This video was put out in response to the celebrity video against guns:

http://m.youtube.com/index?&desktop_uri=%2F#/watch?v=vCwz8FIV2l4

It won't let me watch the video.

1.) Hypocrite has an E at the end.

2.) The URL should be http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vCwz8FIV2l4

 Ouze wrote:
1.) Hypocrite has an E at the end.

Are you sure? Maybe they're hypocrits means they rolled a natural 20 and are dealing double hypocrisy.

Perhaps a hypocrit is something a lucky Painboy scores with a syringe in CC.

I didn't realize that actors and actresses had to play characters that reflect there real life values, I don't own any guns but I sometimes watch and enjoy movies that feature gun violence am I hypocrite too?

 Ouze wrote:
1.) Hypocrite has an E at the end.

2.) The URL should be http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vCwz8FIV2l4

My bad.

Despite being against heavy gun control, have to say, having the argument of Hollywood celebs being hypocrites for wanting to ban guns because they use them in movies is erroneous.

Think the mass majority of people could seperate the 2 ideas of a fantasy in movies and reality.

A Celeb calling to ban guns why he or she himself owns a gun would be hypocritical.

I wonder how many have armed guards. I think the concept is that on one hand they say guns are bad, and on the other they star in movies that glorify guns.

I'm strongly against people installing McAfee Antivirus, but install it all day long as a part of my job (well, up until recently).

 Ouze wrote:
I'm strongly against people installing McAfee Antivirus, but install it all day long as a part of my job (well, up until recently).

You damned hypocrite.

Fair rap, in this case.

 Ouze wrote:
Fair rap, in this case.

I'll let it go this time.

Relapse wrote:
I wonder how many have armed guards.

Percent? Wouldn't know.

I'm sure more than a few, this would be a reason to call them a hypocrite. Not an act in a movie.

I have seen a number of celebs out in public. Jay Leno and Clint Eastwood didn't have a body guard.


Jay Leno gave me a high 5 at a deli.

EDIT: Would like to call someone a hypocrite on a individual level rather than grouping all of Hollywood.

Are some of the celebrities in the videos who are using guns in movies while portraying law enforcement characters also hypocrites?

i.e Jamie Foxx in Django, sure, but what about Jamie Foxx as an FBI agent in The Kingdom?

Is it possible to show gunplay in a movie without glorifying guns?

 Piston Honda wrote:

Relapse wrote:
I wonder how many have armed guards.

Percent? Wouldn't know.

I'm sure more than a few, this would be a reason to call them a hypocrite. Not an act in a movie.

I have seen a number of celebs out in public. Jay Leno and Clint Eastwood didn't have a body guard.


Jay Leno gave me a high 5 at a deli.

The one that really pissed me off with this is Rosie O'Donnell after she ambushed Tom Selleck about his stand on guns. Turns out she has multiple armed guards.

I find it amusing that many of the "examples of hypocricy" were the actors being killed, not doing any killing.
As if a gun being used to kill a famous actor is glorifying the gun.

 Cheesecat wrote:
I didn't realize that actors and actresses had to play characters that reflect there real life values, I don't own any guns but I sometimes watch and enjoy movies that feature gun violence am I hypocrite too?

That is a case, But many of those videos showed Actors hunting or at a gun range, Not in character and cleary enjoying it.
And if those actors where so against gun violence, why did they star in movies that portray it?

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:
I didn't realize that actors and actresses had to play characters that reflect there real life values, I don't own any guns but I sometimes watch and enjoy movies that feature gun violence am I hypocrite too?

That is a case, But many of those videos showed Actors hunting or at a gun range, Not in character and cleary enjoying it.
And if those actors where so against gun violence, why did they star in movies that portray it?

Because movies aren't real life? I enjoy my games to be full of Grim Darkness and Only War. I do not support Grim Darkness and Only War in my real, day to day life however.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:
I didn't realize that actors and actresses had to play characters that reflect there real life values, I don't own any guns but I sometimes watch and enjoy movies that feature gun violence am I hypocrite too?

That is a case, But many of those videos showed Actors hunting or at a gun range, Not in character and cleary enjoying it.
And if those actors where so against gun violence, why did they star in movies that portray it?

I'm pretty sure that hunting scene is from a movie and also many actors enjoy taking on the role of a character that are very different from there real-life selves it should be obvious to most people that Jamie Foxx isn't actually a slave from the 1800's going out to rescue his wife after he get's

his freedom, movies do not equal reality nor does what make sense in the movie's context necessarily make sense in real-life.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I guess you could say the Conan O'Brien part is hypocritical, although I don't know the passage of time with theses vids so maybe his views have changed with guns since that vid of him shooting it up with the smg.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Actually there's nothing in the video that says they want to ban guns or have stricter gun laws all they ask is for the people and government to come up with a plan, so nobody's a hypocrite.

First up, there's a big difference between calling for more extensive gun control rules and the outright banning of guns.

But I think the bigger point is that is really faulty logic to claim a person is a hypocrite if they use a thing while arguing that their should be a change in the rules. I mean, yeah, if everyone has guns and you consider yourself a target (because you're rich and/or famous) then it makes sense to have a gun to protect yourself.

Calling someone a hypocrite in that situation is really no different to claiming someone is a hypocrite because, for instance, they favour massive reductions in taxes but still pay their own when they fall due. Or claiming a country is hypocritical for arguing for nuclear disarmament while continuing to own nuclear weapons.


Personally, I don't really even understand why it's necessary to invent reasons to dismiss celebrities when they voice political opinions. Who cares what someone who is famous for acting thinks about a political issue? So just say that 'this person has no more expertise or insight into this issue as any other random person on the street, and we need to ignore them to give more time to informed experts on gun use and gun violence.'

 Piston Honda wrote:
Despite being against heavy gun control, have to say, having the argument of Hollywood celebs being hypocrites for wanting to ban guns because they use them in movies is erroneous.

Think the mass majority of people could seperate the 2 ideas of a fantasy in movies and reality.

A Celeb calling to ban guns why he or she himself owns a gun would be hypocritical.

Its not erroneous. Many of these actors have come out for infringing everyone else's Second Amendment rights. yet they have full time ARMED security teams, and make their livings peddling violence.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Piston Honda wrote:
Despite being against heavy gun control, have to say, having the argument of Hollywood celebs being hypocrites for wanting to ban guns because they use them in movies is erroneous.

Think the mass majority of people could seperate the 2 ideas of a fantasy in movies and reality.

A Celeb calling to ban guns why he or she himself owns a gun would be hypocritical.

Its not erroneous. Many of these actors have come out for infringing everyone else's Second Amendment rights. yet they have full time ARMED security teams, and make their livings peddling violence.

That's my thought on the matter. Wanna reduce guns in civilian hands? Start with your security staff.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Piston Honda wrote:
Despite being against heavy gun control, have to say, having the argument of Hollywood celebs being hypocrites for wanting to ban guns because they use them in movies is erroneous.

Think the mass majority of people could seperate the 2 ideas of a fantasy in movies and reality.

A Celeb calling to ban guns why he or she himself owns a gun would be hypocritical.

Its not erroneous. Many of these actors have come out for infringing everyone else's Second Amendment rights. yet they have full time ARMED security teams, and make their livings peddling violence.

Yes it is, in the reason they are being called hypocrites in the original claim. The use of guns in movies.

As I clearly stated I have no issue with calling a celeb a hypocrite for wanting to ban guns when they are protected with guns, be it their own or body guard.

It is rather an askant view to hold if your position is "they use fake guns in a movie that is pure fantasy" but want to ban real guns, therefore they are hypocrites. I agree their (the celebs) position on gun control is rather fastidious. But It is rather difficult to call an actor a hypocrite when using a gun in a movie. In regards to being protected by a gun, rather easy.

The discussion on what laws (if any) for gun control needs to be delayed for a while. Good idea never seem to come out of an emption and angry group or person.

Piston didn't you realize? WE NEED ALL ALIENS TO LEAVE NOW! Never again will we watch Predator! Simply can't stand to watch these liberal Hollywood types fistfight an alien and get away with it! Dutch would have taken 2 hits max before he won. Challenge me otherwise.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
That's my thought on the matter. Wanna reduce guns in civilian hands? Start with your security staff.

Once again...

There is nothing hypocritical about playing by the rules of the game, while at the same wanting to change those rules.

