It's not giving up the gun that might save lives, it's giving up the right to own them.
His gun probably wouldn't ever kill someone.
The right of any non restricted person to buy one is what leads to murderers having this tool often used to commit mass murder.
Would that stop all mass murders? Absolutely not, but it would stop SOME...probably most. Other methods people use are harder to assemble without being caught (bombs), are far less lethal (knives, arrows), and/or are harder to procure (tasteless poisons or gas). There's no other legal tool available to the public capable of mass murders with so little effort.

And yes, @BSR, this guy just made a sawed off AR15. He better post the video of him cutting it in half again if he doesn't want a visit from ATF. That gun almost certainly still fires, it's just incredibly more dangerous to the user now, and highly illegal. Not sure what you're saying in your snarky post, he didn't ever say a word otherwise.

@Zawash -- all true. And yet, just because Calvin and Hobbes and Bill Watterson are/were awesome, it doesn't make IP and copyright rules any more sensible.

My opinion: those respectful and well-done parodies and homages (say, Pants are Overrated's Hobbes and Bacon) are fair use. The person/people that drew Calvin peeing on things? Fair use also. There is a big difference between "tasteless" and "should be illegal".

Selling car decals with those images is different, because then you're treading all over the "not for profit" element of fair use. However, tracking down tons of small-scale infringers on that, or even worse, average people who simply buy the decals/shirts/whatever and likely don't know or care to know about IP and copyright laws is ... a losing battle at best, and punitive towards *fans* of the IP at worst.

There are many many examples of going to idiotic (IMO) lengths to protect IP. Disney suing local bakeries for drawing some character in icing on top of a kids birthday cake. Metallica suing Napster, University internet hosts, and even individual downloaders of their music. Teachers being sued for playing a clip of a TV show, movie, or song as part of their lessons. Etc. etc.

At some level, copyright is a good thing. Or at least a necessary evil. But the litigious zeal with which IP and copyright are "protected" these days seems like we've lost sight of the "art before commerce" element that is a huge part of why Calvin and Hobbes was so awesome. And why IP is something worth protecting (within sensible limits).

ALL depictions of Calvin & Hobbes, barring the comic itself and the comic binders from Norway, are knockoffs and stolen IP. All stickers, t-shirts, posters, sweaters, shorts, lunchboxes and whatever is non-licenced stolen IP.
There's the comic itself, plus the sole footnote of the Norwegian comic binders.
As for the peeing sticker: https://triviahappy.com/articles/the-tasteless-history-of-the-peeing-calvin-decal
The interesting part is of course that even the nice looking, respectful stuff are unlicensed knockoffs.

Except that is not what happened.

The complaint was that Carr (and by extension the One Show) had breached broadcasting standards. Ofcom felt that he did and gave a lengthy explanation of why they felt that way.

You are entitled to disagree, but let's be clear here: he is not being incarcerated or tortured.

He made a tasteless (and not particularly funny) joke. People called him on it.

Let's compare that to Louis CKs bit on pedophiles. His joke was definitely uncomfortable, but it had an interesting point: before you condemn someone as a monster, maybe try to understand why they do such awful things.

Whereas Carr just said "hah! dwarfs are short, geddit?!". It's exactly as Tompkins described... it's lazy and unfunny.

Holy crap.

Yes, Cruz is unlikable, but once again, what passes for journalism in America shows just how shitty it is. To ask those kinds of questions to his wife is just so tasteless.

So many other legitimate things to attack Cruz on.

Abortion on the due date?? wtf?? For fuck sake, even fellow Republicans have to be lambasting him for that blatant lie.

She's obviously skilled and I'm a sucker for any craftspeople videos, but dang that was some tasteless pieces she was turning out there.

I'd eat better if "good" food didn't taste like a rabbit shit on it, at best, and utterly tasteless for the most part.

I couldn't access this from work. LOL.

Reason: This Websense category is filtered: Tasteless.

I think the previous drama over Clarkson have been quite overblown tbh. The slope thing was ignorance from the production as much as it was Clarkson. I'm not convinced he even said nigger, and comedians have made India (and others) the butt of more tasteless jokes without complaint. Frankly, I have found him more disagreeable when it comes to his dismissal of speeding and climate change, attitudes which in my opinion may well have done far more damage than making off-hand remarks about the work ethics of Mexicans.

