Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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.