sooo... can we have it now?

^That's not very PC turkeyboy.

PC? Well... it is actually. Chuck was anti-PC.

>> ^iwastheturkey:
sooo... can we have it now?


^as long as you pry it.

I enjoyed Ben Hur when I saw it lo the many years ago on the big screen (no, not when it came out, just a screening on a very large screen), but since seeing this and his devotion to guns and his disgusting pushing for gun ownership over all else made me completely unable to watch anything with him in it again.

he continued..."You DAMN DIRTY APES!"

I want to support the NRA. Currently, I pay too much monthly to other organizations (such as the ACLU) to become a member of another group. Maybe in the future when I get a little extra cash.

Political correctness cares not whether you approve, it will hunt you down and attack you with its relentless hyphenated tolerance when you least expect it.

Soylent Green is Nader!

"Take your cold dead hands off me you damn soylent green, and also, let my people go."

wait...I just found out he died. Now it makes sense why he's all over the news. Good riddance. Not because of his stance on gun control, but because his movies put me to sleep.

There's some comments about how his acting career is being overshadowed by his stance. He knew damn well what he was doing. Make an outrageous stance for or against something and maybe people will forget your past works.

The man is dead Rottenseed, if you don't have anything nice to say then I'll thank you to STFU.

^No offense swampgirl, but when does death get you a "get out of jail free card" when dealing with peoples opinions? So if someone dies, no one can criticize them, their work or their opinions anymore? Bullshit.

yikes!!!! blankfist voluntarily gives money to lawyers??!! Agenda-oriented, do-nothing punks at that......what an ultra-maroon!!! Yeah rottonseed, that threw me fer loop as well-I know he's a cheese method from the old-school, but hey, Ben Hur kicked-ass......so did Omega Man-when you die, and if before you become famous, may those left behind speak well of your memory, as fleeting as incarnations are-

>> ^rottenseed:
wait...I just found out he died. Now it makes sense why he's all over the news. Good riddance. Not because of his stance on gun control, but because his movies put me to sleep.
There's some comments about how his acting career is being overshadowed by his stance. He knew damn well what he was doing. Make an outrageous stance for or against something and maybe people will forget your past works.


Oh yes it's utterly outrageous to stand up for something you believe it. To actually be actively involved in politics, and giving a damn about your individual rights.

It's a good thing that men who have accomplished so much more in life then you have are dead. Isn't it?

@everybody: What? So now I'm supposed to be held accountable for speaking out of my ass??? I didn't see that in the FAQ, I think it should be posted.

In all fairness, I have nothing against Charlton Heston, I just felt exceptionally froward this morning and decided to pick on somebody who, even if people didn't love, could respect.

Celebratory rhetoric in response to hearing on one's death is not sharing "their opinion". It's disrespect. It is just plain old fashioned decency I'm talking about here.

If you're on about gun control, why not stick to the issue instead of ad hom attacks on the man?



>> ^videosiftbannedme:
^No offense swampgirl, but when does death get you a "get out of jail free card" when dealing with peoples opinions? So if someone dies, no one can criticize them, their work or their opinions anymore? Bullshit.

Bullshit hon

>> ^rottenseed:
@everybody: What? So now I'm supposed to be held accountable for speaking out of my ass??? I didn't see that in the FAQ, I think it should be posted.
In all fairness, I have nothing against Charlton Heston, I just felt exceptionally froward this morning and decided to pick on somebody who, even if people didn't love, could respect.

^no what's bullshit is the amount of rain forest that has been cut down to provide soapboxes for this Charlton Heston suck-off. Many didn't give a damn about him until he died, then they wanted to jump on the same "mourning bandwagon" that Heath Ledger's death lead. And then comes the dickheads (like me) that always say "good riddance" or "I'm glad he's dead". Cue all of those that are looking for something to feel to grab a hold of their neighbor's member and beat each other off in some sick ritualistic lachrymal circle jerk and strike down those that accost their flavor of the week.

Many of you would prefer to insult an alive person behind their back than to crawl out of your superstition-proof armor and say what you'd like about the dead. Hell, even if it's got nothing to do with anything who cares? The more of this drivel I read, the more I really do dislike Charlton Heston and Ben Hur, specifically.

