Bane killings. Log Out | Topics | Search
Moderators | Edit Profile

RAMSEY CAMPBELL » Discussion » Bane killings. « Previous Next »

Author Message
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Tony (Tony)
Username: Tony

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 86.158.156.168
Posted on Friday, July 20, 2012 - 11:50 am:   

Jesus;
http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bbc.co.uk%2Fnews%2Fworld-us-can ada-18921492&h=JAQHwrUfkAQH6NpvXJQ-wJSM8Oc-q764hFPSR0KgIkw6SjQ
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Huw (Huw)
Username: Huw

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 1.169.145.60
Posted on Friday, July 20, 2012 - 03:11 pm:   

I can't see anything on that link - do you mean the shooting at the premiere of The Dark Knight Rises, Tony? I'm watching it now on television, - it's horrific. At least twelve people killed and thirty-eight wounded, including a 3-month old baby. This seems to me to be a typically American phenomenon. There was a similar incident a couple of days ago. Perhaps instead of the pointless 'war on drugs' they should do something about the gun problem.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mick Curtis (Mick)
Username: Mick

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 86.178.159.240
Posted on Friday, July 20, 2012 - 03:23 pm:   

That's the one, Huw - here it is without the Facebook part of the link:-

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-18921492
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Craig (Craig)
Username: Craig

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 99.126.164.88
Posted on Friday, July 20, 2012 - 04:56 pm:   

We have a Constitution that explicitly states, "... the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." So unless the Constitution, Huw, is changed... and it won't be.

You can't blame the guns here. The killer is a maniac. It's coming out now that he booby-trapped his own apartment with explosives. Let's not go down the tired gun issue, it's just pointless....
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Weber (Weber_gregston)
Username: Weber_gregston

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 82.145.210.21
Posted on Friday, July 20, 2012 - 05:03 pm:   

Except that what it meant was that people should be allowed to keep the severed limbs of deceased ursines on their walls. But it's been misinterpreted due to that stray word 'and' that somehow crept in there.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Carolinec (Carolinec)
Username: Carolinec

Registered: 06-2009
Posted From: 92.232.199.196
Posted on Friday, July 20, 2012 - 05:22 pm:   

How awful! I've only just got online now today, so only just found out about this. My heart goes out to everyone involved/injured/bereaved/traumatised.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Hubert (Hubert)
Username: Hubert

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 178.116.61.103
Posted on Friday, July 20, 2012 - 08:39 pm:   

About the prevalence of guns: to paraphrase Bob Dylan - when you have a lot of knives and forks you gotta cut something.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mick Curtis (Mick)
Username: Mick

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 86.178.159.240
Posted on Friday, July 20, 2012 - 10:39 pm:   

Craig, what about "the right of people to be able to live a safe life"?
The gun thing (yes, I know we've all been around it before) makes it easier for a disturbed individual to create maximum mayhem in the shortest possible time.
I couldn't give a fuck about a right to bear arms; we've seen time and time again that folk can't be trusted with them, and very few people actually 'need' guns anyway. The US should rethink such nonsense.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Protodroid (Protodroid)
Username: Protodroid

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 109.79.113.161
Posted on Friday, July 20, 2012 - 11:28 pm:   

Sorry to bore you, Craig, but I concur with Mick here.

(Is this the first time Mick has ever sworn?)
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Protodroid (Protodroid)
Username: Protodroid

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 109.79.113.161
Posted on Friday, July 20, 2012 - 11:30 pm:   

I actually feel quite sorry for the film-makers too. To be left with even the smallest suspicion that your work might have influenced someone mentally unstable to do such a thing must be awful.

We shouldn't ban art, we can't ban people, so all that's left to ban is guns.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mick Curtis (Mick)
Username: Mick

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 86.178.159.240
Posted on Saturday, July 21, 2012 - 12:06 am:   

(Is this the first time Mick has ever sworn?)



Possibly here but certainly not in 'real life'!
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Protodroid (Protodroid)
Username: Protodroid

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 109.79.113.161
Posted on Saturday, July 21, 2012 - 01:47 am:   

http://news.yahoo.com/shooting-obama-romney-speak-parents-214235131.html

"Amid their calls for unity and prayer, both men said nothing of gun control, a polarizing issue that has been all but absent from the campaign debate this year. Both Romney and Obama have shifted with the times, moving away from stances that favored tougher gun control laws.

The issue may rise anew.

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, a gun control advocate, said, "You know, soothing words are nice, but maybe it's time that the two people who want to be president of the United States stand up and tell us what they are going to do about it. ... Instead of the two people — President Obama and Gov. Romney — talking in broad things about they want to make the world a better place, OK, tell us how."

Constitutions can be amended.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Protodroid (Protodroid)
Username: Protodroid

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 109.79.113.161
Posted on Saturday, July 21, 2012 - 02:21 am:   

Ebert speaks...

