasion without coercion. Something can be a good idea and not be mandatory,

Tarantino, I'd submit, is not part of the problem I'm talking about. Violence in his films is shocking. It hurts. There are consequences.

Take, for instance, Pulp Fiction. Two of the protagonists (unintentionally) shoot someone inside a car. The scene is bloody, and they spend a good part of the film figuring out how to hide and then dispose of the body. One of them decides to give up the gangsta life in the process.

Or the cartoonish revenge fantasy Inglorious Basterds. The protagonists beat captured prisoners to death with a baseball bat in realistic detail and carve swastikas into the foreheads of others. Never mind how absurd it is that they carried a baseball bat into a secret mission behind enemy lines (or Brad Pit's awful allegedly Tennessee Jewish accent), or the ridiculous counterhistorical plot, he depicts violence without sanitizing it. Or consider Django Unchained. Or just skip it. Whatever.

My point is that his work stands counter to the normal depictions of violence, the tidy deaths of most war films/westerns/gangster movies. You could watch Arnold Schwarzenegger's complete ouvre (save, perhaps, for the Terminator franchise) without seeing anyone actually suffer in a gunfight. They get shot and they drop, mostly without blood. The body counts would be appalling if you ever saw the bodies to count them. Gunshot wounds are gruesome, but you'd hardly know that from TV and cinema.

All that said...I would never propose forcing Ahnold to make movies like Quentin, and you don't have too.

Going back to the example of gay marriage (and acceptance of gays generally) you don't have to go back very far to see gay people caricatured as buffoons or depicted strictly as villains in Hollywood movies. That still happens now and then but for the most part Hollywood is over that stereotype. And that transition happened on the way to getting Prop. 8  overturned. That happened without legal stricture, it just became...uncool.

And the same thing could happen with violence.  Sanitized violence could become uncool. And it would, for the most part, stop.

This thought first came to me as a teenager when I saw a showing of Scorsese's Taxi Driver. I was no stranger to the genre of action movies where the hero blasts all the bad guys in the finale, saving the heroine. Scorsese made me reassess that ending by showing what that would actually mean to the human beings those bad guys are, what a toll it would take on the hero of that vignette, and how actually crazy the idea is. I'd like to see more Scorsese and less Schwarzenegger. And I'd like to see us repelled (rather than entertained) by violence.
kurtster

kurtster Avatar

Location: where fear is not a virtue
Gender: Male


Posted: Jan 27, 2023 - 7:15pm

 steeler wrote:
 kurtster wrote:

Arrests are being made, but there is little follow through with prosecutions anymore.  Sentences with any meaningful incarceration are shrinking, thus reducing the incentive to not commit crimes in the first place. We used to have a mantra of don't do the crime if you can't do the time.  Now there is no time to worry about anymore if you are caught.
Those arrested for murder almost always are prosecuted and, if convicted, are sentenced to meaningful periods of incarceration. 
 
Murder isn't the only crime committed with guns.
R_P

R_P Avatar



Posted: Jan 27, 2023 - 5:20pm

 westslope wrote:
Odd comment.

Not really.

I suppose I could have used: "Hollywood" needs to get real...
Page: 1, 2, 3 ... 483, 484, 485  Next