I think movie producers should think about the affect they have on their audience. There was a time when video game producers did actually care about what affect their product had on the user as well. Mortal Kombat marked the time in that industry where making money off of violence and shock value is far easier than coming up with new entertaining ideas. People do mimic what they see on TV. It's sad but true. Look how many people base their political and life decisions off something an actor from a movie they like said.
I grew up on 'Gunsmoke', 'The Rifleman' and 'Wanted Dead or Alive', and I recall playing cowboys and Indians in the back yard with my brothers and cousins. Is there really any difference between that and the violence we see today? Is it that the gore factor makes it worse somehow? We already have a system of censorship in film, do we really want more restrictions on the freedom of film makers to present an entertaining, or scary or funny film? The Joker has been killing people in comic books since 1940, are we really going to blame DC because some nut ball puts on a joker mask and kills people in a theatre but completely ignore trying to get guns out of the hands of the mentally unstable? Is it really the Jokers character that's a problem? Or is it perhaps the extreme partisan divides we find in this country, the abysmal help for those with mental health issues, the ease with which we can buy weapons designed for maximum casualties with no limit on magazine sizes and a reluctance to do anything in regards to gun safety that's the real problem.
There has always been semi automatic weapons in this country. Why suddenly do people feel the urge to use them on their fellow citizens? I certainly don't think it is just movies, and I would never advocate the government telling people what they can or can not produce. I simply think producers should take it upon themselves to do the right thing and think about the culture they want to advocate. Remember when you were a kid religion was probably far more prominent in people's lives and people were not afraid to be proud of their country. Today, not so much. People are raised to totally disregard the Bible and it's teachings of do unto others as you would have them do unto you. It's now almost impossible to tell somebody they are wrong, unless they are one of the democrat boogeymen(racist, sexist, xenophobe etc etc). So in my opinion people no longer love their fellow Americans. There is too much diversity and not enough patriotism. Not enough things tying us together as one people. Check out this study by a Harvard professor who observes social problems in diverse communities.
There has always been semi automatic weapons in this country.
Technically not "always". The Gatling Gun wasn't invented until 1861, and semi-automatics don't appear until the 1880s. But it's been a very long time, yes.
Why suddenly do people feel the urge to use them on their fellow citizens?
You would imagine that this would be the pressing question of the day.
Semi - automatic weapons have been around for over 100 years, the NRA has been around for over 100 years but, they are to blame for mass shootings.
Obviously.
Simply look at the numbers. The greatest collections of both NRA members and semi-automatic weapons in America are found at gun ranges. And look at the massive fatalities!! I mean....almost nobody makes it out of those places alive!!
We can of went of a little bit of a tangent with guns, but that being said, I am not sure if it's the number of guns or just a disconnect with our fellow human beings. I don't think you need a religion to be moral, but I do think that you need a good family life and real life friends. There is no replacement for those. Without that, how can one develope compassion?
We can of went of a little bit of a tangent with guns, but that being said, I am not sure if it's the number of guns or just a disconnect with our fellow human beings. I don't think you need a religion to be moral, but I do think that you need a good family life and real life friends. There is no replacement for those. Without that, how can one develope compassion?
It's not the number of guns. If it were the number of guns, nobody would come home from the gun range alive.
It's how we raise our boys.
I'm not sure how we can systemically and intentionally remove fathers from the child raising process for two generations and then pretend we can't understand why the boys have gone wrong.
Sorry but that is ridiculous. Handling a gun and intent when using the gun are two different things.
Dude. You just said it was ridiculous and then affirmed the point.
It's not the number of guns. It's the number of psychos.
And how we raise our boys? How fathers are absent?
Roughly 1/3 of kids in America grow up in single-parent households. The vast majority of those are single-mother households.
As far as I can tell, there have been absent fathers for generations. Not a new thing.
Yeah. As I said, two generations. In 1950, only 7 percent of kids were in single-parent households.
It's specifically an issue with boys. We've known for centuries that humans...like most mammals...develop and learn by observing and mimicking the behavior of their parents. So now you have just under 1/3 of American boys growing up without that gender-specific guidance.
In divorced families, the woman gets primary custody of the children 84% of the time.
Research links this phenomenon to significant social problems.