Pretending otherwise would mean you would also have to believe a country is hypocritical for wanting nuclear disarmament while at the same time owning nuclear weapons. You would have to believe that a person is a hypocrite for arguing for less taxes while at the same time paying in full the taxes they are required to pay.


Seriously, you want to dismiss celebrities opinions on stuff? Point out they're just a bunch of folk who got famous for acting and singing and stuff, and their opinions should carry no more weight than any other random person on the street. You don't have to invent nonsense about hypocrisy to try and dismiss them.

 DutchKillsRambo wrote:
Piston didn't you realize? WE NEED ALL ALIENS TO LEAVE NOW! Never again will we watch Predator! Simply can't stand to watch these liberal Hollywood types fistfight an alien and get away with it! Dutch would have taken 2 hits max before he won. Challenge me otherwise.

I'm personally more concerned how Hollywood abuses animals in movies. beverly hills chihuahua, Cats and Dogs, Air Bud. These movies are so bad they should be classified as animal abuse. At least the humans had the option of playing in a terrible movie. Animals have no choice and don't even know they are in a camel turd of a movie.

And lets not forget how Hollywood can botch a movie or a series by adding another one to it.

That's right Home Alone 4.

 Cheesecat wrote:
I didn't realize that actors and actresses had to play characters that reflect there real life values, I don't own any guns but I sometimes watch and enjoy movies that feature gun violence am I hypocrite too?

A hypocrite? No. According to some folks involved in Northeastern liberal politics, though, it does mean you're very likely the next spree killer.

 Seaward wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:
I didn't realize that actors and actresses had to play characters that reflect there real life values, I don't own any guns but I sometimes watch and enjoy movies that feature gun violence am I hypocrite too?

A hypocrite? No. According to some folks involved in Northeastern liberal politics, though, it does mean you're very likely the next spree killer.

I've heard some interesting debates about violence in films some studies suggest that it increases violent tendencies in society but I've heard of other data saying that having some violence inflicted on the villain in children's films gives children a stronger sense of good and bad behaviour

as well as increasing obedience in the child.

Heavy Metal music also makes you worship Satan.

Actors get raped in movies, how dare they be against rape...

 Cheesecat wrote:
I've heard some interesting debates about violence in films some studies suggest that it increases violent tendencies in society but I've heard of other data saying that having some violence inflicted on the villain in children's films gives children a stronger sense of good and bad behaviour

as well as increasing obedience in the child.

Are you defending violent films? What are you, the NRA of the film industry or something?

 d-usa wrote:
Actors get raped in movies, how dare they be against rape...

You're in strong form today... keep it up.

 d-usa wrote:
Actors get raped in movies, how dare they be against rape...

Wish I never saw the Hills have Eyes 2.

I spit on your Grave was even worse.

 d-usa wrote:
Actors get raped in movies, how dare they be against rape...

Well, how do you know they're against rape? For all you know, Amy Poehler is into raping people, big-time.

 Ouze wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Actors get raped in movies, how dare they be against rape...

Well, how do you know they're against rape? For all you know, Amy Poehler is into raping people, big-time.

And where does this leave Roman Polanski? As far as I can think none of his movies have had rape in them, and yet in real life he seems pretty strongly pro-rape...

I wouldn't call them hypocrites so much as people who believe in a cause but not with any particular zeal. I, for one, dislike animal cruelty but I eat mainstream meat. The only thing that was offensive to me about the whole thing was how darn pretentious it was. Especially with the whole "A bunch of people say/repeat phrases to make up a sentence" angle, not to mention the b/w.

TheCustomLime wrote:
I wouldn't call them hypocrites so much as people who believe in a cause but not with any particular zeal. I, for one, dislike animal cruelty but I eat mainstream meat. The only thing that was offensive to me about the whole thing was how darn pretentious it was. Especially with the whole "A bunch of people say/repeat phrases to make up a sentence" angle, not to mention to b/w.

Yeah, but I mean... they're celebrity activists, can we expect anything other than pretension?

 sebster wrote:
And where does this leave Roman Polanski? As far as I can think none of his movies have had rape in them, and yet in real life he seems pretty strongly pro-rape...

As a quick aside, if I ran things, like, if I were somehow president: I'd order the CIA to kidnap Roman Polanski, and have them leave him tied up and handcuffed to a pole in front of the Hoover building, just like Batman. France isn't going to war with us over Roman Polanski. Not kidding, totally serious - it really burns me that he's not only eluded justice but he flaunts it, justing seeing his name sets my teeth on edge.

 Ouze wrote:

 sebster wrote:
And where does this leave Roman Polanski? As far as I can think none of his movies have had rape in them, and yet in real life he seems pretty strongly pro-rape...

As a quick aside, if I ran things, like, if I were somehow president: I'd order the CIA to kidnap Roman Polanski, and have them leave him tied up and handcuffed to a pole in front of the Hoover building, just like Batman. France isn't going to war with us over Roman Polanski. Not kidding, totally serious - it really burns me that he's not only eluded justice but he flaunts it, justing seeing his name sets my teeth on edge.

I don't know what's going on here but I find myself agreeing a lot more these days with you.

Piston Honda wrote:
A Celeb calling to ban guns why he or she himself owns a gun would be hypocritical.

You mean like Jane Fonda?

d-usa wrote:Actors get raped in movies, how dare they be against rape...

While a valid point on its own, rape is rarely used in movies, whereas there is an entire genre of movies centered around guns. How many actors and actresses are raped in a majority of thier filmography? Whereas there are plenty of faces in that movie that make (or made) thier living with a gun in thier hand. A comedian that uses a gun for a gag is one thing but for action movie stars or even those who are not strictly speaking action stars that repeatly profit in gun driven plots are properly labelled hypocrites.
Probably 2/3s of the actors in that clip are pretty exempt from any charge of hypocracy.

I wish, just for a short time, that the news people would stop reporting this type of gak.

Those are actors, they play characters that do things. Some of those things are quite evil by any standard, some aren't. Regardless, they are only actors. Its a friggin job, nothing more. Quite frankly, it can be an extremely boring job; ie. "stand here for 4 hours and don't eat, sit, drink or do anything until we call for you."

Who gives a hoot what their opinions on anything are?

Here's an idea for both sides of the American gun control debate: use real metrics and honest dialog instead of dumb straw man arguments. Use "soundbites" from people actually knowledgeable about guns and their usage in crime and self defense; or even soundbites from those actually knowledgeable about the second amendment to the US Constitution and the legal history around it.

But I guess that would lead to real answers instead of the perennial headlines to keep our eyes off actual issues.

clively wrote:
I wish, just for a short time, that the news people would stop reporting this type of gak.

Those are actors, they play characters that do things. Some of those things are quite evil by any standard, some aren't. Regardless, they are only actors. Its a friggin job, nothing more. Quite frankly, it can be an extremely boring job; ie. "stand here for 4 hours and don't eat, sit, drink or do anything until we call for you."

Who gives a hoot what their opinions on anything are?

Here's an idea for both sides of the American gun control debate: use real metrics and honest dialog instead of dumb straw man arguments. Use "soundbites" from people actually knowledgeable about guns and their usage in crime and self defense; or even soundbites from those actually knowledgeable about the second amendment to the US Constitution and the legal history around it.

But I guess that would lead to real answers instead of the perennial headlines to keep our eyes off actual issues.

Don't worry, comrade, soon the media will get bored of gun control and soon play up the crap out of another "crisis". And am I the only who thinks they are doing this for the publicity?

TheCustomLime wrote:
Don't worry, comrade, soon the media will get bored of gun control and soon play up the crap out of another "crisis". And am I the only who thinks they are doing this for the publicity?

If by publicity you mean ratings, then yes, of course. Also because, whether they realize it or not, they wish to push an agenda.

Quite a lot of people think the school massacre was faked by the Obama to provide an excuse for gun control.

http://boingboing.net/2013/01/09/internet-crackpots-believe-new.html

Yet out of despair comes hope, as another potential massacre is halted before it can progress.

http://boingboing.net/2013/01/10/report-yet-another-shooting-a.html

 Seaward wrote:

TheCustomLime wrote:
Don't worry, comrade, soon the media will get bored of gun control and soon play up the crap out of another "crisis". And am I the only who thinks they are doing this for the publicity?