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/21/opinion/weve-seen-this-movie-before.html?_r=2& hp
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Craig (Craig)
Username: Craig

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 99.126.164.88
Posted on Saturday, July 21, 2012 - 02:35 am:   

It takes a lot for the Constitution to be amended. It just won't happen in America, sorry. It's like saying, enough with British royalty, let's just get rid of titles like "King" and "Queen"—as you all know over there, it just an't gonna happen: it'd be stupid to even go there and talk about it, a waste of time.

Bloomberg says he wants our candidates to "do something about it"?... What?!? Does he have any ideas?... No, I thought not. Let's hear what ideas he has, right now; otherwise he's a blowhard idiot. He's the guy who opined the (caught) Times Square bomber might have been a Tea Party guy angry over "health care." 'Nuff said.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Craig (Craig)
Username: Craig

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 99.126.164.88
Posted on Saturday, July 21, 2012 - 02:40 am:   

You know, I've actually been, ever since I saw the first THE DARK KNIGHT RISES trailer, put off by the whole thing. It all seemed so ludicrously somber and depressing, stark and terrible... just ugly. Maybe I'm subjectively coloring, but I'm sure I know I thought this instinctually, without articulating it into actual language (why would I need to?). THE DARK KNIGHT itself was (to me) too dark and dreary; to make matters worse, shallow. Truly comic-book. Spectacle, however, doesn't need to be too intelligent. Is there any doubt anymore that that's the Age we're entering?...
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Craig (Craig)
Username: Craig

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 99.126.164.88
Posted on Saturday, July 21, 2012 - 03:35 am:   

The island of Utøya, in Norway, long seems to have been a gun-free paradise.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Huw (Huw)
Username: Huw

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 114.25.176.166
Posted on Saturday, July 21, 2012 - 05:20 am:   

Craig, I think you're evading the real issue. Why is it so difficult for you lot to even consider actually get your act together and doing something about the ridiculous gun situation in America? Surely guns can at least be more tightly regulated without throwing out an amendment.

What happened in Norway was definitely an aberration, while in America this seems to happen several times each year. Only a few days ago I heard of another incident of an American running amok and going on a shooting spree. While it hardly comes as a surprise these days when it happens in the States, in Norway it was a complete shock.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Tony (Tony)
Username: Tony

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 86.158.156.168
Posted on Saturday, July 21, 2012 - 08:26 am:   

Poor Craig. This happens often - people either not reading him properly or deliberately choosing to wind him up. You don't seem to realise he's agreeing with you - he's just saying how tough something like this will be to change. He's not once said it shouldn't.
In my mind this spiral will just keep going round. It'll take a few big shootings in a row maybe before anyone things to do anything real about it. to me the shooters want the change to happen, too.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mick Curtis (Mick)
Username: Mick

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 86.178.159.240
Posted on Saturday, July 21, 2012 - 10:35 am:   

Tony, my comments weren't an attack on Craig at all, simply exasperation at what I consider to be a dangerous and unnecessary hanging-on to a 'right' that does no-one any good at all.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mick Curtis (Mick)
Username: Mick

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 86.178.159.240
Posted on Saturday, July 21, 2012 - 11:17 am:   

...and it does sound as if some folk are prepared to attempt to get constitution changed when it suits them:-

"Mayors in New York and California began to offer gay marriage in their towns and cities, citing civil rights concerns. Those opposed to gay marriage began to urge that an amendment to the Constitution be created to define marriage as being between a man and a woman only."
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Protodroid (Protodroid)
Username: Protodroid

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 109.79.35.138
Posted on Saturday, July 21, 2012 - 11:22 am:   

I think Craig's stance is clear.

"You can't blame the guns here."

All this talk of the Constitution is using the difficulty of taking an action to hide an unwillingness to do it.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mick Curtis (Mick)
Username: Mick

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 86.178.159.240
Posted on Saturday, July 21, 2012 - 11:32 am:   

All this talk of the Constitution is using the difficulty of taking an action to hide an unwillingness to do it.

Quite.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Protodroid (Protodroid)
Username: Protodroid

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 109.79.35.138
Posted on Saturday, July 21, 2012 - 11:42 am:   

I agree with Craig about the Nolan Batman films, though. Even back in 2005, Tony was the first person I heard say that BATMAN BEGINS simply isn't fun. Their teenager-painting-bedroom-black nihilism strikes me as immature. Whereas SUPERMAN and SPIDER-MAN 2 are lighter, more mature works. Their creators know how dark the world can be and exalt us beyond that.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Hubert (Hubert)
Username: Hubert

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 178.116.61.103
Posted on Saturday, July 21, 2012 - 11:57 am:   

Nolan's Batman films aren't perfect, but they're the only ones I can take seriously. And don't forget the tone of the original comic is very dark indeed. I would have loved to see a sidekick as young as the original Robin, but it was not to be. Too controversial?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Weber (Weber_gregston)
Username: Weber_gregston

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 86.140.6.172
Posted on Saturday, July 21, 2012 - 12:00 pm:   

I think they're excellent films - although Dark knight should have just used the Joker as the villain. Two Face was almost sidelined which was a real shame as Eckhart was just as good as Ledger.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Craig (Craig)
Username: Craig

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 99.126.164.88
Posted on Saturday, July 21, 2012 - 03:58 pm:   

I just think the going after the guns debate is pointless. Statistically, I think it's also an issue made larger than it should be—callous-sounding in the wake of this event, but facts are facts. The actual chances of being shot to death like this in a theater rose dramatically on Friday… simply because, it happened for the first time in history. We are a nation of some 350 million or so people… even 70 people, doesn't make a mark on a hair. I'm only saying, we need perspective—it's headline news 24/7 exactly because it's like "Meteor Hits Man" strange.