I think a lot of "Clarkson" is a bit of an act. Likewise with Hamster and May, they are playing caricatures. Unfortunately for Clarkson, I think he ended up caricaturing himself to some degree. It has been difficult to determine where Clarkson the person ended and where Clarkson the personality started. Perhaps even he wasn't sure where the line was.

Anyway, I think the decision to sack him (or rather, not renew his contract) is right. Sadly, because of the previous threats (empty?) to get rid of him following each blunder, Clarkson's dismissal will be seen as a coup rather than the fair application of the same rules we all expect to be judged by.

I'll be interested to see what happens to Top Gear. My guess would be that Clarkson has not been exiled, but suspended for an undisclosed period. I'd start watching the show again if they brought in new hosts, and I'd probably keep watching if the show wasn't quite so blokey with quite such predictable characters making staged goofs every show.

It's like if you watched a cow get shot in the head, carved up and then served to you on a plate. You might be like "I'm gonna eat this timidly".

If you just walk in to a restaurant, totally abstracted from the process and a juicy hunk of meat is presented to you. You just dive right in.

If this water just came out of your tap and it was clean, tasteless and deemed healthy. Few days and you'd totally forget where or how it got there.

All ads work by commodifying emotion. The product and brand are identified with the emotions produced by the ad content. At least that's the intention.

I'd like to hear what he thinks of the appallingly tasteless Sainsbury's ad that managed to commodify the emotional response to the Christmas truces in WW1.


“What is our ideology? Is it the worship of Christ or the worship of products?” - False dichotomy, Mr Brand.

While I think the ad is tasteless, I thought large chain business built on reputation were above this, they haven't done anything legally wrong here.

If she posed for the photos, and was paid by the photographer as the model, she had to have signed a disclosure contract that allowed the photographer to sell her image. I'm guessing that it wasn't Burger King she posed for when these photos were taken but an independent photographer, or image bank like Getty Images.

So once she has modeled and collected her paycheck, (or maybe, no paycheck), she has entered into a contract whereby the photographer or artist who took the photos has full say on how those images are used, in this case sold to a major fast food chain.

And it's not Rape. In now way is this rape. Disappointing and a bit embarrassing and by-and-large a completely inappropriate ad for a family focused restaurant chain. But then Burger King is know for it's sometimes inappropriate ads.

I will also say that it was an unprofessional move to buy the model footage and not take their own photos with a willing model. Big companies who can afford it, should never be purchasing stock photos from a service for this very reason, someone will notice and call them out. Big companies have a professional reputation to uphold. This ad campaign was a cop-out, without professionalism.

I'll bet this ad was created by a secondary party as well, and not by Burger King staff creative. Sometimes large corporations can't police every ad that is made in their name - which is unfortunate. I work for a small company and it's often a nightmare trying to police all the creative that gets made which doesn't get filtered through the Public Affairs department.

Not to speculate, but the bitch who mentions the sugar seems like a lawsuit chaser. Or at least vindictive and ready to lie. Like finding a finger in a McDonald's burger...oh wait that belonged to the people trying to sue McDonald's. The hard part is that the prison can't defend itself if this isn't true. People won't believe them anyways.

John Oliver sure as hell didn't need any proof to suck her tits. (And abdominal wounds do tend to ooze...just saying...)

In fact his blatant discrimination shows itself when he attacks the guy who made a joke--yeah the joke was tasteless, but it was made to emphasis a point, which it absolutely did. Did John make note of the valid point? That inmates sometimes lie? Fuck no. Did the other guy take a more balanced position, even admitting that some inmates claims are true? Yeah.

I realize I'm being a troll here.
but 'downvote' for the billions who go hungry or eat the same bland tasteless food every day, and for the land cleared to grow those wasted spices, or to extract the oil that shipped them to the studio.
To everyone who thinks I'm an ass... feel free to pick and downvote one of my videos that shows my hypocrisy... I have no doubt there are many.