If by publicity you mean ratings, then yes, of course. Also because, whether they realize it or not, they wish to push an agenda.

Forget the agenda, there's money to be made here!

 AustonT wrote:

Piston Honda wrote:
A Celeb calling to ban guns why he or she himself owns a gun would be hypocritical.

You mean like Jane Fonda?

.

Wouldn't know... would it be?

Don't really pay too much attention or go looking for celebs life styles or opinions. Only time I notice is when it get splattered everywhere. Like the whole Charlie Sheen issue.

more interested in sports stats.

 Frazzled wrote:

Its not erroneous. Many of these actors have come out for infringing everyone else's Second Amendment rights. yet they have full time ARMED security teams, and make their livings peddling violence.

Whats hypocritical about wanting to make it more difficult for certain people to acquire weapons, while also owning or employing people who own, weapons themselves? I mean, there's several very easy ways around any possible hypocrisy. The easiest being "Guns and guards are a necessary evil in a country where gun violence is a problem." A more complicated one would be "Making it more difficult to acquire guns doesn't imply that no one should have guns." And one which no one would ever accept, but would still not be hypocritical "Only I should be able to own guns."

As far as peddling violence in movies: what does that have to do with gun ownership at all?

It appears "hypocrite" is still being used as a catchall for "Lol, I don't agree with you!"

 dogma wrote:
It appears "hypocrite" is still being used as a catchall for "Lol, I don't agree with you!"

Well, in all fairness, taking that stance is a lot simpler and less challenging then dealing with a complex issue.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Quite a lot of people think the school massacre was faked by the Obama to provide an excuse for gun control.

http://boingboing.net/2013/01/09/internet-crackpots-believe-new.html

According to my Facebook, one of the gun manufacturers posted the Scientology list of "psych drugs caused these things". 2 days later he had a car accident and died. Wake up Sheeple!

Yet out of despair comes hope, as another potential massacre is halted before it can progress.

http://boingboing.net/2013/01/10/report-yet-another-shooting-a.html

And the teachers didn't even have to pull out their guns and shoot him.

 Ouze wrote:


Is it possible to show gunplay in a movie without glorifying guns?

I think that some of the James Bond movies could fit that bill, though I think we would realistically be hard pressed to find movies that have gunfights but don't "glorify" guns. Another one that comes to mind is Clint Eastwood's Man With No Name trilogy.. in it, each gunfight is much more focused on the tensions of the characters and their reactions, than they are on the guns.



Also, IIRC the last time there was a huge gun debate (mid-90s I think?) and the AR ban, etc. Rosie O'Donell was called out on her hypocrisy because she thought that no one should own guns, yet her and her children's bodyguards all had guns (and her kid's guards had those guns in the kids' schools, AFAIK) So far on this round of gun debates in the US, I haven't heard too much from her.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Also, IIRC the last time there was a huge gun debate (mid-90s I think?) and the AR ban, etc. Rosie O'Donell was called out on her hypocrisy because she thought that no one should own guns, yet her and her children's bodyguards all had guns (and her kid's guards had those guns in the kids' schools, AFAIK) So far on this round of gun debates in the US, I haven't heard too much from her.

That example is really a dumb argument though.

If there were no people with guns, she would not need people with guns to protect her from the other people with guns. So you can have the belief that guns shouldn't be allowed and still have bodyguards with guns until that belief becomes a reality.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Yet out of despair comes hope, as another potential massacre is halted before it can progress.

http://boingboing.net/2013/01/10/report-yet-another-shooting-a.html

The kid apparently had two targets in mind, shot them both, then stopped.

He did it with a shotgun, too. Better ban shotguns.

 Seaward wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Yet out of despair comes hope, as another potential massacre is halted before it can progress.

http://boingboing.net/2013/01/10/report-yet-another-shooting-a.html

The kid apparently had two targets in mind, shot them both, then stopped.

He did it with a shotgun, too. Better ban shotguns.

'twas probably an assault shotgun...

How many rounds did he have in his clip?

Shotguns don't generally use "clips".

They either have an internal magazine, or are the break-open two-shot side by side or upper/lower (or less frequently, have a removable box magazine.).

'Clip' and 'magazine' are not interchangeable terms.

 chromedog wrote:
Shotguns don't generally use "clips".

They either have an internal magazine, or are the break-open two-shot side by side or upper/lower (or less frequently, have a removable box magazine.).

'Clip' and 'magazine' are not interchangeable terms.

SEMANTICS!

I DON'T CARE IF SOMEBODY CALLS NAILS "LONG SHINY THINGS," I STILL WANT HIM WRITING MY BUILDING CODES!

But I like how listening to people talk about scary looking assault shotguns with high capacity clips. The only thing better than that is watching Seaward's eyes twitch when people talk about scary looking assault shotguns with high capacity clips.

There are in fact a few shotguns that use detachable box mags. This kid wasn't using one of those, though. Ten to one it was a Remington/Mossberg pump. Clearly, they all must be banned. And when that fails to make a dent, it's on to "semiautomatics." And when that fails to make a dent, it's on to revolvers.

Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Ouze wrote:


Is it possible to show gunplay in a movie without glorifying guns?

I think that some of the James Bond movies could fit that bill, though I think we would realistically be hard pressed to find movies that have gunfights but don't "glorify" guns. Another one that comes to mind is Clint Eastwood's Man With No Name trilogy.. in it, each gunfight is much more focused on the tensions of the characters and their reactions, than they are on the guns.

While I understand the idea you are trying to express, I will point out that using spaghetti westerns as your example is one of the poorest choices you could have made... the entire genre was arguably defined by its rampant violence.

Piston Honda wrote:

 AustonT wrote:

Piston Honda wrote:
A Celeb calling to ban guns why he or she himself owns a gun would be hypocritical.

You mean like Jane Fonda?

.

Wouldn't know... would it be?

Don't really pay too much attention or go looking for celebs life styles or opinions. Only time I notice is when it get splattered everywhere. Like the whole Charlie Sheen issue.

more interested in sports stats.

Jane Fonda wrote:Gun control? That’s for other people, not for us.

d-usa wrote:

 Seaward wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Yet out of despair comes hope, as another potential massacre is halted before it can progress.

http://boingboing.net/2013/01/10/report-yet-another-shooting-a.html

The kid apparently had two targets in mind, shot them both, then stopped.

He did it with a shotgun, too. Better ban shotguns.

'twas probably an assault shotgun...

How many rounds did he have in his clip?

He must have had this "high capacity ammunition" I keep hearing about on TV.

Let's see here:
Estimated 270,000,000 guns in civilian hands in the US. Comes out to about 89 guns per 100 people.

Nearly 16,000 homicides in 2011 (using anything from hands and clubs to guns).

11,100 of those used guns. I guess the perpetrators figured out how to get by without a bullet for 1/3 of them.

By comparison:
32,367 people died from car related injuries. - almost 3 times as many.
123,000 died from simple accidents like falling off a ladder, etc. - 10 times as many.
600,000 died from heart disease - 54 times as many.

If they really wanted to do something, they'd force healthcare providers to focus on preventative medicine instead of on wracking up bills after the fact ( that is a completely different other topic ).

or, make sure everyone had the appropriate warning labels affixed to every possible thing that might hurt you and then make sure everyone in this country can read.

Either of those things would benefit the citizens much more than banning any kind of weapon.

Data from
CDC: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/acc-inj.htm
Wikipedia (car deaths): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_in_U.S._by_year

 Breotan wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
1.) Hypocrite has an E at the end.

Are you sure? Maybe they're hypocrits means they rolled a natural 20 and are dealing double hypocrisy.

Hypo means lacking in...

Sorry but the logic behind this video is nonsensical. By these standards if an actors have ever played a murder in a film it would be hypocritical for them to condemn murder in real life. That's clearly a ludicrous conclusion to draw. Seriously there are plenty of legitimate reasons to dismiss the opinions of actors on any subject other than acting, but this isn't one of them.

In fact if we apply this same logic to ourselves we would have no right to object to military action in the world because of our hobby. If that sound daft then it's no more so that this video.

Incidentally there is a huge difference between a film featuring guns and a film glorifying guns. In fact plenty of violent films are anti violence, just as a war movie can be anti war.

clively wrote:
Let's see here:
Estimated 270,000,000 guns in civilian hands in the US. Comes out to about 89 guns per 100 people.