Yes, I use only murdered virgin rainforest wood for my soapboxes.

I use pine as it's cheap and bountiful. I go through a lot of soapboxes as you can probably guess.

I'm gonna take that as a kiss and make up.

embed needs to be fixed.

It says "video no longer available", but then when I copy the URL to go to youtube it works there.

works for me

1. Standing up for the wrong thing is worse than neutrality (I'm not saying the NRA is definitely wrong, Guns work both ways, for and against violence, and there isn't any solid statistical proof that their contribution to violence outweighs their deterrence to violence. But if an idea is wrong, it is of course right to criticize). Many issues are unclear enough and lacking in evidence that certainty of the rightness of one side would be foolish.

2. Dying does not obligate anyone to whitewash and glorify the dead man's past. Presenting one-sided drooling praise is dishonest, and it's better to STFU than be dishonest.

jwray - the post works just fine. Sometimes if you have the flash opened for a few minutes before playing, youtube gets confused. reload the page and watch immediately.

>> ^jwray:
Guns work both ways, for and against violence, and there isn't any solid statistical proof that their contribution to violence outweighs their deterrence to violence.

Guns are not a deterrent to violence, they are a threat and cause of greater violence. Guns were created for one purpose alone - killing. Shotguns weren't invented for skeet shooting, and hand guns weren't invented for target practice. Just because someone uses one for those purposes does not change what it is.

Now that's a matter of opinion. One would have to consider his past as criminal or immoral in order for it to need to be "whitewashed"

since when should we stfu because someone is dead?

i'm glad he's dead. fsck him in his cold, dead ear. and i own a few of my own guns, too. still, he's dead - good. i hope others as insane as him die as well, and soon. and i hope fire and feces are involved.

>> ^muddro:
since when should we stfu because someone is dead?
i'm glad he's dead. fsck him in his cold, dead ear. and i own a few of my own guns, too. still, he's dead - good. i hope others as insane as him die as well, and soon. and i hope fire and feces are involved.


Ah, but we disagreed with that when some conservatives said the same thing about Heath Ledger.

I'm gonna miss that guy.

> Guns are not a deterrent to violence, they are a threat and cause of greater violence. Guns were created for one purpose alone - killing. Shotguns weren't invented for skeet shooting, and hand guns weren't invented for target practice. Just because someone uses one for those purposes does not change what it is.


Among countries, there is no strong correlation between gun control and violent crime. There are countries with strict gun control and high violent crime (the UK), and countries with lax gun control and lower violent crime (Canada).

Most handgun wounds are nonlethal. You can aim for the arms or the legs to disable a criminal enough to stop him from doing whatever he was doing. If half the students at Virginia tech were armed, Cho would not have gotten far.

Florida adopted a right-to-carry law in 1987. Between 1987 and 1996, its homicide rate decreased by 36%.

If no civilian is armed, no civilian has a good chance of stopping an armed criminal. If a criminal knows he is surrounded by armed civilians, that is just as good a deterrent as being surrounded by cops.

Although guns may assist outlaws, guns also assist citizens in apprehending those outlaws. Prohibition of ANY kind of small object is extremely difficult to enforce, and determined criminals could obtain them on the black market regardless of their illegality (just as they can obtain crack even though it has been illegal for 80 years with billions of dollars spent on attempted enforcement).

There are costs and benefits of civilian gun ownership, and which outweighs the other is not clear. However prohibition of said guns is as futile as the drug war.

It is odd that fundies like Huckabee support the NRA even though their hero preached absolute nonresistance and nonviolence. (e.g. Matthew 5:33-48)

Spider-Man you're drunk.

I did not suggest a prohibition of guns. Trying that in the U.S. would be absurd for several reasons, not least of which is there are already so many guns around. And of course, there's that little problem of the Constitution. My comment was more philosophical than practical.

Celebratory rhetoric in response to hearing on one's death is not sharing "their opinion"

Yes, it is. Does it strike you as distasteful? Yes. But it's still opinion. Hence, you are trying to overshadow an inherent right with your morals. And that don't fly.

