Although never seen publicly, the film became a source of legend almost immediately after its production. In May 1992, an article in Spy magazine quotes comedian and actor Harry Shearer, who saw a rough cut of the film in 1979:

With most of these kinds of things, you find that the anticipation, or the concept, is better than the thing itself. But seeing this film was really awe-inspiring, in that you are rarely in the presence of a perfect object. This was a perfect object. This movie is so drastically wrong, its pathos and its comedy are so wildly misplaced, that you could not, in your fantasy of what it might be like, improve on what it really is. "Oh My God!" – that's all you can say. — Harry Shearer , Spy Magazine, 1992[4]

@kymbos The point should be obvious, the gun ban effected more than gun crime, and not in a good way. It may have stopped mass shootings (see below), but at what cost? The murder rate actually increased after the ban, and didn't fall below the pre-ban rate until 7 years later. The murder rate before the ban was already on a steady decline, and Australia now has more violent crime post gun ban.

Did the gun ban even stop mass shootings? Mass Shootings in Australia and New Zealand: A Descriptive Study of Incidence (PDF) concludes:

"The hypothesis that Australia’s prohibition of certain types of firearms explains the absence of mass shootings in that country since 1996 does not appear to be supported. Rather, it can be seen that both Australia and New Zealand, a country where the firearms banned in Australia (self-loading longarms and pump action shotguns) are still available for the purposes of target shooting and hunting, have now experienced very similar periods of time without the occurrence of a mass shooting event. At the time of writing, this period exceeds 13 years, for both countries. This is not consistent with the expectation that, if civilian access to certain types of firearms explained the occurrence of mass shootings in Australia (and conversely, if prohibiting such firearms explains the absence of mass shootings), then New Zealand (a country that still allows the ownership of such firearms) would have continued to experience mass shooting events.

This finding cannot be readily explained by differences in population size or pre-existing differences in the occurrence of mass shootings between the two countries – both of which were controlled for during the analyses. It is also important to note that in New Zealand, there have been no major changes to firearms legislation since 1992, when the requirement of photographic licences and ‘safe storage’ of firearms was implemented (in this regard, Australian and New Zealand legislation is similar). Prior to 1992, the last major change to firearms legislation in New Zealand occurred in 1983, when the requirement for mandatory registration of hunting and sporting longarms was removed. Thus, the absence of mass shootings in New Zealand over the past 13 years cannot be readily explained by any legislative changes implemented around the period 1996/1997."

@Yogi Way to miss the point. I wasn't comparing cars and guns, I was comparing laws regulating cars and guns. That's all I'm going to say to you. You've already told me in another discussion that you're going to refuse any evidence that doesn't agree with your narrow minded beliefs, so having a discussion with you is pointless.

@RedSky

1) I'm not implying that the US is more violent. I already pointed out that the US has lower violent crime rates than the US and UK despite the higher murder rate.


2) I'd say people in rural areas are most likely own guns for hunting and also self defense as there are no police patrols out in the country.

I also wouldn't blame the availability of guns to criminals on gun enthusiasts. Criminals generally don't legally buy their guns. One way to cut down on illegall gun sales is to charge the sellers as accomplices to the crimes committed with the weapons they sell illegally.


3) Maybe punishment was not the right word I should have chosen. My point is that to cut down on driving fatalities, the laws enacted didn't put any inconveniences on responsible drivers.

Your back of the envelope calculation isn't quite so clear cut. Sam Harris discusses this in his article.

It is also worth noting that relatively gun-free countries are not as peaceful as many think. Here are some recent crime data comparing the U.S., the U.K., Australia, and Sweden. Although the U.S. has a higher rate of homicide, the problem of assaults in these other countries is much worse...

So, while the U.S. has many more murders, the U.K., Australia, and Sweden have much higher levels of assault. One might think that having a few more murders per 100,000 persons each year is still much worse than having many hundreds more assaults. Perhaps it is. (One could also argue, as several readers have, that differences in proportion are all we should care about.) But there should be no doubt that the term “assault” often conceals some extraordinary instances of physical and psychological suffering.

It's possible that the reason the US has lower assault, robbery and rape is that armed citizens are able to defend themselves from such crimes.

I'm seeing a lot of people saying the US should look to the UK and Australia on how to handle gun control. Both UK and Australia already had low murder and violent crime rates at the time of their "bans." After Australia's National Firearms Act and forced gun buyback, homicide fell by 9%, but assault went up 40% and rape went up 20%. In the years before the NFA, homicides had been on a steady decline, and a 2003 study published by the Brookings Institution, found the NFA's impact on homicide was "relatively small."

After the UK's "gun ban" in 1997, gun crime actually increased [1] [2]. Gun crimes in 1997-1998 were 2,648. The Office for National Statistics shows that 5,507 firearm offenses were reported 2011-2012.