Nearly 16,000 homicides in 2011 (using anything from hands and clubs to guns).

11,100 of those used guns. I guess the perpetrators figured out how to get by without a bullet for 1/3 of them.

By comparison:
32,367 people died from car related injuries. - almost 3 times as many.
123,000 died from simple accidents like falling off a ladder, etc. - 10 times as many.
600,000 died from heart disease - 54 times as many.

If they really wanted to do something, they'd force healthcare providers to focus on preventative medicine instead of on wracking up bills after the fact ( that is a completely different other topic ).

or, make sure everyone had the appropriate warning labels affixed to every possible thing that might hurt you and then make sure everyone in this country can read.

Either of those things would benefit the citizens much more than banning any kind of weapon.

Data from
CDC: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/acc-inj.htm
Wikipedia (car deaths): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_in_U.S._by_year

Maybe it has something to do with ladders and cars being more useful to the modern mam/woman than a gun also the US's gun homicide rates are significantly higher than other high income countries wouldn't the responsible thing for the US government would be to introduce policies

that might decrease gun homicide rates instead of doing nothing about the situation after all isn't it the government's job to provide services and protection to it's citizens.

 BlapBlapBlap wrote:

 Breotan wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
1.) Hypocrite has an E at the end.

Are you sure? Maybe they're hypocrits means they rolled a natural 20 and are dealing double hypocrisy.

Hypo means lacking in...

So.... their argument is twice as vapid?

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
I think that some of the James Bond movies could fit that bill, though I think we would realistically be hard pressed to find movies that have gunfights but don't "glorify" guns. Another one that comes to mind is Clint Eastwood's Man With No Name trilogy.. in it, each gunfight is much more focused on the tensions of the characters and their reactions, than they are on the guns.

You're focusing on the 'gun' rather heavily, and missing the greater issue. The point isn't about the gun as a physical object, but about how gun violence fits within the narrative and how it affects the characters. So is the film like Die Hard, where the good guy's skilful use of guns is basically what sees him win and those bad guys are all utterly awful people and every killing is perfectly moral... then that film is glorifying guns, no matter how much or how little detail it puts in to what guns are used on screen.

Then think of a film like, say, Unforgiven, where the anti-hero at the film's centre is a very skilled gunman, but the film spends a considerable time pondering how much harm his and other's gun use has inflicted. It focuses heavily on the severity of killing. Even though the film ends with an explosion of violent gun play, it's hardly a film that glorifies guns.

 Breotan wrote:

 BlapBlapBlap wrote:

 Breotan wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
1.) Hypocrite has an E at the end.

Are you sure? Maybe they're hypocrits means they rolled a natural 20 and are dealing double hypocrisy.

Hypo means lacking in...

So.... their argument is twice as vapid?

Amusing as the thoughts of what the possible alternate meanings of the non-word "hypocrit" have been, seeing this quoted again anew reminds me - picking on another posters single typo was super lame of me (more so, in this day of posting from tablets and phones) and I've regretted it since about 10 minutes after I posted it. So, for what it's worth, sorry about that.

 Ouze wrote:

 Breotan wrote:

 BlapBlapBlap wrote:

 Breotan wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
1.) Hypocrite has an E at the end.

Are you sure? Maybe they're hypocrits means they rolled a natural 20 and are dealing double hypocrisy.

Hypo means lacking in...

So.... their argument is twice as vapid?

Amusing as the thoughts of what the possible alternate meanings of the non-word "hypocrit" have been, seeing this quoted again anew reminds me - picking on another posters single typo was super lame of me (more so, in this day of posting from tablets and phones) and I've regretted it since about 10 minutes after I posted it. So, for what it's worth, sorry about that.

No problem, bro. There was never any offense taken.

Here we go, Selleck attacked again:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/50503618/t/odonnell-it-time-question-tom-sellecks-humanity/?lite&lite=obinsite#.UPtnEqN5mSM

I stopped caring when I saw "msnbc" in the url.

Yep, they make Fox look good

And here I was laboring under the impression that information should always be considered, regardless of the source.

At any rate, the article was a joke, as was the Lawrence O'Donnell piece it was based on.

We're going after Tom Selleck now? I mean, that mustache probably lead to many a friction burn, but Magnum P.I. was a good show...and it even got a final episode.

 dogma wrote:
And here I was laboring under the impression that information should always be considered, regardless of the source.

At any rate, the article was a joke, as was the Lawrence O'Donnell piece it was based on.

We're going after Tom Selleck now? I mean, that mustache probably lead to many a friction burn, but Magnum P.I. was a good show...and it even got a final episode.

What do you mean, "now"? Tom Selleck's been hit every now and then for over a decade, the most famous example probably being when a certain overweight self-described comedienne ambushed him on her daytime talk show for hausfrauen with a lot of anti-gun garbage when he was there to talk about Mr. Baseball or something.

Tom Selleck takes hits for hardly anyone, just a few misguided fools. He is a national treasure, or at the very least the mustache is.

 Cheesecat wrote:
I didn't realize that actors and actresses had to play characters that reflect there real life values, I don't own any guns but I sometimes watch and enjoy movies that feature gun violence am I hypocrite too?

Well really, yea kindda. If they are truly against firearms and violence, then why the feth is it A OK for them to make loads of money portraying exactly what they are against?

As for you, no. You dont own firearms, but you enjoy violence from time to time, theres nothing wrong with that. NOT owning a firearm doesnt make you automatically anti gun, its just not your thing.

The actors and actresses don't make 'loads of money' by being in movies we don't want to see, generally. If we stop seeing movies like that, they will stop making them.

 KingCracker wrote:
Well really, yea kindda. If they are truly against firearms and violence, then why the feth is it A OK for them to make loads of money portraying exactly what they are against?

Well, I guess you have to accept what level of hypocrisy you're willing to live with to make a living. Most people in this country proclaim they'd prefer to have our consumer goods/food/what have you raised or made in places where the workers have clean food, water, and air, a safe workplace, reasonable hours and a living wage, yet as a country we're absolutely unwilling to pay the prices for goods made in those conditions. It's just the way we are. You pick what you can live with, and you do so.

I know one guy who buys all American made, non-sweatshop clothing. He spends a mint to do it, and in general, politically, he makes me look a bit like a Right-winger.

 Seaward wrote:

What do you mean, "now"?

A behavior exhibited under a particular set of circumstances.

 Seaward wrote:

Tom Selleck's been hit every now and then for over a decade, the most famous example probably being when a certain overweight self-described comedienne ambushed him on her daytime talk show for hausfrauen with a lot of anti-gun garbage when he was there to talk about Mr. Baseball or something.

The movie was The Love Letter.

You might also consider that referring to a demographic in a foreign language is generally seen as demeaning.

 Seaward wrote:

What do you mean, "now"? Tom Selleck's been hit every now and then for over a decade, the most famous example probably being when a certain overweight self-described comedienne WHO HERSELF HAS MUTIPLE ARMED GUARDS ambushed him on her daytime talk show for hausfrauen with a lot of anti-gun garbage when he was there to talk about Mr. Baseball or something.

Fixed that for you.

I still think one of the stupidest arguments to come out of this whole thing is the pro-gun people acting like people who are under far greater threat of having violence committed against them are hypocrites for needing more security. The idea that someone in a position of celebrity or power that wants a more in depth background check has to also give up a protection detail, which had been thoroughly vetted, makes very little sense; it is specious reasoning, if we dare even call it reasoning. Of course, these tend to be the same people that conflate background checks and research with taking all firearms away, so they aren't very credible to begin with.

 Ahtman wrote:
I still think one of the stupidest arguments to come out of this whole thing is the pro-gun people acting like people who are under far greater threat of having violence committed against them are hypocrites for needing more security. The idea that someone in a position of celebrity or power that wants a more in depth background check has to also give up a protection detail, which had been thoroughly vetted, makes very little sense; it is specious reasoning, if we dare even call it reasoning. Of course, these tend to be the same people that conflate background checks and research with taking all firearms away, so they aren't very credible to begin with.

I'm not against them having guards, but why not guards with clubs and the like insstead of the guns these people say they so blatently detest?

Relapse wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:
I still think one of the stupidest arguments to come out of this whole thing is the pro-gun people acting like people who are under far greater threat of having violence committed against them are hypocrites for needing more security. The idea that someone in a position of celebrity or power that wants a more in depth background check has to also give up a protection detail, which had been thoroughly vetted, makes very little sense; it is specious reasoning, if we dare even call it reasoning. Of course, these tend to be the same people that conflate background checks and research with taking all firearms away, so they aren't very credible to begin with.