Vast numbers of children from single-parent homes — that's now 42 percent of all children — can and do clearly shine bright
They also go on to say that the vast majority don't have these problems. My father left when I was young and I certainly did not grab a gun and start shooting people.
Putting the blame on just one aspect is just as simplistic as blaming video games.
They also go on to say that the vast majority don't have these problems. My father left when I was young and I certainly did not grab a gun and start shooting people.
You do understand the concept of probability, right?
Putting the blame on just one aspect is just as simplistic as blaming video games.
So we can agree it's not the number of guns, then.
I think the concept of probability can be applied to almost anything.
Actually I think the majority of guns are concentrated with fewer people than some may think. I know one guy that has about a hundred. Hell, I think my BIL has at least 25, though that includes the ones he keeps that are his kids.
Still if it was run like the DMV, every gun would have to be re-titled when ever sold or swapped hands and put into a national data base.
I think the concept of probability can be applied to almost anything.
Good. So we can recognize the statistics surrounding fatherless kids, mental illness, and violent crime.
Actually I think the majority of guns are concentrated with fewer people than some may think.
I think you're probably right, and I believe I've seen some statistics on that, but I can't recall where.
Still if it was run like the DMV, every gun would have to be re-titled when ever sold or swapped hands and put into a national data base.
That's kinda why I pressed Perrie on the similarities. I think there are a number of advantages to considering at least some of those types of regulations.
Yeah but there are statistics on just about everything. There are studies done on most things. Looking hard enough, one could find studies that could prove, disprove things.
I don't think it is an ideal situation, it can cause problems in some and no problems in others. I don't think being in a single family home causes mental illness. Maybe stress, sadness, disappointment. I would not call those mental illness.
I have seen kids go through trauma and end up fine and seen kids that have trouble crossing the street.
I agree that it has to do with how one is raised yet then again, I have seen kids from horrible homes that run from it and make their lives better and seen kids that revel in it and become the same.
What makes one tick a certain way and not the other...
As far as a data base, I know some would be against it. According to one group having a right means zero restrictions on it, even though the SC has ruled other wise.
I have a story about my BIL having a gun stolen, then used in a crime. Making the story short, in my state they can only track the gun to whoever was the original owner or by some miracle someone registered it, which is not mandatory.
The weapon sat in evidence lock up for about two years. They were going to destroy the gun, which they do with ones used in crimes, and decided to run one more check. My BIL popped up in the last check. There was cross/miss communication on reporting of the gun and the data base at the time. It took two years with the current system to find the owner (my BIL).
Yeah but there are statistics on just about everything. There are studies done on most things. Looking hard enough, one could find studies that could prove, disprove things.
Sure.
I don't think it is an ideal situation, it can cause problems in some and no problems in others. I don't think being in a single family home causes mental illness. Maybe stress, sadness, disappointment. I would not call those mental illness.
So keep in mind that the studies are not saying all single parent kids fall into this category or that. The stats are actually looking at the reverse correlation, where they're saying that "of kids meeting XXX criteria, YY% of them are from fatherless homes".
The "kids meeting XXX criteria" are clearly a minority of single mom kids, so there are obviously other factors involved.
There will always be misfits in society. There will always be people that are not stable. Problem is how does one single them out, or should they be. It is almost getting to be profiling of everyone, which I think we do to a certain extent.
Once people are profiled and put into a category, kind of a dangerous road.
Problem I see is, what would be deciding factors on who could own. Who would decide. We all know something needs to be done yet what is it and where is it.
There will always be misfits in society. There will always be people that are not stable.
Yeah, but I think the question everyone is asking is "why do there seem to be so many more of them now than there used to be?"
Problem is how does one single them out, or should they be. It is almost getting to be profiling of everyone, which I think we do to a certain extent.
If you're talking about people who we think are likely to blow up buildings or gun down concert crowds, then I think there is an argument to be made about the public good.
Once people are profiled and put into a category, kind of a dangerous road.
Agreed, but we already have it in other areas of life.
Problem I see is, what would be deciding factors on who could own. Who would decide. We all know something needs to be done yet what is it and where is it.
Those are the intelligent questions which would hopefully put us on a path toward intelligent solutions. But you and I both know morons at either extreme who want to ban all guns or refuse to accept any regulation of any kind. I feel like the intelligent question people are losing the fight to the morons, and we're just going to end up living with the outcomes of whichever moron group wins.
