A guy who has a career of plAying various "shootist" roles is a life long supporter of gun control? Hollywood hypocrisy at its finest.
OP-- you think this movie *promotes* gun violence?? I think you entirely missed the whole point of it.
sharefingfilmfan,
I'm with you on this one. From all I've read about this movie, that contradicts my initial take. I saw Daggett as controlling the town via his ban on gun possession. When he & his boys come for you, you can't resist. Now I'm seeing the message that violence is just bad. Hey Clint, thanks for the news. I always thought that there was a difference between offense and defense.
When he & his boys come for you, you can't resist.
What exactly is 'bad' about gun control. Not sure how anybody could argue against it.
You think we should just throw up our hands and say, 'guns for everyone'.
You know, its quite possible to like guns, and also be in favor of gun control.
Like Oprah:
"YOU get a gun! YOU get a gun! EVERYONE gets a gun!"
This is true. Gun control doesn't have to mean giving up your guns. I'm not giving up mine, but I also recognize that there are people in our country who shouldn't own firearms, but can buy them with little impediment.
"Hey! If...if we had some rope, we could make a log bridge...if...if we had...some...logs."
[deleted]
We already have plenty of gun control, the problem is it just isn't enforced. For the most part a person can go fill out the forms and lie about their background knowing that if they get caught in the lie that they simply won't get the gun they wanted. Maybe if they lie on the sheet the police should show up and actually arrest them for perjury. You know actually enforce the laws instead of ignoring the laws and then yapping that we need more gun control laws which again will just get ignored.
shareI don't know. This sounds like a circular argument. Since we have existing laws and they aren't enforced what's the point of having new laws. Well, if something is not working we should go about fixing it. I'm not sure what legislators can do about making law enforcement work, but we can create better, more well-defined laws that help to curb gun violence. I'm not sure where you stand on this issue.
shareThere are a lot of things legislatures can do to make law enforcement work as intended. Look at what drives law enforcement to begin with, it isn't protecting anyone or solving crimes as much as it is to generate revenue. That is why you have majority of the police out on the highways handing out tickets to motorists; tickets to motorists generate revenue for the cities that the police serve. In many city budgets you can even see how much money a city expects the police to bring in through tickets. So simply passing laws that force the cities to hand over all the money collected from motorist to the federal government and paying out money to cities for every arrest and conviction of a person filling out a gun control form with false statements would certainly change the incentives of the cities in how they use their police. Hell give cities money for every arrest and conviction for rape or murder and you'll see a sudden increase in police involvement in those crimes... The problem with police is that they are used as uniformed tax collectors and if you change the rules so the revenue they collect comes from enforcing gun laws they will do that, but now enforcing a gun law doesn't generate any money so cities don't bother to have the police worry about them.
shareThat's one way to look at it. I respect your viewpoint, but it seems a little reductive. Maybe we could have a gun buy back with the revenue going toward law enforcement and city coffers. You make it sound like no one cares whether anyone is raped or killed simply because they aren't ticketable, and I don't think that's true. But there are so many problems with our society I get dizzy thinking about it.
shareThe biggest problem with current gun control proposals is that they don't really make sense. A lot of recommendations are to ban certain guns because of how they look. The AR 15 gets used the most even though handguns are the primary weapon used in crimes.
The next problem comes from the fact that our cities with the most gun control have the biggest rates of gun violence and murder.
The other issue is reporting on guns in general. Most gun deaths are suicide. These numbers are used to justify more legislation to address violence against another person.
The next issue is enforcement. We already have laws on the books and they're not being enforced as it is. Adding more wont solve the issue.
The final issue is the political pandering. All that does is anger everyone so they click on news articles and pay attention to ineffectual politicians. Face it, politicians and news are just manipulative pricks anger people to get attention. They always were.
Notice, the problem isn't with the intention, it's with practicality.
You'd have to be an absolute dummy to think those two need to contradict.
Name two movies Clint has played a 'shootist' who isnt also a legal gun owner. Name two!
