Oh certainly, there are definitely glaring flaws with Rogue One.

The biggest problem for me was how every character conveniently dies IMMEDIATELY as soon as their narrative purpose is done with. And strangely, every character seems completely ready to die in a way that makes the deaths fairly laughable.

Saw: "I'm gonna stare out this window and not even try to escape."

Bodhi: "I'm gonna close my eyes and not even try to toss that thermal detonator back out of the shuttle."

Baze: "Welp, my best friend is dead so I'm just going to Leroy Jenkins those Deathtroopers."

They missed major dramatic opportunities for each character death. Think "Saving Private Ryan" where each character death is meaningful. Caparzo disobeys a command to do something decent and gets himself killed. Wade dies because Tom Hanks wanted to do the right thing and clear the machine gun nest. Fish dies because Upham is too cowardly to climb the steps and fight. And none of those guys resigned themselves to death--they all wanted desperately to live.

A couple of other things that bothered me about Rogue One:

Why did Admiral Raddus take Princess Leia--a Galactic Senators daughter--into a major battle with the Empire, one which most Rebels were convinced was a trap designed to draw out the fleet?

Why didn't Vader just Force pull the Death Star plans out of the escaping rebels before massacring them all?

Why did the Death Star "miss" Scarif base and hit the ocean instead despite them showing it had pinpoint accuracy when blowing up Jedha?

All that being said, TFA disappointed me big time. It was just trying waaaaaaaay too hard to evoke the original trilogy. If I wanted to watch the original trilogy again I'd, you know, watch the original trilogy. And don't even get me started on Kylo Ren. I haven't wanted to punch a character in the face so hard since whiny Anakin from Attack of the Clones.

EDIT: To keep this on topic, I'm annoyed that Plinket didn't point out the actual flaws in the movie and instead focused on the "they didn't explain the Force" bullshit.

Definitely a Christmas movie. Don't forget the scene where the elevator opens to the dead gunman sitting on a chair, and written on his sweater is "Now I have a machine gun. Ho-Ho-Ho"

Video omits something important :

NRA didn't need to be anti-gun-control prior to the 60's.

You used to be able to mail order machine guns shipped straight to your house... without any background anything.

It's the creation of affective (spelled with an 'a' on purpose) gun control laws at the federal level that gave the NRA a cause - hence they took up the cause.

The NRA is, essentially, a reactionary entity (in its current form).

-scheherazade

At 0:33, cue Far Cry 3 machine gun freak-out.

I agree that the restriction on the CDC shouldn't be happening.

As far as the limitation of what type of weapons we can have, I'm fine with the system in place. Civilians can own machine guns if they get the proper papers and tax stamp. If we want to classify semi auto rifles in the same class, sure. We can even go back to the Assault Rifle ban if we need to. I just don't see it stopping mass shootings, but that's my opinion.

As far as AR-15's specifically go, they aren't what I would consider to be the best weapon to kill people. At short range and with the shorter barrels most of the civilian ones have, the bullet isn't close to being as effective as a handgun. A Glock 22 has a 15+1 round capacity in a .40 caliber. Carrying 2 of them, firing one empty and then the other (not at the same time), assuming you are remotely able to aim, would net you far more DRT people than a 30 round .223 rifle. Tuck one under your arm, swap clips, release the slide catch, repeat for the second, and you are ready to go. Heck, even a pump or semi auto shotgun with the limiter tube removed and using buckshot is likely to get you more dead people.

It doesn't work like that. What you end up with is something akin to Australia's gun laws, which 'technically' still allow certain people to own guns, realistically most won't or can't

Category A: Rimfire rifles (not semi-automatic), circuit loaded firearms. shotguns (not pump-action or semi-automatic), air rifles including semi automatic, and paintball gun. A "Genuine Reason" must be provided for a Category A firearm. [AKA, you have to prove you have a reason to own these weapons. Newsflash, the majority of police will automatically deny you. Oh yeah, for a PAINTBALL gun as well.]

Category B: Centrefire rifles including bolt action, pump action, circuit loaded, and lever action (not semi-automatic), muzzleloading firearms made after 1 January 1901. [Same as Cat A, must have a 'genuine reason' to own one, be registered, have a fee, ton of other limitations, so basically hard to own]

Category C: Pump-action or self-loading shotguns having a magazine capacity of 5 or fewer rounds and semi automatic rimfire rifles. [Only Primary producers, farm workers, firearm dealers, firearm safety officers, collectors and clay target shooters can own functional Category C firearms.]

Category D: Self-loading centrefire rifles, pump-action or self-loading shotguns have a magazine capacity of more than 5 rounds. [Functional Category D firearms are restricted to government agencies, occupational shooters and primary producers in some states. Collectors may own deactivated Category D firearms.]