I actually lean toward the DMV approach. At least for right now. Although it does nothing to help with the current problem. It is more technical and how the system is run, like the story about my BIL.
and we're just going to end up living with the outcomes of whichever moron group wins
Mass shootings are a normal part of everyday life, they are no longer a big deal and since the right refuses do anything, we just have to accept that leaving our homes may result in our deaths because someone is having a bad day.
Movies are not documentaries. They are for entertainment, not education.
If you drive a car you take your life in your own hands everyday as it is. If you want to live in fear of dying by mass shooting that's fine but it's about as logical as being afraid of getting struck by lightning every day you leave your house.
Yes it is your choice to walk to walmart. If you're so afraid, pay someone to deliver your food to your comfy safe space. You sound like a very scared person. Maybe it's best you avoid people in general if you are so afraid of them.
Is it your choice to be killed by a car that rams into you because they are driving drunk?
Depends on if the car is semi-auto or full automatic... ??? You are not making any sense at all. Cars and guns? Not really the same fucking thing, are they?
If you're so afraid, pay someone to deliver your food to your comfy safe space. You sound like a very scared person.
After 4 years in the U.S.M.C. I can assure you that there is very little I am afraid of, especially people like you. (I mean, since we are going to make this personal and forego the actual debate part..... [removed]
If you want to make safe choices, don't drive. You are more likely to be killed by a drunk driver because you choose to drive than because you chose to walk-into a Wal-mart and was killed by a gun. Either way the choice was yours.
We take every action to make driving as safe as possible. You need to pass a drivers test, get a license, Police can pull you over for any suspicious acts taken behind the wheel. Drunk drivers, lose their license, and go to jail. And cars are not designed to kill. In fact, they keep introducing new safer cars.
Guns have far less in the way of limitations. Yes, there is the Constitution, and I uphold the 2nd, but I hate this comparison. It's what the tool was designed to do, that matters.
I think it's a great comparison. For the exact reasons you state.
We take every action to make driving as safe as possible.
You need to pass a drivers test, get a license,
Police can pull you over for any suspicious acts taken behind the wheel.
Drunk drivers, lose their license, and go to jail.
And cars are not designed to kill. In fact, they keep introducing new safer cars.
And when somebody intentionally uses a car to hurt another person or commit a crime, morons do not crawl out of the woodwork attempting to get them banned.
Guns have far less in the way of limitations. Yes, there is the Constitution, and I uphold the 2nd, but I hate this comparison. It's what the tool was designed to do, that matters.
Cars are protected by the Constitution, too. They're not an enumerated right, but try to ban them and the SCOTUS would overturn that 9-0 before their coffee was cold.
We manage to regulate cars sensibly. But we're utterly stupid about guns.
And when somebody intentionally uses a car to hurt another person or commit a crime, morons do not crawl out of the woodwork attempting to get them banned.
Jack, that does not happen too often unless you are a terrorist.
Cars are protected by the Constitution, too.
Sorry Jack, but not in the big 10. In fact, not really at all. Cars are as protected by our Constitution as my iPhone is.
We manage to regulate cars sensibly. But we're utterly stupid about guns.
I understood that. How is it that you consider people who use cars to kill "terrorists", but a person who uses a gun to kill people he doesn't know in order to scare other immigrants away from the country not a terrorist?
I submit that both most certainly meet the qualification.
So we have terrorists using one weapon we have no interest in banning, and terrorists using another weapon we are determined to ban...even though we ALL know that ban will have zero impact on the use of said weapon.
Meanwhile, we are determined not to address the question of how we reduce the actual number of terrorists.
Joker will get more attention because it's a well known character and lots of people will probably go see the movie. But there are truly horrific things that happen in less prominent movies that come out all year long.
Amazingly, millions of people see these movies and don't go out to commit murder, so it's kind of hard to draw a cause and effect connection.
But nuts are nuts. If the murderous nut doesn't get to see the Joker movie, something else will serve as the muse for his next atrocity.
a sympathetic origin story
Although, as someone who actually reads comics, I'm not enthusiastic about the Joker getting a sympathetic origin story. That can be a good thing in the creative process for a villain, but the Joker is particularly terrifying because he's so sick and twisted. Even the other bad guys are afraid of him. He's less scary if you give him some humanity.