I still say, what is more valued? Freedom of speech or respect for the dead? This so called "respect" for the dead is intrinsically more hypocritical, dependent upon interest-based affiliation. Freedom of speech is an absolute, inherent right, not a custom.

Personally, I thing everyone should shut the fuck up as all each side is doing is glorifying the man's death for their own agenda. He was a gun-nut, he was a silver screen Adonis, he was a patriot, he was a arrogant scumbag...big deal. BUT, they're all still allowed to be said, regardless of whether or not somebody's feelings are going to be hurt.

>> ^jwray:
> Guns are not a deterrent to violence, they are a threat and cause of greater violence. Guns were created for one purpose alone - killing. Shotguns weren't invented for skeet shooting, and hand guns weren't invented for target practice. Just because someone uses one for those purposes does not change what it is.

Among countries, there is no strong correlation between gun control and violent crime. There are countries with strict gun control and high violent crime (the UK), and countries with lax gun control and lower violent crime (Canada)

I would just like to point out at this juncture that, in the UK, we also have less school shootings.

I don't want to get all high and mighty, politically incorrect, racist, xenophobic, or generally phobic. But relating gun laws to OVERALL violent crime? You might as well compare the flavour of my next ice cream to the distance between 2 planets.

In the UK, we have very strict gun laws, and ***WITHOUT LOOKING UP STATISTICS*** by my knowledge of recent news, we have a very, very, very lower rate of gun-crime than, for example, the US which has lax gun laws.

Now, i also want to add in that the UK takes in a large amount of immigrants from less fortunate eastern european countries that have gang culture going on, and high unemployment leading to street violence, racism, etc. Which a lot of people argue (and i see as inevitable) has led to a cultural exchange, and trading of habits, resulting in a raise in certain types of crime. Add to this the fact that the more people we get and the less our public services expand the more stretched our police are, resulting in poorer protection etc. etc. etc.

So my point is the comment you made there is completely out of scope. It's a bit of a false argument. There are many reasons for increase in violent crime in the UK, and i've just named a possible few for you. Notice they've got nothing to do with gun crime.

Having said that, i have no idea which is better. In my opinion - and it is my own and i will not have it taken from me - the US has lax gun laws and gets lots of gun crime, not a month seems to pass without me hearing of another school shooting over there. Over here, we have strict gun laws and i can't remember when we had a school shooting. I must have been young when our last one happened, or i'd have heard of it. (just looked on wikipedia and there appears to have been one SINGLE incident of a school shooting in the UK, which let to a firearms ammendment act banning handguns in the UK.)

For me, that speaks volumes.

There are many ways in which UK law can improve. We need better protection and better services all round. Immigrants are not to blame. Perhaps the UK's attitude towards immigration is partly to blame though. As is neglect, lies, corruption, public apathy, and so on. We have high violent crime and no one is happy, but how you can relate that to gun crime i really don't know.

"UK is really strict on guns. People in the UK are going round hitting people with glass bottles all day. Therefore gun laws do not work."

(if anyone has any information to add regarding my wikipedia sources, i'm all ears and waiting)

"If half the students at Virginia tech were armed, Cho would not have gotten far."


-- i was going to say why this is a bunch of bull, but i think on reflection it's meant to be so.

>> ^muddro:
since when should we stfu because someone is dead?
i'm glad he's dead. fsck him in his cold, dead ear. and i own a few of my own guns, too. still, he's dead - good. i hope others as insane as him die as well, and soon. and i hope fire and feces are involved.

Tsk tsk young probie...we only accept the highest form of trolling here...

...or lots of ass kissing to go along with it

swampgirl and rottenseed sittin in a tree...

upvote for "taken" tag.

>> ^dannym3141:
But relating gun laws to OVERALL violent crime? You might as well compare the flavour of my next ice cream to the distance between 2 planets.
In the UK, we have very strict gun laws, and WITHOUT LOOKING UP STATISTICS by my knowledge of recent news, we have a very, very, very lower rate of gun-crime than, for example, the US which has lax gun laws.