Category H: Handguns including air pistols and deactivated handguns. [This class is available to target shooters and certain security guards whose job requires possession of a firearm. To be eligible for a Category H firearm, a target shooter must serve a probationary period of 6 months using club handguns, after which they may apply for a permit. A minimum number of matches yearly to retain each category of handgun and be a paid-up member of an approved pistol club. Target shooters are limited to handguns of .38 or 9mm calibre or less and magazines may hold a maximum of 10 rounds. Participants in certain "approved" pistol competitions may acquire handguns up to .45", currently Single Action Shooting and Metallic Silhouette. IPSC shooting is approved for 9mm/.38/.357 sig, handguns that meet the IPSC rules, larger calibres such as .45 were approved for IPSC handgun shooting contests in Australia in 2014. Barrels must be at least 100mm (3.94") long for revolvers, and 120mm (4.72") for semi-automatic pistols unless the pistols are clearly ISSF target pistols; magazines are restricted to 10 rounds.]

Category R/E: Restricted weapons, such as machine guns, rocket launchers, full automatic self loading rifles, flame-throwers, anti-tank guns, howitzers and other artillery weapons [Obviously this class is right out...]

You can own some muzzleloading weapons without restrictions, although percussion cap pistols are restricted. In addition to these minor rules, all guns must be secured in a safe or other similar location, all must be fully registered so that the government knows the location of every single weapon/owner, and you can't sell them to another person, only to a dealer or the law to be destroyed.

After a few years of de-fanging and getting the citizens used to not having weapons, the Australian government and law enforcement routinely quietly hold gun buybacks to persuade more people to give up their weapons. They also do amnesty turn ins now and then.

So, that is the AMAZING suite of laws Australia put in place to stop mass shootings. Forgive me if, when combined, those type of laws would basically neuter the 2nd amendment. We've already neutered the 1st with 'hate speech' and the ability to sue over getting your feelings hurt. The 4th has been steadily under attack, because GOOD citizens shouldn't mind if the government rummages through everything you own or do. We haven't messed with the 5th amendment too much, so we could look at that next, maybe allow torture of everyone for confessions.

I'm getting tired of listing points, so let me just say this. I am incredibly sorry that people died, they shouldn't have and it is an utter shame. However, we are already fighting on a daily basis to keep a facsimile of the rights that were fought for when we built this country. Watering them down further only helps our government tighten the bonds of enslavement upon us. I can't agree with that.

Looks to me like the only benefit they're claiming is that the mechanism is mechanically simpler. That's probably a reasonable benefit, but they've had 100 years to perfect more traditional guns so I imagine there would need to be a pretty substantial advantage to be worthwhile, particularly since it needs special ammunition and all the faffing about with supply chains and inventory that it would necessitate.

It's possible the open chamber would help heat-wise by preventing the bullets from "cooking off" which is a problem with some machine guns that happens when the chamber gets hot enough to ignite the propellant making the gun run away, firing without the trigger being pulled. That wouldn't apply to an electrically (or whatever) driven gun like this, though.

So... yeah, it's probably just one of those "let's try it and see what comes of it" sort of things, because I don't know why you'd want a gun with funky ammunition that takes up more space because it might be slightly more reliable than the otherwise very reliable existing guns.

The real Ronald Reagan was in favour of a social safety net for the truly needy, despite being known for the 1981 Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act which cut benefits for some of the better-off welfare recipients. Also, if you look at his position on immigration (granted amnesty in 1986) and gun control (banned open carry in California, banned sale of machine guns in 1986, lobbied for the ban on assault rifles in 1994) you'll find that he is politically far to the left of any of the current Republican presidential candidates.

The real Barack Obama proposed income tax rates lower than under Reagan, and if he's ever proposed socialist style wealth redistribution then I didn't hear about it. From over here he looks centre right poitically, so it's a little bit jarring to hear people talk about him as if he's a leftist!

Your video, Snowball machine gun, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

This achievement has earned you your "Pop Star" Level 16 Badge!

It's really not correct to say we're all human and we have a responsibility to care for one another and so forth when so many of the refugees are dangerous, mediaeval fanatics.

It's not that they're predominantly brownish-skinned; it's not that they're poor or uneducated; it's not that they come from some other country, as if geography means anything; it's that they're devout and practising members of a cult of murderous, totalitarian evil. Europe has enough fascists already, we don't want any more.

The compassionate, humanitarian thing to do would be machine gun all the muslims at the border, and welcome the rest of the refugees with open arms. Migration is a human right; some people just aren't human.

http://www.romans322.com/daily-death-rate-statistics.php

You are correct, they do not break down suicide by method, so some portion of that 20k could be guns. There are also 34 mass shooting deaths this year and 726 people shot by police. Then again they didn't add together some of the other items, like all vehicular deaths.

In any case, I was not fudging numbers, I picked the most obvious option and listed it.