Well as a person who grew up reading comics (my favorites were the Hulk and Batman), comics always had a level of violence in them.
But nuts are nuts. If the murderous nut doesn't get to see the Joker movie, something else will serve as the muse for his next atrocity.
I tend to agree with you... yet I keep going back to those kids who acted out after seeing violent films. Maybe it's a bit of everything, but something has to be a bit off for someone to murder people.
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Do movies bare social responsibility? And why is the violence different in this movie from say "V is for Vendetta" or a zombie movie?
I think movie producers should think about the affect they have on their audience. There was a time when video game producers did actually care about what affect their product had on the user as well. Mortal Kombat marked the time in that industry where making money off of violence and shock value is far easier than coming up with new entertaining ideas. People do mimic what they see on TV. It's sad but true. Look how many people base their political and life decisions off something an actor from a movie they like said.
I grew up on 'Gunsmoke', 'The Rifleman' and 'Wanted Dead or Alive', and I recall playing cowboys and Indians in the back yard with my brothers and cousins. Is there really any difference between that and the violence we see today? Is it that the gore factor makes it worse somehow? We already have a system of censorship in film, do we really want more restrictions on the freedom of film makers to present an entertaining, or scary or funny film? The Joker has been killing people in comic books since 1940, are we really going to blame DC because some nut ball puts on a joker mask and kills people in a theatre but completely ignore trying to get guns out of the hands of the mentally unstable? Is it really the Jokers character that's a problem? Or is it perhaps the extreme partisan divides we find in this country, the abysmal help for those with mental health issues, the ease with which we can buy weapons designed for maximum casualties with no limit on magazine sizes and a reluctance to do anything in regards to gun safety that's the real problem.
There has always been semi automatic weapons in this country. Why suddenly do people feel the urge to use them on their fellow citizens? I certainly don't think it is just movies, and I would never advocate the government telling people what they can or can not produce. I simply think producers should take it upon themselves to do the right thing and think about the culture they want to advocate. Remember when you were a kid religion was probably far more prominent in people's lives and people were not afraid to be proud of their country. Today, not so much. People are raised to totally disregard the Bible and it's teachings of do unto others as you would have them do unto you. It's now almost impossible to tell somebody they are wrong, unless they are one of the democrat boogeymen(racist, sexist, xenophobe etc etc). So in my opinion people no longer love their fellow Americans. There is too much diversity and not enough patriotism. Not enough things tying us together as one people. Check out this study by a Harvard professor who observes social problems in diverse communities.
https://archive.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2007/08/05/the_downside_of_diversity/
Technically not "always". The Gatling Gun wasn't invented until 1861, and semi-automatics don't appear until the 1880s. But it's been a very long time, yes.
You would imagine that this would be the pressing question of the day.
Obviously.
Simply look at the numbers. The greatest collections of both NRA members and semi-automatic weapons in America are found at gun ranges. And look at the massive fatalities!! I mean....almost nobody makes it out of those places alive!!
We can of went of a little bit of a tangent with guns, but that being said, I am not sure if it's the number of guns or just a disconnect with our fellow human beings. I don't think you need a religion to be moral, but I do think that you need a good family life and real life friends. There is no replacement for those. Without that, how can one develope compassion?
It's not the number of guns. If it were the number of guns, nobody would come home from the gun range alive.
It's how we raise our boys.
I'm not sure how we can systemically and intentionally remove fathers from the child raising process for two generations and then pretend we can't understand why the boys have gone wrong.
Sorry but that is ridiculous.
Handling a gun and intent when using the gun are two different things.
And how we raise our boys? How fathers are absent?
As far as I can tell, there have been absent fathers for generations. Not a new thing.
Dude. You just said it was ridiculous and then affirmed the point.
It's not the number of guns. It's the number of psychos.
Roughly 1/3 of kids in America grow up in single-parent households. The vast majority of those are single-mother households.
Yeah. As I said, two generations. In 1950, only 7 percent of kids were in single-parent households.
It's specifically an issue with boys. We've known for centuries that humans...like most mammals...develop and learn by observing and mimicking the behavior of their parents. So now you have just under 1/3 of American boys growing up without that gender-specific guidance.