Tolstoy I believe in The Kreutzer Sonata expressed how he so disliked "classical music" because it seemed intended purely to infuse you with intense emotion—stirring agitations and sublime sweeps—that then couldn't be physically expressed, leaving you feeling tense and anxious. And there is something, what… mildly sadistic? About wanting to create for your audience the most intense film-going experience imaginable (every film-maker quests after this; and Nolan not least of all, surely), that can only be then expunged and expressed… how? (Why Brecht always apparently wanted his audience aware of the play—when it seemed they'd become too dazzled by the story, he'd break the fourth wall again.)

We forget that films, the son of stage plays, are the grandson of religious enactments. The Greeks turned it into a competition, but it was an elaborate religious ritual; and for only about 500 years has it been purely secular—before that, it was about worship and fervor and spiritual states (i.e., of mind). If one was entirely sure such concerns about what should and shouldn't be seen, or what one's film-watching diet consists of regularly, is foolishness; then one wouldn't have rating systems at all—one might have no problem taking their young children to see Scarface or Taxi Driver or etc.

Some critics/artists/viewers poo-poo constantly any criticism concerning the level of violence and sex and "questionable morals" and whatnot in films… but oh, should it reveal the hint of an opposing political agenda—abomination!
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Craig (Craig)
Username: Craig

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 99.126.164.88
Posted on Saturday, July 21, 2012 - 04:07 pm:   

Now for me defending...

Watching films in theaters has become an intensely communal act—it's societal's spiritual connection and communion for the secular. This gunman, it seems, was intensely isolated, alone, and unknown. Perhaps his self-absorption-spiral and ego-cannibalism lashed out at the most sacred thing imaginable to him... a once-only communal event; where welcome strangers and friends sort of meld into one received narrative experience. Perhaps that ineffable experience itself is religion, in our post-Christian world; so that a "Satan's" worst deed, is to mar, disrupt and destroy it.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Protodroid (Protodroid)
Username: Protodroid

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 109.79.73.33
Posted on Saturday, July 21, 2012 - 05:53 pm:   

That's all genuinely interesting Craig, and I'll get to it again, but can you clarify your thoughts on the desirability (not the difficulty) or gun control? I assume you're pro-2nd ammendment?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

David_lees (David_lees)
Username: David_lees

Registered: 12-2011
Posted From: 92.22.32.249
Posted on Saturday, July 21, 2012 - 06:30 pm:   

Or perhaps he just figured it would be very easy to shoot a lot of people when they're crushed in side-by-side and trapped by rows of seats, with nowhere to run or hide?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Protodroid (Protodroid)
Username: Protodroid

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 109.79.117.155
Posted on Saturday, July 21, 2012 - 07:01 pm:   

I'm with Craig also on criticising the non-thinking liberal idea that the arts have no negative effect on us, or at least that the negative effect is acceptable.

It's obvious to me that the the cost/benefit analysis of ready access to firearms lands firmly in the red.

But many people won't accept that such an analysis is even applicable to the influence of the arts. It's as if only the final link in the chain that leads to mass murder must be examined. And it does look as if this film was in some way linked to the event.

The effects of the arts (positive and negative) are subtle, but I feel they're real. The difficult truth I feel we must face is that some of the arts may be part of the problem and deserve to be examined too.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ramsey Campbell (Ramsey)
Username: Ramsey

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 92.8.29.184
Posted on Saturday, July 21, 2012 - 10:53 pm:   

The Catcher in the Rye? If not, why not?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Protodroid (Protodroid)
Username: Protodroid

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 109.79.57.61
Posted on Saturday, July 21, 2012 - 11:12 pm:   

Yes. Given the bloody fingerprints on that book, it should certainly be examined, as I'm sure it has been.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ramsey Campbell (Ramsey)
Username: Ramsey

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 92.8.29.184
Posted on Saturday, July 21, 2012 - 11:13 pm:   

And once it has been examined, what then?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Protodroid (Protodroid)
Username: Protodroid

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 109.79.57.61
Posted on Saturday, July 21, 2012 - 11:16 pm:   

I think film and video games are more problematic. Literature requires some discipline and concentration to absorb, which in itself filters out mindlessly violent types, much like the process of gaining martial arts knowledge is supposed to prevent one from abusing it.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Protodroid (Protodroid)
Username: Protodroid

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 109.79.57.61
Posted on Saturday, July 21, 2012 - 11:27 pm:   

It depends on what the results of the analysis are. Just as actuarial work can provide blood-chilling predictions of expected per capita deaths from introducing, say, a brand of trans-fat doughnut onto the market, we should be able to statistically model how art affects some sociological marker.