I'm not against them having guards, but why not guards with clubs and the like insstead of the guns these people say they so blatently detest?

What good is a club going to do against a shooter?

Relapse wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:
I still think one of the stupidest arguments to come out of this whole thing is the pro-gun people acting like people who are under far greater threat of having violence committed against them are hypocrites for needing more security. The idea that someone in a position of celebrity or power that wants a more in depth background check has to also give up a protection detail, which had been thoroughly vetted, makes very little sense; it is specious reasoning, if we dare even call it reasoning. Of course, these tend to be the same people that conflate background checks and research with taking all firearms away, so they aren't very credible to begin with.

I'm not against them having guards, but why not guards with clubs and the like insstead of the guns these people say they so blatently detest?

Again, specious reasoning. They don't detest guns, they, at best, detest lack of common sense regulation. One can have a bodyguard and still be for better regulation. No one anywhere has ever stated that guns are not good at what they do on either side of the argument, which is to more efficiently kill and wound other human beings.

 Ahtman wrote:

Relapse wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:
I still think one of the stupidest arguments to come out of this whole thing is the pro-gun people acting like people who are under far greater threat of having violence committed against them are hypocrites for needing more security. The idea that someone in a position of celebrity or power that wants a more in depth background check has to also give up a protection detail, which had been thoroughly vetted, makes very little sense; it is specious reasoning, if we dare even call it reasoning. Of course, these tend to be the same people that conflate background checks and research with taking all firearms away, so they aren't very credible to begin with.

I'm not against them having guards, but why not guards with clubs and the like insstead of the guns these people say they so blatently detest?

Again, specious reasoning. They don't detest guns, they, at best, detest lack of common sense regulation. One can have a bodyguard and still be for better regulation. No one anywhere has ever stated that guns are not good at what they do on either side of the argument, which is to more efficiently kill and wound other human beings.

She has already stated her opposition to the second amendment.

 Kanluwen wrote:
What good is a club going to do against a shooter?

Slightly more than a polite sign.

Relapse wrote:
She has already stated her opposition to the second amendment.

There is no singular opposition to the Second Amendment, and usually that is a phrase used to mean 'against completely unfettered access to any and all weapons'. The number of American's that want to ban all firearms outright is so slight and insignificant as to be inconsequential, and as such have little to no bearing on national level discussions being made by our democratically elected officials at the highest levels on the issue.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Seaward wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
What good is a club going to do against a shooter?

Slightly more than a polite sign.

A polite sign is just a club with some poster-board attached to it with some writing on it.

 Ouze wrote:

 KingCracker wrote:
Well really, yea kindda. If they are truly against firearms and violence, then why the feth is it A OK for them to make loads of money portraying exactly what they are against?

Well, I guess you have to accept what level of hypocrisy you're willing to live with to make a living. Most people in this country proclaim they'd prefer to have our consumer goods/food/what have you raised or made in places where the workers have clean food, water, and air, a safe workplace, reasonable hours and a living wage, yet as a country we're absolutely unwilling to pay the prices for goods made in those conditions. It's just the way we are. You pick what you can live with, and you do so.

My point still stands. They are completely and utterly hypocrites because of those actions. Im not saying I dont agree with you, but side stepping the fact that they are totally full of gak doesnt mean they are now right because of it

So... the point being that we're all hypocrites to some degree?

 KingCracker wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:
I didn't realize that actors and actresses had to play characters that reflect there real life values, I don't own any guns but I sometimes watch and enjoy movies that feature gun violence am I hypocrite too?

Well really, yea kindda. If they are truly against firearms and violence, then why the feth is it A OK for them to make loads of money portraying exactly what they are against?

As for you, no. You dont own firearms, but you enjoy violence from time to time, theres nothing wrong with that. NOT owning a firearm doesnt make you automatically anti gun, its just not your thing.

So if a Hollywood actor plays a villainous character they need to live up to that reputation in real-life too?

Yeah, KC, I love you man, but you're off base here.

clively wrote:
By comparison:
32,367 people died from car related injuries. - almost 3 times as many.
123,000 died from simple accidents like falling off a ladder, etc. - 10 times as many.
600,000 died from heart disease - 54 times as many.

If they really wanted to do something, they'd force healthcare providers to focus on preventative medicine instead of on wracking up bills after the fact ( that is a completely different other topic ).

or, make sure everyone had the appropriate warning labels affixed to every possible thing that might hurt you and then make sure everyone in this country can read.

But there's no limit on how many causes of death you can attempt to minimise. Which is why each of the above is worked on. We have strict road rules and licensing to limit road fatalities. There are very strict workplace safety rules in place.
These rules are reviewed and reformed where necessary as a regular matter of course.

And there are gun laws in place, controlling the types of weapons available and who can own them. Trying to point out that because deaths exist in some other category and therefore we can't review the gun laws makes no fething sense what so ever.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 KingCracker wrote:
Well really, yea kindda. If they are truly against firearms and violence, then why the feth is it A OK for them to make loads of money portraying exactly what they are against?

Once again... just showing a gun a movie doesn't mean revelling in it.

Now, in a film like, say, Die Hard, then you've got a guy who's the hero and is completely awesome because he's much better with a gun that those evil foreignors. So if Bruce Willis came out and said 'guns everywhere are bad' then maybe you'd have a point.

But not every movie with guns is like that. As mentioned earlier Unforgiven spends much of its time reflecting on the cruelty inflicted by a man with a gun, and takes up the classic Western theme of a society that needs hired guns to protect itself, but simultaneously needs to move beyond relying on hired guns. If (very hypothetically) Clint Eastwood were to suddenly declare guns evil, would he be a hypocrite because he made Unforgiven?

Ultimately, you just can't lump all movies into 'they've got guns in them'. Afterall, different movies say different things about guns, and many don't even have guns in them at all. You also can't lump all actors into 'they appear in movies with guns and say bad stuff about guns ' because a lot of them don't appear in movies with guns, and when they do they're not necessarily about glorifying guns.

What individual movies are about, and what what individual actors say actually matters.

 Cheesecat wrote:

 KingCracker wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:
I didn't realize that actors and actresses had to play characters that reflect there real life values, I don't own any guns but I sometimes watch and enjoy movies that feature gun violence am I hypocrite too?

Well really, yea kindda. If they are truly against firearms and violence, then why the feth is it A OK for them to make loads of money portraying exactly what they are against?

As for you, no. You dont own firearms, but you enjoy violence from time to time, theres nothing wrong with that. NOT owning a firearm doesnt make you automatically anti gun, its just not your thing.

So if a Hollywood actor plays a villainous character they need to live up to that reputation in real-life too?

I get what youre saying, I really do. And no, they dont. My point is, they are most definitely hypocritical because on the youtube vid they are sooo against guns, yet they portray characters that use them all the time, and are violent with guns in their movies. So yea, they are making a living off the very thing they are protesting against in that video.

The same could be said if an actor was very much against doing drugs and alcohol and yet had a sitcome where they drank and smoked weed the entire time. This would be the exact same type of hypocrisy.

 KingCracker wrote:



I get what youre saying, I really do. And no, they dont. My point is, they are most definitely hypocritical because on the youtube vid they are sooo against guns, yet they portray characters that use them all the time, and are violent with guns in their movies. So yea, they are making a living off the very thing they are protesting against in that video. [

No, because they aren't using real guns in the movies. Nor are they actually really shooting people

By your logic Anthony Hopkins can never say, claim or think that murderers are bad because he played one in a series of films.

Now if in their real lives the same actors own loads of guns, are careless with them, shoot them off all the time and generally do eveyrthing they protest about, then yes they would be hypocritical.

The same could be said if an actor was very much against doing drugs and alcohol and yet had a sitcome where they drank and smoked weed the entire time. This would be the exact same type of hypocrisy.

Not really, again you appear to be equating fiction with reality. Richard E. Grant doesn't drink alcohol -- allergic to it IIRC -- yet he's not being a hypocrite by playing Withnail is he ?