In divorced families, the woman gets primary custody of the children 84% of the time.
Research links this phenomenon to significant social problems.
I'll go along with how we raise our boys, but not so much single parent households. Most of the mass shooters had 2 parents.
They also go on to say that the vast majority don't have these problems. My father left when I was young and I certainly did not grab a gun and start shooting people.
Putting the blame on just one aspect is just as simplistic as blaming video games.
You do understand the concept of probability, right?
So we can agree it's not the number of guns, then.
I think the concept of probability can be applied to almost anything.
Actually I think the majority of guns are concentrated with fewer people than some may think. I know one guy that has about a hundred. Hell, I think my BIL has at least 25, though that includes the ones he keeps that are his kids.
Still if it was run like the DMV, every gun would have to be re-titled when ever sold or swapped hands and put into a national data base.
Good. So we can recognize the statistics surrounding fatherless kids, mental illness, and violent crime.
I think you're probably right, and I believe I've seen some statistics on that, but I can't recall where.
That's kinda why I pressed Perrie on the similarities. I think there are a number of advantages to considering at least some of those types of regulations.
That depends entirely on which group you're choosing to call "the mass shooters".
Yeah but there are statistics on just about everything. There are studies done on most things. Looking hard enough, one could find studies that could prove, disprove things.
I don't think it is an ideal situation, it can cause problems in some and no problems in others. I don't think being in a single family home causes mental illness. Maybe stress, sadness, disappointment. I would not call those mental illness.
I have seen kids go through trauma and end up fine and seen kids that have trouble crossing the street.
I agree that it has to do with how one is raised yet then again, I have seen kids from horrible homes that run from it and make their lives better and seen kids that revel in it and become the same.
What makes one tick a certain way and not the other...
As far as a data base, I know some would be against it. According to one group having a right means zero restrictions on it, even though the SC has ruled other wise.
I have a story about my BIL having a gun stolen, then used in a crime. Making the story short, in my state they can only track the gun to whoever was the original owner or by some miracle someone registered it, which is not mandatory.
The weapon sat in evidence lock up for about two years. They were going to destroy the gun, which they do with ones used in crimes, and decided to run one more check. My BIL popped up in the last check. There was cross/miss communication on reporting of the gun and the data base at the time. It took two years with the current system to find the owner (my BIL).
Sure.
So keep in mind that the studies are not saying all single parent kids fall into this category or that. The stats are actually looking at the reverse correlation, where they're saying that "of kids meeting XXX criteria, YY% of them are from fatherless homes".
The "kids meeting XXX criteria" are clearly a minority of single mom kids, so there are obviously other factors involved.
The crux I guess.
There will always be misfits in society. There will always be people that are not stable. Problem is how does one single them out, or should they be. It is almost getting to be profiling of everyone, which I think we do to a certain extent.
Once people are profiled and put into a category, kind of a dangerous road.
Problem I see is, what would be deciding factors on who could own. Who would decide. We all know something needs to be done yet what is it and where is it.
Yeah, but I think the question everyone is asking is "why do there seem to be so many more of them now than there used to be?"
If you're talking about people who we think are likely to blow up buildings or gun down concert crowds, then I think there is an argument to be made about the public good.
Agreed, but we already have it in other areas of life.
Those are the intelligent questions which would hopefully put us on a path toward intelligent solutions. But you and I both know morons at either extreme who want to ban all guns or refuse to accept any regulation of any kind. I feel like the intelligent question people are losing the fight to the morons, and we're just going to end up living with the outcomes of whichever moron group wins.
I actually lean toward the DMV approach. At least for right now. Although it does nothing to help with the current problem. It is more technical and how the system is run, like the story about my BIL.
Ain't that the truth. Thanks for a nice convo.
Mass shootings are a normal part of everyday life, they are no longer a big deal and since the right refuses do anything, we just have to accept that leaving our homes may result in our deaths because someone is having a bad day.
Movies are not documentaries. They are for entertainment, not education.
If you drive a car you take your life in your own hands everyday as it is. If you want to live in fear of dying by mass shooting that's fine but it's about as logical as being afraid of getting struck by lightning every day you leave your house.
1) Cars are not designed with the specific purpose of shooting someone.