Of course, that doesn't guarantee that society will make rational judgements based on those data - an objective cost/benefit analysis of the automobile would, I suspect, overall be quite negative, for example.


The fact that we can't do that with much accuracy with art yet doesn't mean that we shouldn't, or that art has no negative consequences.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mick Curtis (Mick)
Username: Mick

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 86.178.159.240
Posted on Sunday, July 22, 2012 - 01:03 am:   

There was a report some years back that suggested reducing the maximum speed on motorways to sixty miles per hour would massively reduce loss of life, but apparently would also cause prices to rise due to longer journeys for deliveries and collections, so nothing was changed.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Craig (Craig)
Username: Craig

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 99.126.164.88
Posted on Sunday, July 22, 2012 - 05:15 am:   

Proto, I'm pro-2nd Amendment in principle, because I just think it's a bridge too far to disarm a populace completely, in the face of any intrusive government. Also, because it just means criminals will then have all the good weapons. These are arguments so hoary and cliched by now, they almost seem like absurd one-liners even writing them; but I don't think it changes their truth or efficacy. However, perhaps regulation laws can be revisited.

I firmly agree with you, however, with applause: A study surely must be done on the effect of the arts on what have you—crime, derangement, mental illness, etc. Have any studies been made? Take your chosen art form and its chosen medium or genre—say, comic book films—and do an extensive study of some kind on its psychological impact on its viewers, something along those lines... fuck me, they study everything nowadays, why not this? I dare not call it conspiracy.

I'm also not saying if negative results arise, we simply ban something or prevent it or control it—but surely, to God, we should know! If there's proven to be no link of any kind between heinous deeds or mental illness, and exposure to the arts, well... more grist for our censorship-is-wicked mills. But how can it be that on the one hand we want to prate on about the potential harm of exposure to certain art forms in certain individuals, (children to violence, teens to porn, etc.), but totally abjure others (a constant exposure to violent video games, comic books, etc.)?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Craig (Craig)
Username: Craig

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 99.126.164.88
Posted on Sunday, July 22, 2012 - 05:19 am:   

Ramsey, I think it's just a good thing to attempt ,as much as possible, to spread sunlight over these issues. One need not act once one suspects linkages... but surely one would want to know if indeed some art-ifact seems to be the root of some malady in society.

Apparently, Goethe's The Sorrows of Young Werther caused a wave of suicides in Europe. Why not be aware of that?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Craig (Craig)
Username: Craig

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 99.126.164.88
Posted on Sunday, July 22, 2012 - 05:24 am:   

I saw the previews for The Dark Knight Rises, and they actually made me feel unhappy, I think, inside—it was inarticulate, but now I know those feelings for what they were. I am certainly not passing judgment on the film; as well, I was not as huge a fan as everyone else about the 2nd one (which was indeed filled with ugliness; worse, it was flawed), so I'm certainly being subjective here.

But I made an internal decision to avoid what I perceived to be the stories-tall epic and inescapable display of such darkness. So by rejecting that darkness, my chances of being caught up in this horrendous real-world massacre?... zero. (Well, they were zero anyway, since I live about 1000 miles away, but you get my point.)
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Craig (Craig)
Username: Craig

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 99.126.164.88
Posted on Sunday, July 22, 2012 - 05:19 pm:   

This is starting to annoy me. I'm hearing two U.S. Senators on TV, chewing about fucking gun control in the wake of this....

The perpetrator dyed his hair red, like the Joker. His attack, was replicated upon the movie Joker's methods. He targeted the premiere of Dark Knight Rises.

Someone better fucking point a finger at the film—at the very least, as the control in a theoretical exercise in determining the root cause of this terrible event—or I'm going to start thinking there's another fucking white-wash being attempted....
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

David_lees (David_lees)
Username: David_lees

Registered: 12-2011
Posted From: 92.22.32.249
Posted on Sunday, July 22, 2012 - 05:32 pm:   

Wouldn't it be a better idea to wait until the killer has been interviewed and analysed by professionals and his motives worked out before "fucking pointing fingers" at anything?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Craig (Craig)
Username: Craig

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 99.126.164.88
Posted on Sunday, July 22, 2012 - 05:48 pm:   

Absolutely, David. But they're pointing fucking fingers right now at guns, and to be fair, they need to be pointing fucking fingers at the film—again, even as a control, in determining what is the preventable root of this tragedy. Which they seem hell-bent on doing. But it would be much better if no fucking fingers were pointed anywhere right now.