I'd agree that, for example, a Pop star comes out as all " drugs are bad and should y'all wear purity rings and etc etc " whilst they are actually snorting/smoking/shooting up every chance they get whilst putting it about like it's going out of fashion, then they would be hypocrites.

 reds8n wrote:

 KingCracker wrote:



I get what youre saying, I really do. And no, they dont. My point is, they are most definitely hypocritical because on the youtube vid they are sooo against guns, yet they portray characters that use them all the time, and are violent with guns in their movies. So yea, they are making a living off the very thing they are protesting against in that video. [

No, because they aren't using real guns in the movies. Nor are they actually really shooting people

By your logic Anthony Hopkins can never say, claim or think that murderers are bad because he played one in a series of films.

Now if in their real lives the same actors own loads of guns, are careless with them, shoot them off all the time and generally do eveyrthing they protest about, then yes they would be hypocritical.

I think an example would be if Ted Nugent was on the media constantly saying that Americans should not own guns... Everyone knows that he is nearly the definition of gun nut, but were he to hypothetically be preaching that people shouldnt own guns, but its cool for him, then yeah he'd be a hypocrite.

How about if they employ teams of armed security?

For me then it would depend upon how professional/trained and certificated the security guards were/are.

And, I guess related to this, what weapons said guards were/are using.

To the best of my knowledge none of the celebrities in question here have campaigned against anyone being armed, nor are they doing so here.

If they had campaigned for that and were employing armed guards then sure, then they would be hyporcritical.


@ Mr ( I assume, apologies t'otherwise !) Ensis Ferrae : yes, exactly.

Guys... they're ALL hypocrites... and if you're honest, so are we to a certain degree.

Another example is the hollywood would advocate more liberal causes (thus higher taxes are needed)... but, they'll move from CA to a lower tax-rate state to mitigate their tax liabilities.

*shrug* I just think it's basic human nature.

 reds8n wrote:
For me then it would depend upon how professional/trained and certificated the security guards were/are.

And, I guess related to this, what weapons said guards were/are using.

To the best of my knowledge none of the celebrities in question here have campaigned against anyone being armed, nor are they doing so here.

If they had campaigned for that and were employing armed guards then sure, then they would be hyporcritical.


@ Mr ( I assume, apologies t'otherwise !) Ensis Ferrae : yes, exactly.

They have campaigned against guns, yet employ people with guns to protect them.

They have campaigned against guns,

No they haven't. All your doing there is grossly distorting what they're saying and taking it to a ludicrous extreme which does not represent what they're saying at all. Just so you can attempt to criticise them. For things they're not saying or doing.

Quite deliberately too.

By your rationale the NRA is hypocritical as it doesn't support the rights of the criminally insane to own firearms, as it's their constituitional right !

Because, according to you, any criticism or campaigning on firearms issues is campaigning against guns.

But, as ever in reality, it's not actually such a binary decision.

There is no inhernent contradiction in campaigning for some extra restrictions on guns/their usage and employing people who use or own the weapons in the way that you're campaigning for.



Nor is there any hypocrisy in drinking coffee or using asparin whilst campaigning for crack cocaine to be illegal, campaigning for animals to be treated decently whilst eating meat or maybe not even owning any pets !

All you keep doing is mispresenting what they're saying and twisting it so it says what you want it to say, as you nearly ahve an argument against it. It's most unbecoming really, and makesm me wonder if you're even aware of what the word hyporcrit even means ?

The guns they use in the films, Tv shows etc etc aren't real. Unless said actors/actresess go around misusing their firearms with gay abandon in a manner akin to Homer Simpson, they are not being hypocritical.

Now if they were campaigning against people being able to hire trained, armed guards -- which they're not -- then they would be being hypocritical.

Sidenote : I know you're in Texas, hope you and yours are all alright in tonights/todays shooting on the campus there

Wo wo tone it down Red. Thats a might persnicketty*. The original post noted the celebrity video against firearms. This whole thread is about a video response to that.


*Hurray I get to use persnicketty in sentence. Frazzledflawless victory!


EDIT: yea, just saw on CNN. Looks like two people shooting at each other. Sounds like a drug deal. if this were UH, I'd say it was defintiely that as stuff like that happened all around campus. Maybe why I went there - it reminded me of L.A.

http://news.yahoo.com/schwarzenegger-calls-wider-gun-debate-171952350.html


Once again the greatest actor of all time chimes in with sage advice we could all heed.


Crom!

 DutchKillsRambo wrote:
http://news.yahoo.com/schwarzenegger-calls-wider-gun-debate-171952350.html


Once again the greatest actor of all time chimes in with sage advice we could all heed.


Crom!

Mmmm more feren devils pollutin our native rights!

 DutchKillsRambo wrote:
http://news.yahoo.com/schwarzenegger-calls-wider-gun-debate-171952350.htmlOnce again the greatest actor of all time chimes in with sage advice we could all heed.


Crom!

Translation: "Please watch my movie. Please! Please! Please! I'll never win an Oscar so a Lifetime Achievement Award is all I have to look forward to."

 KingCracker wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:

 KingCracker wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:
I didn't realize that actors and actresses had to play characters that reflect there real life values, I don't own any guns but I sometimes watch and enjoy movies that feature gun violence am I hypocrite too?

Well really, yea kindda. If they are truly against firearms and violence, then why the feth is it A OK for them to make loads of money portraying exactly what they are against?

As for you, no. You dont own firearms, but you enjoy violence from time to time, theres nothing wrong with that. NOT owning a firearm doesnt make you automatically anti gun, its just not your thing.

So if a Hollywood actor plays a villainous character they need to live up to that reputation in real-life too?

I get what youre saying, I really do. And no, they dont. My point is, they are most definitely hypocritical because on the youtube vid they are sooo against guns, yet they portray characters that use them all the time, and are violent with guns in their movies. So yea, they are making a living off the very thing they are protesting against in that video.

Except nothing in the video says that they're against guns all they do is list of some major massacres in the US and ask for citizens and the government to have a "plan".

 reds8n wrote:

 KingCracker wrote:



I get what youre saying, I really do. And no, they dont. My point is, they are most definitely hypocritical because on the youtube vid they are sooo against guns, yet they portray characters that use them all the time, and are violent with guns in their movies. So yea, they are making a living off the very thing they are protesting against in that video. [

No, because they aren't using real guns in the movies. Nor are they actually really shooting people

By your logic Anthony Hopkins can never say, claim or think that murderers are bad because he played one in a series of films.

Now if in their real lives the same actors own loads of guns, are careless with them, shoot them off all the time and generally do eveyrthing they protest about, then yes they would be hypocritical.

The same could be said if an actor was very much against doing drugs and alcohol and yet had a sitcome where they drank and smoked weed the entire time. This would be the exact same type of hypocrisy.

Not really, again you appear to be equating fiction with reality. Richard E. Grant doesn't drink alcohol -- allergic to it IIRC -- yet he's not being a hypocrite by playing Withnail is he ?

I'd agree that, for example, a Pop star comes out as all " drugs are bad and should y'all wear purity rings and etc etc " whilst they are actually snorting/smoking/shooting up every chance they get whilst putting it about like it's going out of fashion, then they would be hypocrites.

Obviously we are looking at this differently. I can tell you dont agree with me, youve made it pretty clear, thats fine. But using real guns or not, making a living (and in all their cases a pretty nice one) shooting people to death and then saying "hey guns are EVA!" is pretty obviously hypocritical in my book.

I have to wonder why, when Arnold Swarzenegger does these press things, if there isn't always's someone yelling out from the crowd, "Arnold, what's good in life?". I mean, do you think that happens all of the time, or just most of the time?

Anyway, I think it's impossible to have this discussion before we decide what exactly "glorifying" guns entails. Does an actor who plays a law enforcement officer who is forced to use deadly force considered to be glorifying guns, for the purposes of this discussion? I asked that some pages back and don't believe anyone answered.

Im sure he gets it as much as that actor that played Carlton in Fresh Prince to do his dance.


And I think and actor playing a police officer being forced to shoot is a bit different here, if using the video in question is the bench mark we are talking about. As the actors in question were using them the majority of the time, in an illegal fashion

 KingCracker wrote:

Obviously we are looking at this differently. I can tell you dont agree with me, youve made it pretty clear, thats fine. But using real guns or not, making a living (and in all their cases a pretty nice one) shooting people to death and then saying "hey guns are EVA!" is pretty obviously hypocritical in my book.