Correlation is not causation, however it is relevant. Guns can act as a deterrent to any kind of crime because a criminal who knows he is surrounded by armed civilians is deterred just as much as a criminal who is surrounded by cops. This is why you need to look at overall statistics, not just gun-related incidents. If restricting guns just causes people to murder with knives instead, it hasn't accomplished anything.

The school shootings are a red herring because they account for a minuscule portion of the overall murder rate but 99% of the media coverage. Media have deceived you, and you need to go look at actual statistics.

see http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp#Right-To-Carry%20Laws
http://www.reason.com/news/show/28582.html

>> ^sirex:
"If half the students at Virginia tech were armed, Cho would not have gotten far."

-- i was going to say why this is a bunch of bull, but i think on reflection it's meant to be so.


No, it's completely serious. I suspect the reason you decided not to say why it was a bunch of bull was because you couldn't think of a reason, and then you rationalized it by thinking of it as satire.

>> ^sirex:
"If half the students at Virginia tech were armed, Cho would not have gotten far."

-- i was going to say why this is a bunch of bull, but i think on reflection it's meant to be so.


I don't see where you're coming from at all, sirex. If I'm a student with a gun and some crazy asshole is shooting up my friends, you bet your ass I'm gonna do my best to stop him.

And seriously, HALF of the students? That, sir, is a shitload of people that you do NOT want to be shooting at. If half of the students at Virginia Tech had guns, that guy would have been swiss cheese the moment he started shooting.

>> ^jwray:
a criminal who knows he is surrounded by armed civilians is deterred just as much as a criminal who is surrounded by cops.

Upon what do you base this claim?

As for VA Tech, or any other college - you're probably correct that Cho would not have gotten very far (or even tried it all) if half the student body were armed with handguns. On the other hand, there would likely have been dozens more shootings as simple arguments, drunken brawls, etc., escalated to lethal force.

The "people will just kill each other with knives" argument is just as specious. Generally speaking, it is much harder to kill someone with a knife than with a gun. I'm pretty sure there's no such thing as a drive-by stabbing. And I don't think I've ever heard of someone being accidentally killed by a stray blade or because their knife slipped while cleaning it. The point is lethality and purpose. As I wrote above, guns have a single purpose; all of the other weapons people mention in arguments like this have multiple purposes. (I've never heard anyone argue, "well people would just start using broad swords").

Having a gun is like having a buzzsaw in your kitchen, a poor idea at best. Any accidents involving guns stem from... having a gun. That's a bunch of fatalities you can stop right there. As far as I know, there's no statistical evidence connecting gun access and crime rates, as such, but gun access and gun injuries/killings are certainly linked.

If I have something genuinely bad to say about someone, even if they're dead, I'll damn well say it, and I will thank anyone to accept my right to do it. (case in point) That being said, I have no particular grievance with Charlton Heston; he was a fine actor and had a poor idea about guns. Everyone has flaws.

Saudi Arabia has a third the number of homicides per capita as the UK! We should ask them how they do it!

>> ^jonny:
>> ^jwray:
a criminal who knows he is surrounded by armed civilians is deterred just as much as a criminal who is surrounded by cops.
Upon what do you base this claim?
As for VA Tech, or any other college - you're probably correct that Cho would not have gotten very far (or even tried it all) if half the student body were armed with handguns. On the other hand, there would likely have been dozens more shootings as simple arguments, drunken brawls, etc., escalated to lethal force.


That assertion has been proven wrong by what actually happened when Florida adopted a right-to-carry law. Some anti-gun groups were predicting a catastrophic increase in the crime rate, but it actually decreased by a lot.


* Right-to-carry laws require law enforcement agencies to issue handgun permits to all qualified applicants. Qualifications include criteria such as age, a clean criminal record, and completing a firearm safety course. (13)

* In 1986, nine states had right-to-carry laws. (14)


* As of 1998, 31 states have right-to-carry laws, and about half the U.S. population lives in these states. (3)


* Florida adopted a right-to-carry law in 1987. At the time the law was passed, critics predicted increases in violence. The founder of the National Organization of Women, Betty Friedan stated:



"lethal violence, even in self defense, only engenders more violence." (13)