(If this were a lighter thread, I'd say there're more fucking fingers in here than Fifty Shades of Grey. But it's not, so I won't.)
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mick Curtis (Mick)
Username: Mick

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 86.178.159.240
Posted on Sunday, July 22, 2012 - 06:12 pm:   

But then I thought this was a premiere - so presumably the guy hadn't seen it, but even if he had, surely not early enough to have bought all the ammunition and weaponry he seems to have amassed recently.
And why can't anyone point fingers at guns? It's the one thing we know for sure about the incident, that a gun or guns were used.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Weber (Weber_gregston)
Username: Weber_gregston

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 82.145.211.112
Posted on Sunday, July 22, 2012 - 06:26 pm:   

Why point the finger at the film when it's clearly the act of an unbalanced person with access to massive amounts of weaponry? Without the film it's more than likely he would have found another reason to go out and kill people. Millions of people have seen that film. If it was the fault of the film there would be a fuck of a lot more of these massacres happening.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Craig (Craig)
Username: Craig

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 99.126.164.88
Posted on Sunday, July 22, 2012 - 06:30 pm:   

Because with all due respect, Mick, it's inane.

Military bases are chock-full of weapons that go beyond even the scope of this mad killer's arsenal. But we don't fret about soldiers madly shooting up theaters. Because they don't march around with dyed red hair saying they're the Joker, nor do they booby-trap their own apartments with explosives.

What are we trying to do? When discussing "the gun issue"? Prevent needless tragedies, I presume. But what fuels gangland violence—the very presence of guns? Or a gang sub-culture?

I would like to see a study done of the psychological impact of the Batman films and other such excessively violent fare, yes, I would; and it's totally appropriate in the wake of this massacre. If everyone's so sure its results would prove beyond a doubt that there's nothing here to worry about, that there's nothing in violent films to be concerned about... then why not just fucking do an extensive study and put this issue firmly to rest? Instead of us all (me included) just spouting out how films have no effect on the average citizen and how censorship is about pandering to the lowest common denominator and etc.; but then not ever wanting to see scientific studies that simply prove this out?

If one counters by saying, "Well, look at all the violent films out there, and how infrequently violence like this erupts," fine then. But you can't then turn around and make the opposite argument when it comes to guns, because guns like this are all over the place, and the frequency with which they are used to these ends in the face of those numbers is astronomically small.

Tell me how I'm being inconsistent....
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Craig (Craig)
Username: Craig

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 99.126.164.88
Posted on Sunday, July 22, 2012 - 06:34 pm:   

You can say, "I'm fine with living with a certain level of derangement in society. But I just want to prevent the unhinged from being able to kill a lot of people, as opposed to as scant a few as possible." That's a perfectly acceptable counter-arugment there.

Still... does anyone want to just connect two obvious dots? I'm not for banning Batman films, I'm about seeing what's there in front of my face.

No one shot up a theater dressed like Justin Bieber.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Hubert (Hubert)
Username: Hubert

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 178.116.61.103
Posted on Sunday, July 22, 2012 - 06:43 pm:   

So, practically speaking, anyone who has the money can buy an armful of guns in the States? No records are kept of someone who buys, say, a Glock 19?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mick Curtis (Mick)
Username: Mick

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 86.178.159.240
Posted on Sunday, July 22, 2012 - 06:57 pm:   

Craig - if guns were impossible to get hold of it's more likely that this guy, had he still gone ahead, would have used a knife or similar. Would he then have hurt and killed that many people? I know, "guns don't kill people..." etc. but easy access just helps idiots like this, and if only the armed forces had them and no-one else it wouldn't have been quite the calamity it was.
Guns aren't the reason this happened, but they're sure as hell the reason it was as awful as it was.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mick Curtis (Mick)
Username: Mick

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 86.178.159.240
Posted on Sunday, July 22, 2012 - 06:59 pm:   

...and before you say 'well, perhaps we should ban knives too' at least knives aren't for the most part designed to kill; guns are.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mick Curtis (Mick)
Username: Mick

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 86.178.159.240
Posted on Sunday, July 22, 2012 - 07:00 pm:   

No one shot up a theater dressed like Justin Bieber.

True, but maybe someone should consider dressing up like a theatre and shooting Justin Bieber...
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Weber (Weber_gregston)
Username: Weber_gregston

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 82.145.211.62
Posted on Sunday, July 22, 2012 - 07:42 pm:   

Question. If someone dressed up as the mona lisa and shot up an art gallery with a enigmatic smile on his face, would you blame leonardo da vinci? Or if he tried to create a diarama of hell in the gallery would you blame h bosch? You can't possibly blame a work of art of any type for the effect it has on someone already unbalanced. However, reducing access to guns to these unbalanced people massively reduces the level of damage they can do.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Weber (Weber_gregston)
Username: Weber_gregston

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 82.145.211.62
Posted on Sunday, July 22, 2012 - 07:46 pm:   

At the very least, psychological testing and licensing of people who want to own guns. And guarantees that they'll be stored securely enough that children can't get hold of them.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Craig (Craig)
Username: Craig

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 99.126.164.88
Posted on Sunday, July 22, 2012 - 08:22 pm:   

Sure, Weber. And if someone read some Elric of Melniboné novels and then put on white face and grabbed a big black sword and started killing people... or if someone saw too many "The Brady Bunch"s and started throwing footballs at peoples' noses.... Thing is, those examples are not happening. But someone did dress up like the Joker and go around killing people.