You do know that most of them don't make their living using (fake or not) guns, right? Since when does the entirety of cinema involve only Action films?

 Ahtman wrote:
You do know that most of them don't make their living using (fake or not) guns, right? Since when does the entirety of cinema involve only Action films?

That's the thing. This whole idea is built around the idea that all films are action films about guns, all films with guns glorify the use of guns, and all actors are complaining about guns, and that all comments about tightening gun laws are calls to ban guns.

None of those things are true.

 KingCracker wrote:

. But using real guns or not, making a living (and in all their cases a pretty nice one) shooting people to death and then saying "hey guns are EVA!" is pretty obviously hypocritical in my book.

But they're not doing that are they ? One can only conclude you don't understand what the term hypocrite means.

You disagree with the essential core of their message, and that's fine and entirely your prerogative.

But then you keep extending, falsely, what they say and do to try and make this argument that holds no logical merit whatsoever.

 Breotan wrote:

 DutchKillsRambo wrote:
http://news.yahoo.com/schwarzenegger-calls-wider-gun-debate-171952350.htmlOnce again the greatest actor of all time chimes in with sage advice we could all heed.


Crom!

Translation: "Please watch my movie. Please! Please! Please! I'll never win an Oscar so a Lifetime Achievement Award is all I have to look forward to."

You actually respect the Oscars like they mean something?

 DutchKillsRambo wrote:
You actually respect the Oscars like they mean something?

If you are in the industry they do mean something, both economically and artistically. Sure it means nothing to you, but then I don't think you are in the entertainment industry, so it wouldn't matter much. Certainly film has had no impact on you, what with your screen name being a combination of characters from two different films.

 Ahtman wrote:

 DutchKillsRambo wrote:
You actually respect the Oscars like they mean something?

If you are in the industry they do mean something, both economically and artistically. Sure it means nothing to you, but then I don't think you are in the entertainment industry, so it wouldn't matter much. Certainly film has had no impact on you, what with your screen name being a combination of characters from two different films.

I get what you're saying but much like the Grammys, who outside of the major players in the industry really believe in that stuff? There's way better bands out there than who wins Granmmys just like I'm sure there's better actors out there than who wins the Oscars. And as a general rule I stay far away from movies that win Oscars. They tend to be just a bunch of gay cowboys sitting around eating pudding.

And my screenname is from way back in the AIM days when I was trying to antagonize a friend who maintains Sly is better than Arnold. Really Cliffhanger over the Running Man? No contest.

 reds8n wrote:

 KingCracker wrote:

. But using real guns or not, making a living (and in all their cases a pretty nice one) shooting people to death and then saying "hey guns are EVA!" is pretty obviously hypocritical in my book.

But they're not doing that are they ? One can only conclude you don't understand what the term hypocrite means.

You disagree with the essential core of their message, and that's fine and entirely your prerogative.

But then you keep extending, falsely, what they say and do to try and make this argument that holds no logical merit whatsoever.

Oh Im sorry, do my opinions hurt your feelings or something Red? Because you seem to REALLY want to drive home that you not only disagree with my view of this video but also how wrong you think I am. Problem is, I think they are being hypocritical. End of.

 KingCracker wrote:

 reds8n wrote:

 KingCracker wrote:

. But using real guns or not, making a living (and in all their cases a pretty nice one) shooting people to death and then saying "hey guns are EVA!" is pretty obviously hypocritical in my book.

But they're not doing that are they ? One can only conclude you don't understand what the term hypocrite means.

You disagree with the essential core of their message, and that's fine and entirely your prerogative.

But then you keep extending, falsely, what they say and do to try and make this argument that holds no logical merit whatsoever.

Oh Im sorry, do my opinions hurt your feelings or something Red? Because you seem to REALLY want to drive home that you not only disagree with my view of this video but also how wrong you think I am. Problem is, I think they are being hypocritical. End of.

The problem is none of the actors/actresses in the video make any comment about being against gun use so I don't see how you can say they're being hypocritical the only thing they talk about are various US massacres and having a "plan".

 DutchKillsRambo wrote:
I get what you're saying but much like the Grammys, who outside of the major players in the industry really believe in that stuff? There's way better bands out there than who wins Granmmys just like I'm sure there's better actors out there than who wins the Oscars.

I've got more that my share of problems with the Oscars, but they are nowhere near as bad as the Grammys.

And its weird that you mentioned the acting awards - that's one place where the Oscars have got it right more often than not. It's in best film and best screenplay that the Academy screws it up the most often.

And as a general rule I stay far away from movies that win Oscars. They tend to be just a bunch of gay cowboys sitting around eating pudding.

That South Park line was satirising independant movies, which generally do not do well at the Oscars. Seriously, look up the list of Academy Award winning movies. Unless you're really, really opposed to films that are anything more than muscly men blowing stuff up, I think you'll find plenty of movies in there you not only watched but enjoyed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 KingCracker wrote:
Oh Im sorry, do my opinions hurt your feelings or something Red? Because you seem to REALLY want to drive home that you not only disagree with my view of this video but also how wrong you think I am. Problem is, I think they are being hypocritical. End of.

This whole forum is just here for us to discuss stuff. Thinking you can come in, state your opinion and then get offended when other people point out your opinion has a lot of logical failings is just a completely bizarre way of looking at Dakka.

 KingCracker wrote:
. Problem is, I think they are being hypocritical.

Indeed.

And you're wrong.

And Im allowed to say that. So enjoy it

 KingCracker wrote:
And Im allowed to say that. So enjoy it

The same way that red is allowed to express his opinion that you are wrong.

Thanks for stating the obvious there Walrus. +1 post for the both of us I guess eh?

Did any of you actually watch the video that was posted? Or are you lot just answering because you dont like firearms, or dont get American gun culture or some other reason? They are asking for actions to be taken to stop gun violence, as a knee jerk reaction to the Sandy Hook shooting. When the truth is, gun violence is at its lowest in YEARS. And yes, this is a very simple segway into the current political debate about firearms in general going on right now. So the simple fact that these Hollywood types made a video demanding a stop to gun violence, while making nice fat pay checks portraying the EXACT SAME THING they are demanding to be stopped.......

hyp·o·crite
/ˈhipəˌkrit/
Noun
A person who indulges in hypocrisy.

hy·poc·ri·sy
/hiˈpäkrisē/
Noun
The practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform; pretense.


Weird. Im wrong how exactly? Because where Im sitting, watching that video, and reading the (ridiculous) responses of said video, Im not seeing how Im in the wrong for thinking this. Rather, how the hell all of you are still saying they are in the right

I love how these 'Hollywood types' aren't allowed opinions as others are, and treated as if they are a different species. If it were any other profession no one would act as if they weren't allowed to feel one way or another about something, but god forbid professional entertainers think about giving an opinion.

If you can't understand the difference between storytelling, and specifically telling stories people want to watch and continually pay to see, and reality, I'm not sure what argument to use to make you realize the two are different. Playing Call of Duty doesn't make one a soldier or endorse war, and watching the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly doesn't mean the Clint Eastwood or Sergio Leone think that real life violence is entertaining. By your standard you are pro war and endorse real life violence toward others because you play Warhammer. Things that are engaging in fiction do not mean they are engaging in reality.

 KingCracker wrote:

Did any of you actually watch the video that was posted?

Yes.

, while making nice fat pay checks portraying the EXACT SAME THING they are demanding to be stopped.......

Again, as we keep saying, no they don't.

Because they don't do this,.... they are not hypocrites.

If they were protesting about violence in films, or on TV whilst taking these pay checks (sic) then they would be hypocritical.

See the earlier points about music artists and drugs and sex for example.

So unless the actors or actresses involved go about shooting people or acting in an inappropriate manner with firearms they're not being hypocrites at all.

Or are you lot just answering because you don't like firearms, or don't get American gun culture or some other reason?

If reads much more as if because you do like firearms, "gun culture" etc etc that you're setting yourself up against them as you perceive them as "attacking" you or your "side". It's the only explanation for the tortuous leap of logic you keep making as far as I can see..?

If you don't agree with them.. fine, good for you. That's quite understandable and commendable that you have a.. passion ? ... whatever, for this that moves you so strongly. And, again, if that's just how you feel, for whatever reason -- weather, kids, side of the bed you got out of that morn -- fine.