What exactly is 'bad' about gun control. Not sure how anybody could argue against it.
You think we should just throw up our hands and say, 'guns for everyone'
Its pretty simple to argue against it actually.
1. Its never lowered crime anywhere its been tried. In fact in most places its done just the opposite.
2. It just leaves law abiding citizens defenseless.
3. A huge majority of gun owners never shoot anyone.
4. Criminals could care less if they get guns legally or illegally.
And that's just the tip of the iceberg.
Its pretty simple to argue against it actually.
1. Its never lowered crime anywhere its been tried. In fact in most places its done just the opposite.
2. It just leaves law abiding citizens defenseless.
3. A huge majority of gun owners never shoot anyone.
4. Criminals could care less if they get guns legally or illegally.
Right and you read that from a fortune cookie?
If you're going to state these claims as facts then please provide your source. Especially your claim regarding it having no effect on crime.
If preventable deaths are lowered by regulating firearm laws, why wouldn't you consider supporting it?
Hey Dickster,
You asked:
If preventable deaths are lowered by regulating firearm laws, why wouldn't you consider supporting it?
I could ask a similar question:
If preventable deaths are lowered by lowering speed limits to a top speed of 30 miles per hour, and all vehicles were required to have throttle governed engines set to keep the safer speed limit of 30 miles per hour, why wouldn't you consider supporting it?
I guarantee you vehicle related deaths would plummet if no one could exceed 30 miles per hour. Then the question arises as to what effects such a speed limit would have on our society. If a top speed of 30 miles per hour were put in place, gas engines would be replaced by electric motors in what would become much smaller cars. Driving long distances would not take place. I would suspect all over the road truck transportation would cease. Trucks would only be viable in short hauls from train and air facilities to local distribution centers. Such trucks would also likely be smaller and electric powered. Our whole economy - our whole society - would be changed drastically.
We would no longer have a significant demand for gasoline, so that ought to make the tree huggers happy, but how many folks would be willing to make such a change so that a great number of lives and lesser injuries were stopped? If you really want to save more lives and injuries, then get rid of sports like football, ban smoking, ban Twinkies, and just go all out to a complete nanny state. Why not? After all, we are talking about saving lives, right?
Best wishes,
Dave Wile
"If preventable deaths are lowered by regulating firearm laws, why wouldn't you consider supporting it?"
Because he is a republican fucking moron who is ready to defend the right to own a firearm no matter how much of a nuisance it actually is.
I don't know what you've been smoking but it must be pretty damn good.
shareNumber One is not true. Most other civilized countries do not have rampant gun ownership and do not suffer rampant gun violence. What are law abiding citizens defenseless against? Are people threatening you every time you leave the house? Where do you live? Going to #3, why own a gun if you aren't going to use it? Do you wear it so everyone knows you are a bad-ass who means business? And #4, neither do I care if criminals get guns legally or illegally. I'd prefer they couldn't get guns at all.
shareIve seen many comments from those bad ass types in forums, Reddit etc about having a gun or shooting a gun to show how badass they are.
Nerds who wouldnt hurt a fly without a killer bolt at their hand. Total badasses with gun, without gun, not so much.
One is movies. The other is real life.
shareEastwood's a pr!ck.
He said to Larry King once he doesn't understand why anyone would carry a gun but has said he owns one and even stays armed a lot of the time.
And he's spoken out against hunting despite being a meat eater.
Eastwood's a pr!ck.
He said to Larry King once he doesn't understand why anyone would carry a gun but has said he owns one and even stays armed a lot of the time.
And he's spoken out against hunting despite being a meat eater.
"And he's spoken out against hunting despite being a meat eater."
That is definitely one of the dumbest comparison I've ever read. One is a dumb entertainement which isn't even meant to feed others most of the time, the other is about survival because everyone needs to eat.
I guess you are a radical vegan who gets butthurt easily because not everyone wants to make the same life choices as you.