Nothing wrong with looking at the issue and studying it, I say.

Question: Would you like to see an extensive scientific study to determine the harmful effect of violent, etc., films on individuals?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mick Curtis (Mick)
Username: Mick

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 86.178.159.240
Posted on Sunday, July 22, 2012 - 08:35 pm:   

It would be interesting too see the results, but the fact is we know film and tv affects folk because advertising works.
Admittedly sometimes in an informative way ("I never knew *that* existed - I'll buy one") but also in the more subtly persuasive adverts.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Craig (Craig)
Username: Craig

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 99.126.164.88
Posted on Sunday, July 22, 2012 - 08:36 pm:   

Perhaps there should be a registry for such guns, Mick, or a list of some kind for owning more than a certain number of guns, or specific kinds of guns, etc.

But I'm going to counter my impulsive agreement with that, against my initial response to all this, which is more about practicality than anything else: for all I'd agree with and want that, America as a whole just is not, not, not ever going to go with further gun control. America with a whole is willing to live with spurts of horror like this, rather than pry their fingers further from their beloved guns. It's such a concrete situation, one is really better off studying such cultural artifacts and—blasphemy, but go with me a moment—better off banning said artistic expressions, than going after the gun thing.

Raising an interesting question: If there were a certain causal link between films (say) and violence in disturbed individuals... and there were a causal link between ready access to massive firearms and violence in disturbed individuals... and given the fact that curbing gun rights would be so massively less popular than the other, censoring films... and the goal was to "save lives"... wouldn't one in all good conscience then be forced to promote censorship in said films? If one really really really wanted to save lives?...

(and hey, before you start on my Devil's Advocation here, the premise is no less absurd an argument than the Mona Lisa causing violence—again, here it's happened, there it's not)
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Craig (Craig)
Username: Craig

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 99.126.164.88
Posted on Sunday, July 22, 2012 - 08:38 pm:   

Again, I'm not for this, just playing that Advocate. But during the years of the Hollywood "code"... many fine films were made, in the face of blatant censorship.

Shakspeare and the stage, in his day, was blatantly censored as well—never stopped some fine art from being released.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Hubert (Hubert)
Username: Hubert

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 178.116.61.103
Posted on Sunday, July 22, 2012 - 08:40 pm:   

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/dark-knight-rises-shooting-matrix-violence -theaters-352581

Is it the films?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Carolinec (Carolinec)
Username: Carolinec

Registered: 06-2009
Posted From: 92.232.199.196
Posted on Sunday, July 22, 2012 - 08:44 pm:   

"Question: Would you like to see an extensive scientific study to determine the harmful effect of violent, etc., films on individuals?"

Aren't there already such pieces of research? This was one I found by doing a quick "Google Scholar" search:

http://abs.sagepub.com/content/51/8/1061.abstract

But the problem with all social science research is - it just doesn't give us anything conclusive.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Craig (Craig)
Username: Craig

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 99.126.164.88
Posted on Sunday, July 22, 2012 - 08:50 pm:   

But the problem with all social science research is - it just doesn't give us anything conclusive.

That would be a relief, because I don't want to give up my films. But we can make a definite conclusion concerning the banning of weapons and spurts of violence: it don't work.

Or, it does to curb the violence, and one wants ALL such violence ended. Utopias are fine goals... but then that peskery inconclusive evidence about films... consistency, let alone safety, demands something would have to be done about it from that end, too.

Hubert: maybe?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Weber (Weber_gregston)
Username: Weber_gregston

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 82.145.208.192
Posted on Sunday, July 22, 2012 - 09:41 pm:   

Going by your logic craig, there are more people who've seen the Dark Knight than there are who own guns. Even in the US. Therefore there's a higher percentage of gun owners who have shot up a cinema than there are viewers of the film... Therefore which group do you think need looking at closest?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ramsey Campbell (Ramsey)
Username: Ramsey

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 92.8.17.187
Posted on Sunday, July 22, 2012 - 11:09 pm:   

"Because with all due respect, Mick, it's inane.

Military bases are chock-full of weapons that go beyond even the scope of this mad killer's arsenal. But we don't fret about soldiers madly shooting up theaters. Because they don't march around with dyed red hair saying they're the Joker, nor do they booby-trap their own apartments with explosives."