But it does do you something of a misservice when you grossly misrepresent what is said -- even by "the enemy" -- in, presumably, some attempt to shore up your own arguments and refuse to engage with the points raised in counternance to what you claim.

Why can't we just agree that being a hypocrite on certain things is normal?

@KingCracker: I get what you're saying... I really do. But, I can't get worked up about is because I believe that we've all been hypocrites on certain things at one point of our lives. And besides... I'm of the mindset who doesn't take political statements from Hollywood anyways.

@Ahtman: I get that they're "artist"... and that their personal views could be different from the things that they earn their paychecks. But, wouldn't you agree that the the PERCEPTION of this is at least hypocritical?

 whembly wrote:
Why can't we just agree that being a hypocrite on certain things is normal?

As far as I can tell no one in this thread has ever made a claim to the contrary.

What people are saying is that Jamie Foxx can pretend to shoot people in movies and yet be against people shooting each other in real life and not be being hypocritical in this. In much the same way that he's not required to die of liver disease or be blind either.

 reds8n wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Why can't we just agree that being a hypocrite on certain things is normal?

As far as I can tell no one in this thread has ever made a claim to the contrary.

While that was true... it was the "vibe" I was getting.

I'm willing to be wrong.

What people are saying is that Jamie Foxx can pretend to shoot people in movies and yet be against people shooting each other in real life and not be being hypocritical in this. In much the same way that he's not required to die of liver disease or be blind either.

My take on this is that I can see arguments for both sides.

Carry on then...

 whembly wrote:

My take on this is that I can see arguments for both sides.
...

Cool.

Then please explain how Jamie Foxx , a man who -- AFAIK anyway ! -- has never gone out and murdered a whole bunch of people -- is hypocritical for saying that he wants steps/actions taken to stop such things from happening again.

NB : I'm not saying what he is supporting or asking for would or will work, if you think he's being foolish/dumb/naive here whatever , fine I can totally understand that, and that's your prerogative.

Are there people who are or are going to be hypocritical over this issue ? Of course, don't think anyone ( here) is claiming otherwise. IIRC there's a Senator or somesuch who is violently opposed to CCW ( is that the right term ?) and yet "happily" indulges in such a practise herself . You want to say she's being a hypocrite then in all likelihood I'd agree.

But I think it's thoroughly disingenuous to make any such accusations with regards to the people in the video concerned here.

 reds8n wrote:

 whembly wrote:

My take on this is that I can see arguments for both sides.
...

Cool.

Right on brother.

Then please explain how Jamie Foxx , a man who -- AFAIK anyway ! -- has never gone out and murdered a whole bunch of people -- is hypocritical for saying that he wants steps/actions taken to stop such things from happening again.

Just pulling this out where the sun doesn't shine...

But I surmise that it's because these actors are perceived as using their hollywood stardom status as some sort of bully pulpit.

NB : I'm not saying what he is supporting or asking for would or will work, if you think he's being foolish/dumb/naive here whatever , fine I can totally understand that, and that's your prerogative.

I think they are a bit naive imo.

Are there people who are or are going to be hypocritical over this issue ? Of course, don't think anyone ( here) is claiming otherwise. IIRC there's a Senator or somesuch who is violently opposed to CCW ( is that the right term ?) and yet "happily" indulges in such a practise herself . You want to say she's being a hypocrite then in all likelihood I'd agree.

You're thinking of Dianne Feinstein and she's a full blown hypocrite. She's pushing for a reinstatement of the Assault Weapons Ban today.

But I think it's thoroughly disingenuous to make any such accusations with regards to the people in the video concerned here.

Cool...

I dont really see what regular everyday people, being a hypocrite has to do with this. Yes, everyone really is to a point. The problem is, these are stars. Stars that have a voice, and are seen and followed by hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people world wide. When they start to get political, which they all are in making this video, then how much of a hypocrite they are becomes more of a factor in this. And again, I dont see how it matters that they dont physically go out and shoot people and cause random acts of violence with firearms in real life. They do those things in movies, they pretend to do that to make a living. And having the mind set that its OK to do this on TV to pay my bills, but you guys need to stop gun violence is very much the definition of Hypocrisy. They have the mind set of anti gun violence, yet they pretend to shoot the feth out of people on film.

 KingCracker wrote:
Did any of you actually watch the video that was posted? Or are you lot just answering because you dont like firearms, or dont get American gun culture or some other reason? They are asking for actions to be taken to stop gun violence, as a knee jerk reaction to the Sandy Hook shooting. When the truth is, gun violence is at its lowest in YEARS. And yes, this is a very simple segway into the current political debate about firearms in general going on right now. So the simple fact that these Hollywood types made a video demanding a stop to gun violence, while making nice fat pay checks portraying the EXACT SAME THING they are demanding to be stopped.......

You really need to begin to understand that pretend violence is not the same thing as real violence. All those extras that get shot to pieces by the hero in the movie... aren't really hurt. It's all make believe, for fun, and to tell a story and maybe sometimes to explore a theme.

Whereas guns used in the real world actually kill people.

A person can be in favour of pretend violence, like an action movie or a game of Warhammer, and still in favour of reducing real world violence.

The debate to be had is whether firearm regulations will increase or decrease the amount of real world violence. Whereas this line of debate you've tried to put forward just doesn't work, because pretend violence and real world violence are different things.

But I surmise that it's because these actors are perceived as using their hollywood stardom status as some sort of bully pulpit.

I can certainly see how people could take umbrage with a celebrity/whomever seemingly taking advantage of their position to.. lecture or chide people, perhaps said people are in fact totally incorrect with regards to what they're saying.

But that also would not and does not make them hypocrites. Which is of the point of contention/meat of the matter/etc etc here.

I dont really see what regular everyday people, being a hypocrite has to do with this.

Quite correct, that has no real relevance here. They breath and go to the bathroom as well but....


There certainly are hypocrites with regards to this debate.

You'll note people coming out and calling celebrities who get involved all manner of things, yet Palin for example can close down and disarm the Alaska State Defense Force and that's fine. Apparently.

And again, I dont see how it matters that they dont physically go out and shoot people and cause random acts of violence with firearms in real life. They do those things in movies, they pretend to do that to make a living. And having the mind set that its OK to do this on TV to pay my bills, but you guys need to stop gun violence is very much the definition of Hypocrisy.

No, it would be hypocritical of them say, to come out with "society is too violent" and complain about, possibly "Hollywood glamourising violence" or grumble about how people watch movies. As they do actively contribute to the industry in question, then that would be very hypocritical of them.

As they don't however go about murdering people in real life -- I'm sure there's a joke about Foxx, Kanye West and the term "criminal record" that could be worked in here in some fashion -- they can quite safely and without any taint of hypocrisy say that they feel that something needs to be done about gun violence.

So it matters that they don't do X/Y/Z in reality as to qualify as *term in use* ( hypocrite here) one must first do X/Y/Z.

And I think if you look at the people involved it's something of a stretch to claim that they all make their living by pretending to shoot people on screen. Jason Bateman's fame isn't really as a gun swinging hard action hero is it ? According to your argument he's a hypocrite as he doesn't share a house with his dysfunctional extended family or drive a set of stairs around.

All in all it strikes me as if you're more upset at these celebrities et al saying things you don't agree with and are angry at them for this slight or attack on you /your way of life. Which if that's how feel.. fair enough.

But that certainly sounds more like you object to the aforementioned celebrity preaching and have just latched onto the term hypocrite as others were throwing it about.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 KingCracker wrote:
And Im allowed to say that. So enjoy it

The same way that red is allowed to express his opinion that you are wrong.

So at this point, lets pass out cigars and celebrate being masters of the universe!

 sebster wrote:
You really need to begin to understand that pretend violence is not the same thing as real violence.

You're getting to the problem, albeit in an ass backwards way. I very seriously doubt that KingC doesn't understand that difference. But it's hard to believe that people like James Holmes and Adam Lanza do. There is a kind of sociopathy that is pervasive in American culture. Weapons manufacturers incidentally benefit from it but Hollywood completely relies upon it. I went to see Dark Knight Rises the weekend after the Aurora shooting and, as I watched the extreme violence in that film (yes it was extreme regardless of whatever the goriest business ever slapped on screen might be), I felt my stomach turning. Watching people get shot up felt traumatic and revolting.

The thing I wondered about was, why is this the first time I am noticing this? Why has this never bothered me before?