* When the law went into effect, the Dade County Police began a program to record all arrest and non arrest incidents involving concealed carry licensees. Between September of 1987 and August of 1992, Dade County recorded 4 crimes committed by licensees with firearms. None of these crimes resulted in an injury. The record keeping program was abandoned in 1992 because there were not enough incidents to justify tracking them. (13)(15)

* Florida adopted a right-to-carry law in 1987. Between 1987 and 1996, these changes occurred:




Florida


United States

homicide rate


-36%


-0.4%

firearm homicide rate


-37%


+15%

handgun homicide rate


-41%


+24%

(3)


* 221,443 concealed carry licenses were issued in Florida between October of 1987 and April of 1994. During that time, Florida recorded 18 crimes committed by licensees with firearms. (15)

* As of 1998, nationwide, there has been 1 recorded incident in which a permit holder shot someone following a traffic accident. The permit holder was not charged, as the grand jury ruled the shooting was in self defense. (7)

* As of 1998, no permit holder has ever shot a police officer. There have been several cases in which a permit holder has protected an officer's life. (7)


That's a copy/paste from http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

>> ^jwray:
>> Correlation is not causation, however it is relevant. Guns can act as a deterrent to any kind of crime because a criminal who knows he is surrounded by armed civilians is deterred just as much as a criminal who is surrounded by cops. This is why you need to look at overall statistics, not just gun-related incidents. If restricting guns just causes people to murder with knives instead, it hasn't accomplished anything.
The school shootings are a red herring because they account for a minuscule portion of the overall murder rate but 99% of the media coverage. Media have deceived you, and you need to go look at actual statistics.


Sorry, but i disagree. You're comparing two completely different things and drawing a conclusion from it. And, i might add, completely ignoring other more pressing factors that i quoted for you. I have already stated other reasons for increased violent crime in the UK but they appear to have been discarded "because a criminal who knows he is surrounded by armed civilians is deterred just as much as a criminal who is surrounded by cops." - which is a completely arbitrary statement and is unprovable by statistics or trials.. it is FAR too situational and personal to make a bold statement like that and call it fact.

As jonny has already said before me, i think some of what you're saying has the merit of looking factual and reasonable when in fact it isn't, so i'm not gonna say much more here.

I hope my posts remind people to think for themselves, and not just "go through the motions" as they say.

Eg.
" * As of 1998, no permit holder has ever shot a police officer. There have been several cases in which a permit holder has protected an officer's life. (7)"
" * 221,443 concealed carry licenses were issued in Florida between October of 1987 and April of 1994. During that time, Florida recorded 18 crimes committed by licensees with firearms. (15)"
" * As of 1998, nationwide, there has been 1 recorded incident in which a permit holder shot someone following a traffic accident. The permit holder was not charged, as the grand jury ruled the shooting was in self defense. (7)"

-- all of these quotes are, in effect, saying that by and large, people who obey laws (to carry weapons) don't break the law (to shoot the weapons illegally).

THIS JUST IN - PEOPLE WHO OBEY THE LAW OBEY THE LAW!

That's what i mean by stuff that looks reasoned and intelligent when actually it's not. It's the same thing as horoscope writers do, imo. So i bow out now. I know people who like lax gun laws will think i'm an idiot who can't understand basic facts and statistics, and i know that people who dislike gun laws will see exactly what i'm talking about. Hopefully people who aren't sure will see through the illusion of 'facts'. (Say that to rhyme with "farce"!")

>> ^direpickle:
Saudi Arabia has a third the number of homicides per capita as the UK! We should ask them how they do it!

A different view of what constitutes "homicide"

>> ^dannym3141:
>>all of these quotes are, in effect, saying that by and large, people who obey laws (to carry weapons) don't break the law (to shoot the weapons illegally).

THIS JUST IN - PEOPLE WHO OBEY THE LAW OBEY THE LAW!


So making it illegal to own guns will stop all gun-related violence. Good to know. It's not like anybody ever possessed a gun illegally or anything...

Truth is, criminals will always have access to guns, regardless of whether owning a gun is illegal or not.

THIS JUST IN - PEOPLE WHO DON'T OBEY THE LAW DON'T OBEY THE LAW!

I think you and Danny are in agreement actually, cheese.