4) Yes cars do provide a benefit to society. Their regulation and restrictions are reasonable, and I already said I'm not opposed to any reasonable gun laws. But cars are the leading cause of accidental death each year. There are lots of things that can be done to make cars and drivers safer. Cars could be limited to 70 MPH. The national speed limit on highways is 70 MPH, why do you need a car capable of going faster? Cars can be fitted with a GPS and a "black box" that records your driving activities. Each year when you renew your inspection, the black box data is downloaded and analyzed. If it's discovered you've broken any traffic laws, you will be fined, and if it's determined you aren't a safe driver, your license is revoked. Prohibit personal sales of vehicles between individuals, because you can't know if the person your selling to is a safe driver or if their license is valid (see below about the "gun show exemption"). Sounds crazy, but those aren't nearly as bad as some of the things being proposed for new gun laws.

I doubt any of those would be acceptable to the majority of drivers, but it would make driving safer and save lives.

As for your suggestions "not yet tried."

- We already have rigorous background checks for purchasing firearms. They're done by the FBI's NICS, I don't know how it can be more rigorous.
- There is no "gun show exemption" or "loophole," that is more media buzzword BS. Private sale and transfer of anything (not just firearms) can not regulated by congress. It's another constitutional issue dealing with the regulation of commerce. It is still illegal for a person to sell a firearm to someone that they have reason to believe may not be legally able to own one. This is another issue that I'm not opposed to fixing though. It could be as simple as requiring the transaction to be witnessed by a licensed gun dealer and perform a background check.
- Assault weapons are already restricted. Real assault weapons that is, not what the media and lawmakers keep calling assault weapons. Once again I ask, why such fuss over the weapon type least used in crime? These "assault weapons" are expensive to acquire, and most criminals go for cheap, small caliber, concealable pistols and revolvers. [source] For more on what an assault weapon is and their use in crime, just head on over to this Wikipedia page.
- Restricting ammunition would be something that would effect responsible gun owners and likely have little effect on crime. Responsible gun owners are the ones that buy more ammo, go to gun ranges and practice.


5) You mean the steadily high murder rate that has been steadily declining for over two decades, by 50% since 1992? [source]

My progression was.....
Commodore 64 (1983),
Atari520ST (1987),
Atari 1040ST (1987), (Hard drive!)
IBM PC/AT (1988),
Macintosh 2 (1990),
80486 66DX2, (1992),
Pentium overdrive for the 486DX2 (1995),
Dual Pentium MMX 166 (1996) ,
Pentium-2 333mhz (1998), (Dual voodoo-2)
Pentium-3 800mhz (2000),
Pentium D 2.8gz ( 2006),
Core i7-920 ( 2009),
Core i7-970 (2011).

Lesser machines along the way... a Macintosh SE I cant place on the timeline. My biggest regret was sticking with the Pentium-3 for so long. Wasn't so interested though.

Well, don't forget about peer review. That's the crucial thing that sets science apart from religion. No hypothesis becomes a theory until it's been road tested like a motherfucker. Since religion relies on "revealed wisdom," it can't possibly hope to keep up.

For instance, did you know that Galileo might have been wronged back in 1632 when he was ordered to stand trial in Rome for heresy?...and that this was revealed to the Pope...in 1992??

That's correct, it took 360 years for the Vatican to admit that the earth is not the center of the cosmos. Granted, there wasn't a lot of peer review happening in 1632...but it did happen eventually. More importantly, it happened in spite of religion, not because of it.

So with religion's impressive track record of getting it wrong, and more impressive foot-dragging, why should they be the authority about the age of the cosmos? Or condom use? Or homosexuality? They have proven themselves quite unable to do so.

Science is the one with the winning track record, fuckers.

The following are 20 facts about Wal-Mart that will absolutely shock you….

#1 The average U.S. family now spends more than $4000 a year at Wal-Mart.

#2 In 2010, Wal-Mart had revenues of 421 billion dollars. That amount was greater than the GDP of 170 different countries including Norway, Venezuela and the United Arab Emirates.

#3 If Wal-Mart was a nation, it would have the 23rd largest GDP in the world.

#4 Wal-Mart now sells more groceries than anyone else in America does. In the United States today, one out of every four grocery dollars is spent at Wal-Mart.

#5 Amazingly, 100 million customers shop at Wal-Mart every single week.

#6 Wal-Mart has opened more than 1,100 ”supercenters” since 2005 alone.

#7 Today, Wal-Mart has more than 2 million employees.

#8 If Wal-Mart was an army, it would be the second largest military on the planet behind China.

#9 Wal-Mart is the largest employer in 25 different U.S. states.