Still, forgive my citing Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Hood_shooting
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ramsey Campbell (Ramsey)
Username: Ramsey

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 92.8.17.187
Posted on Sunday, July 22, 2012 - 11:12 pm:   

And, sorry, just to nail one of the mantras most often heard when this issue is raised: "Guns don't kill people." Bollocks. They do.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Protodroid (Protodroid)
Username: Protodroid

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 109.79.31.78
Posted on Sunday, July 22, 2012 - 11:13 pm:   

"But the problem with all social science research is - it just doesn't give us anything conclusive."

"Question. If someone dressed up as the mona lisa and shot up an art gallery with a enigmatic smile on his face, would you blame leonardo da vinci?"

There is no conclusive evidence that smoking, or radiation, cause cancer. There is overwhelming statistical evidence, though. These are stochasic processes, as is sociology (which is also several generations behind in development than medicine).

If the statistics can link art to sociological consequences, then society has a duty to make a (possibly uncomfortable) decision about such consequences and whether it is willing to continue to take them. What I'm pointing out is a Pavlovian rejection of even the possibility that art could have negative consequences along with its positive ones, a reluctance to even investigate the possibility that I find unsettling. This reluctance is not based on data (the data simply aren't in yet), so it must therefore be based on a personal hunch, or an unquestioned dogma that censorship is bad.

"Ah, the cool, smooth taste of the latest violent gangster film. Smoke one today."

If we investigate all other environmental factors which may lead to the loss of life, or (more likely with art) subtle psychological damage, why would we assume that art, whose entire function is to affect us is immune to investigation?

This focus on how difficult this might be to do reminds me of Craig's focus of how difficult it might be to change the Constitution to control guns - a focus which is intended to hide an unwillingness to face the possibility that the thing we enjoy may actually be damaging to ourselves or others. (By the way, Craig, I do think it a bit silly to say that the constitution can't be changed, while your argument is simultaneously based on one of its amendments.)
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ramsey Campbell (Ramsey)
Username: Ramsey

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 92.8.17.187
Posted on Sunday, July 22, 2012 - 11:14 pm:   

Indeed, let's add a new mantra. "Films don't kill people."
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ramsey Campbell (Ramsey)
Username: Ramsey

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 92.8.17.187
Posted on Sunday, July 22, 2012 - 11:20 pm:   

And let's take the analysis one stage further. How many people have been murdered by someone imitating a film? Since the cinema began - or even more recently than that, if you like - how many more people have been murdered using a gun?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Protodroid (Protodroid)
Username: Protodroid

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 109.79.31.78
Posted on Sunday, July 22, 2012 - 11:55 pm:   

We don't know. Yet.

But I'd say guns are the more immediate threat. The link between having a gun and using it is readily apparent, causal.

Even though I believe that to be the primary cause of that one particular type of mass murder, I think that art and economics and many other factors are to blame, though probably to a lesser extent.

Psychology is murky. How many deaths could have been avoided if gunplay had not been portrayed as fun for decades? How fewer trigger happy minor criminals would there be if rap music had not glorified murder? One only has to listen to the voice recordings of pilots in the Gulf wars to realise that video games have coloured how a generation thinks about violence. Those aren't people on the ground to them, they're pixels which have stopped moving after they've pulled the trigger. One could say something similar about Abu Ghraib and pornography.

Let's not let art off the hook. Some forms of art may be psychological asbestos. Let's apply the precautionary principle.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Carolinec (Carolinec)
Username: Carolinec

Registered: 06-2009
Posted From: 92.232.199.196
Posted on Monday, July 23, 2012 - 12:50 am:   

Proto, you quote me as saying: "But the problem with all social science research is - it just doesn't give us anything conclusive."

And then you go on to say: "This focus on how difficult this might be to do reminds me of Craig's focus of how difficult it might be to change the Constitution to control guns - a focus which is intended to hide an unwillingness to face the possibility that the thing we enjoy may actually be damaging to ourselves or others."

Just to say that I wasn't focusing on how difficult it is to do. I was simply pointing out to Craig that research into films and violence had already been done and is continuing to this day (he seemed to be suggesting it hadn't) but that the evidence wasn't conclusive. That's a fact, not me saying it shouldn't be done because it's difficult. I was a social science researcher at one point myself!
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Protodroid (Protodroid)
Username: Protodroid

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 109.79.96.224
Posted on Monday, July 23, 2012 - 12:56 am:   

Thanks for the clarification, Caroline.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Carolinec (Carolinec)
Username: Carolinec

Registered: 06-2009
Posted From: 92.232.199.196
Posted on Monday, July 23, 2012 - 01:09 am:   

No worries, Proto. I thought you must have misunderstood why I'd said that.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ramsey Campbell (Ramsey)
Username: Ramsey

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 92.8.24.0
Posted on Monday, July 23, 2012 - 11:00 am:   

"One only has to listen to the voice recordings of pilots in the Gulf wars to realise that video games have coloured how a generation thinks about violence. Those aren't people on the ground to them, they're pixels which have stopped moving after they've pulled the trigger."