In the grand scheme of things, it's not that the deaths from guns don't count, it is that the level of attention paid to them is far and above that paid to other forms of death. It's the same thing with people getting bit by sharks. The total number is incredibly low compared to other deaths or injuries from being in the ocean, but whenever it happens, you will see nothing but that in the headlines. That is what I was trying to say. It sucks that people have died from guns, but if we are going to sensationalize those deaths over others, it is nothing more than an agenda to demonize them.

I am all for implementing more restrictions on guns or other weapons, especially in ways that will make it more difficult for mentally ill people to get their hands on them and also methods that will help police identify guns that have been used in crimes. In many cases, the problem is not totally with the restrictions, but with how lax the enforcement is of the ones that are in place. We need to look at this as well. But the video is not about that, it is about making guns the villain. It is the same thing with semi automatic rifles, people with an agenda will call them things like "Military weaponry", "Assault Rifles", and "Automatic Machine Guns". They use buzz words to make them seem more than they are and yet you have clueless people like Joe Biden who says things like "get a shotgun", not realizing that a shotgun can easily wound and kill people faster than a semi auto rifle.

As far as the 'helpful' gun statistics, I would consider them to be subjective based on the situation. I found this site: http://gunssavelives.net/incident-map/, which might or might not be accurate. I wouldn't rely on it, because I don't know what they use for verification.

In any case, as I stated before, I don't mind regulations. I would mind bans and it is clear that many of the more hardcore anti gun people want that to be the end game.

Flamethrowers aren't considered weapons and are legal to own, though against the Geneva convention to use on people. Really, though, they aren't considered weapons because they aren't very useful as weapons (compared to say, a shotgun or rifle or pistol or a even a bow) unless you happen to have a guy with a machine gun in a pillbox who is in your way, they're not terribly useful.

But it's just political show for the masses. Look here, we do something about our shitty police! That's the sad part.
That won't stop cops from showing up with SWAT teams at your house because you didn't pay parking tickets.
The problem isn't being run over with a tank or getting shot to pieces by .50 cal machine guns. Any sensible law enforcement officer working in the US should just know that this is ridiculous overkill. They're not fighting Terminators or Transformers, they're fighting fleshy, squishy humans.
And here's the real problem. They shoot people with handguns and kneel on their throats. They spray you with mace or beat you with sticks. They use somewhat low tech weaponry to cross the lines.
The only field where that military equipment could become a real problem is in mass-protest situations. Just look at the occupy protests. However, teargas, riotgear and batons are still the very effective go-to-solution.

Jurassic Park when it came out was simply: a phenomenon. I've never seen movie theaters packed for two weeks straight--no matter the time--for the same show. Everyone had seen the show over and over again. It was simply too amazing--it was the first show to PERFECTLY nail CGI--and it picked one of the best topics for CGI that you could... Who can ever forget the first time you saw and heard that T-Rex step out into the clearing and roar. It was mesmerizing (I do feel bad for those of you that hated it; there will always be haters, for any movie, or any book...but I think those of us that liked it all got the same sense of wonderment from that show...those scenes; which IS why we kept going back). It reminded me of the similar feeling you get from amusement park rides (pick your ride that fits what I'm describing).

The first time I saw that, I had to do a double take. Nothing, EVER, had been even remotely close to being that good. I mean nothing. Seeing the "gigantic" Brachiosaurus (as there have been sauropods found that, unlike the "brachi" @ 26m--length wise, is utterly dwarfed by ones like the Amphicoelias Fragillimus, that could be as long as 60m) was just amazing (this IS the movie that made CGI a reality for movies and mainstreamed it).

It helped that I saw the movie on a screen that was as big as an IMAX. One of those old-fashioned ones with a balcony and decorations. Torn down and replaced by a screen half it's size, but still fit just as many people (ah, what greed does to us)...

It was the T-Rex scene that left us awe struck and electrified--it truly felt like a dinosaur had come back to life...and yes, it was a bit terrifying. Add in the great music, well done sound (who can forget our *THX* openings), and something so well done that it basically was something new--the CGI--it was a hit that people saw so many times.

Jurassic Park did for CGI, what Star Wars did for extended special effects and the company(s) that created it. Both jump started a new generation of movies. Avatar tried to bring us into the 3D realm (which I DO like, and I would say it "worked" for as much as it possibly could...as I have a 3D HDTV and quite a collection of shows...but...), but 3D has too many issues left for it to "change" things *yet*. Sound is another place that can change things (along with many other aspects and ideas that deal with including or adding onto the sensory perception of a movie; maybe we just have to wait until we can connect almost directly neurally).

I hope this movie will be worth watching (I hope it can end up being much more than that), but it merely looks like a huge money grabbing scheme (plus Jurassic Park was at least based on a pretty good book; which BTW is worth reading even if you saw the movie). The fact that the new huge "T-Rex/Velociraptor" seems impervious to a 30mm machine gun makes me want to just...laugh; then add in the swarm of flying dinosaur people snatchers.