#10 According to the Economic Policy Institute, trade between Wal-Mart and China resulted in the loss of 133,000 manufacturing jobs in the United States between 2001 and 2006.

#11 The CEO of Wal-Mart makes more in a single hour than a full-time Wal-Mart associate makes in an entire year.

#12 Tens of thousands of Wal-Mart employees and their children are enrolled in Medicaid and are dependent on the government for healthcare.

#13 Between 2001 and 2007, the value of products that Wal-Mart imported from China grew from $9 billion to $27 billion.

#14 Sadly, about 85 percent of all the products sold at Wal-Mart are made outside of the United States.

#15 It is being reported that about 80 percent of all Wal-Mart suppliers are in China at this point.

#16 Amazingly, 96 percent of all Americans now live within 20 miles of a Wal-Mart.

#17 The number of “independent retailers” in the United States declined by 60,000 between 1992 and 2007.

#18 According to the Center for Responsive Politics, Wal-Mart spent 7.8 million dollars on political lobbying during 2011. That number does not even include campaign contributions.

#19 Today, Wal-Mart has five times the sales of the second largest U.S. retailer (Costco).

#20 The combined net worth of six members of the Walton family is roughly equal to the combined net worth of the poorest 30 percent of all Americans.

http://www.topix.com/forum/city/utica-ny/T1FQDFUL3PUDLIA4V

In her defense, her arms were asleep.
...and it was still 1992 in that room.

Has he lost his fucking mind?

He has disapproved of America's wars in Korea (1950–1953), Vietnam (1964–1973), Afghanistan (2001–present), and Iraq (2003–2011), believing that the United States should not be overly militaristic or play the role of global policeman.[250][251] He considers himself "too individualistic to be either right-wing or left-wing",[252] describing himself in 1974 as "a political nothing" and "a moderate"[248] and in 1997 as a "libertarian".


He has endorsed same-sex marriage[254][257] and contributed to groups supporting the Equal Rights Amendment for women, which failed to receive ratification in 1982.[258] In 1992, Eastwood acknowledged to writer David Breskin that his political views represented a fusion of Milton Friedman and Noam Chomsky.[259]

MITT FUCKING ROMNEY????????????????????????????????????????????

Edit: I think he's genuinely going senile.

Hmmmm...... With the style of clothing that people are wearing, I'm gonna take a chance here & say this looks *90s to me.

Edit:- "Clicks through to YouTube....March 14th, 1992....draws smugly on cigarette"

Tags for this video have been changed from 'zelda, cross, christian, griwing boobies, 1992, bastards, link, peahat, nintendo' to 'zelda, cross, christian, growing boobies, 1992, bastards, link, peahat, nintendo' - edited by xxovercastxx

Oh, but to add to that - I love it when people unearth a gem video that has sat on the web for years, with no love. And someone pulls it out and bam! There's footage of the Beatles from Germany in the 60s, or some nature doco clip from 1992.

In short, don't focus to heavily on 'new' to exclusion of buried gems.

Jonna Spilbor (@3:36) used to appear on one of the local radio stations back home, giving free legal advice to callers but also participating in the usual morning show banter. Sometimes I agreed with her, sometimes I didn't, but she always had a solid argument on whatever she was talking about.

Which is why I'm surprised to hear her say a woman can be jailed in NY for going topless alongside men. In 1992, the NYS supreme court determined that women are allowed to go topless anywhere men are, otherwise it's discrimination.

*nochannel

Released in 1992.

*femme
*music
*90s

OK...OK...

This is kind of weird, but I've been meaning to ask you for a while (in fact, I might have already asked you this and been so high or something that I don;t remember).

So, when I was around twelve or so, in 1992, I went to an O.M.S.I. camp in central Oregon down by the South Sister. There was a kid there with me, who's name I don't remember, who first introduced me to Duckman via the original comic. When teh camp was over, I bought the comic from him for ten bucks or something and I still have it to this day.

By any crazy, astronomical-chance-in-hell, could that have possibly been you?
In reply to this comment by Duckman33:
Cool, I live in Springfield actually but I just met a girl that lives up there, so who knows what the future holds. : I'd definitely go up for a siftup though if one happens to occur.

In reply to this comment by Ryjkyj:
Just moved back a couple years ago. That's one more person for the inevitable Pacific NW siftup... that will happen someday... maybe.
In reply to this comment by Duckman33:
This guy is a regular on the Portland Trailblazers after the game show called "Talkin' Ball". Never thought he was very funny. But now I can see why, he can't cut loose on that show like he can here.

P.S. Didn't know you lived in P-town Ryjkyj.

the original version that got banned in 1992 for being too erotic by MTV
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQQpbRN1FrE