2) That would be my choice to drive a car, it's not my choice if I walk into a wal-mart and get shot because someone else is having a bad day.
Yes it is your choice to walk to walmart. If you're so afraid, pay someone to deliver your food to your comfy safe space. You sound like a very scared person. Maybe it's best you avoid people in general if you are so afraid of them.
That's not what he said at all in his first comment
Let's just say walmart has a drive up service. Sounding more and more like a better option.
Is it your choice to be killed by a car that rams into you because they are driving drunk?
It was your choice to walk into Wal-mart the same as it is your choice to drive a car and then killed by a drunk driver.
Gawd, your argument is really stupid.
Depends on if the car is semi-auto or full automatic... ??? You are not making any sense at all. Cars and guns? Not really the same fucking thing, are they?
This coming from a moron like yourself? Doesn't really carry much weight now then does it? Now, [removed]
After 4 years in the U.S.M.C. I can assure you that there is very little I am afraid of, especially people like you. (I mean, since we are going to make this personal and forego the actual debate part..... [removed]
If you want to make safe choices, don't drive. You are more likely to be killed by a drunk driver because you choose to drive than because you chose to walk-into a Wal-mart and was killed by a gun. Either way the choice was yours.
Get educated.
This car/ gun thing is a false equivalency.
We take every action to make driving as safe as possible. You need to pass a drivers test, get a license, Police can pull you over for any suspicious acts taken behind the wheel. Drunk drivers, lose their license, and go to jail. And cars are not designed to kill. In fact, they keep introducing new safer cars.
Guns have far less in the way of limitations. Yes, there is the Constitution, and I uphold the 2nd, but I hate this comparison. It's what the tool was designed to do, that matters.
I think it's a great comparison. For the exact reasons you state.
And when somebody intentionally uses a car to hurt another person or commit a crime, morons do not crawl out of the woodwork attempting to get them banned.
Cars are protected by the Constitution, too. They're not an enumerated right, but try to ban them and the SCOTUS would overturn that 9-0 before their coffee was cold.
We manage to regulate cars sensibly. But we're utterly stupid about guns.
Jack, that does not happen too often unless you are a terrorist.
Sorry Jack, but not in the big 10. In fact, not really at all. Cars are as protected by our Constitution as my iPhone is.
There we agree.
I think if guns were regulated like we do autos, people would complain and call it a tax.
We don't consider the El Paso shooter a terrorist? Why is that, exactly?
Neither is interracial marriage. Neither is the right to have an abortion.
Or....quite a lot, actually.
Exactly.
Possibly. People usually complain about taxes.
I was referring to cars being used as weapon.
But those were actually brought to SCOTUS. We know where we stand with those... and abortion not so sure anymore.
I understood that. How is it that you consider people who use cars to kill "terrorists", but a person who uses a gun to kill people he doesn't know in order to scare other immigrants away from the country not a terrorist?
I submit that both most certainly meet the qualification.
So we have terrorists using one weapon we have no interest in banning, and terrorists using another weapon we are determined to ban...even though we ALL know that ban will have zero impact on the use of said weapon.
Meanwhile, we are determined not to address the question of how we reduce the actual number of terrorists.
It's not a very intelligent pattern of thought.
People aren't forced to go to movies. I don't know what all the fuss is about
Very True. How about the teen who doesn't tell their parent that they are going without their permission?
Joker will get more attention because it's a well known character and lots of people will probably go see the movie. But there are truly horrific things that happen in less prominent movies that come out all year long.
Amazingly, millions of people see these movies and don't go out to commit murder, so it's kind of hard to draw a cause and effect connection.
But nuts are nuts. If the murderous nut doesn't get to see the Joker movie, something else will serve as the muse for his next atrocity.
Although, as someone who actually reads comics, I'm not enthusiastic about the Joker getting a sympathetic origin story. That can be a good thing in the creative process for a villain, but the Joker is particularly terrifying because he's so sick and twisted. Even the other bad guys are afraid of him. He's less scary if you give him some humanity.
Well as a person who grew up reading comics (my favorites were the Hulk and Batman), comics always had a level of violence in them.
I tend to agree with you... yet I keep going back to those kids who acted out after seeing violent films. Maybe it's a bit of everything, but something has to be a bit off for someone to murder people.