But is that evidence of the influence of video games or simply one strategy by which soldiers dehumanise the enemy they have to kill? For instance, flame-throwers have been used in combat for decades before the video game. Mustn't people - at any rate, many of them - using the weapon on other human beings have had to suppress their sense of their adversary as human?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Protodroid (Protodroid)
Username: Protodroid

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 109.79.68.72
Posted on Monday, July 23, 2012 - 11:26 am:   

The military has shifted on this relatively recently. Dehumanising the enemy in WW2 and Vietnam has had terrible social after effects, so now the approach is to convince them that they are doing the right thing, that they are doing difficult, but necessary work that is needed to do good in the world, so they have come home with clean consciences.

Even if this were not the case, it seems clear that some video games it seems to me are actively impelling the dehumanising process.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2UadzYIwors
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ramsey Campbell (Ramsey)
Username: Ramsey

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 92.8.24.0
Posted on Monday, July 23, 2012 - 11:41 am:   

That is disturbing, I must say.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Tony (Tony)
Username: Tony

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 86.158.156.168
Posted on Monday, July 23, 2012 - 11:41 am:   

I've been thinking about cowboy films, in which lots of people killed each other. I never got stirred up emotionally by those films. But the Batman films? They are well crafted, convincing. They feel real. I empathised with all the bad guys. Apparently the subconscious cannot tell the difference between imaginary things and real things - it reads them as the same. High, emotional art can stir the feelings like nothing else. And love can push it; Brady and Hindley's love sparked them off, to a degree, and the two girls the film Heavenly Creatures was based on; they fell into a kind of paroxysm of joy that tore away reality and consequence. The guy who did the shootings was very, very lonely, and loneliness is a killer, and really must not be underestimated. To the lonely film and story is a friend and an inspiration, a real force. I defy anyone who watches the film Tony not to feel more empathy for him than almost anyone else in the film, or not see the importance film plays in his life. To the disenfranchised film can be a huge liferaft.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Tony (Tony)
Username: Tony

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 86.158.156.168
Posted on Monday, July 23, 2012 - 11:47 am:   

A level headed, happy person would never kill anyone with a gun. Guns do not make people sad and lonely. If there was a gun in my house it would gather dust. If a lonely, sad, pained individual had an ordinary kitchen knife in his house he might use it.
I think it's a safe bet that something that can convince you you can change the painful world you live in will likely be a loved film or an idea, something as 'insubstantial' as that.
The problem with the Batman films might well be the level of craft brought to such a violent film.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Tony (Tony)
Username: Tony

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 86.158.156.168
Posted on Monday, July 23, 2012 - 11:47 am:   

No-one went on a spree after Batman Forever.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

David_lees (David_lees)
Username: David_lees

Registered: 12-2011
Posted From: 92.22.32.249
Posted on Monday, July 23, 2012 - 12:56 pm:   

I have a feeling his "I'm the Joker" line is a tactical play more than evidence of a direct influence. He wants to plead insanity at the trial so he can enjoy his infamy from a mental hospital rather than a high security prison. If he wanted to actually be the Joker he would have dyed his hair green and put on some make-up - slapping on some red dye seems a bit half-assed for someone who amassed an arsenal and booby-trapped his apartment.

I think he chose a cinema because it's an effective ready-made killing ground, and he chose this film because its the biggest film of the summer and guaranteed his killing ground would be packed wall-to-wall. The Joker thing was just opportunism. Of course, like everyone else I am just guessing here.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Tony (Tony)
Username: Tony

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 86.158.156.168
Posted on Monday, July 23, 2012 - 03:37 pm:   

I have decided there is no answer to this. It boils down to human nature. It'll always happen; we just have to brace ourselves and go on living, and try to make sure everyone is looked out for, does not feel excluded from life.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Tony (Tony)
Username: Tony

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 86.158.156.168
Posted on Monday, July 23, 2012 - 03:39 pm:   

I heard somewhere recently that violent videogames are less inclined to make people violent than football games; people apparently *know* they will never shoot people but they do know they will feel angry at football results.
But I hate that video, the airport massacre. I think it's one of the sickest things I've ever seen.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Tony (Tony)
Username: Tony

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 86.158.156.168
Posted on Monday, July 23, 2012 - 03:42 pm:   

Proto - 'I think that art and economics and many other factors are to blame, though probably to a lesser extent.'
Exactly! Everything is so intertwined it's almost impossible to pull them apart. The big thing is probably not guns but emotion.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mark_lynch (Mark_lynch)
Username: Mark_lynch

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 92.40.254.185
Posted on Monday, July 23, 2012 - 06:27 pm:   

'Guns don't kill people; people kill people.'

The usual ill-thought out line on why guns should be kept. On that basis we should be allowing the sale of bombs in the high street.

I think I'm right in saying the 2nd amandment in the US constitution was put there when there was no country-wide army and the need for an armed militia, in the case of invasion, was a possibility. It wasn't put there to oust democratically elected - iffily ones it's true, given the odd electoral college system in the US - governments.

As for art influencing people in ways we'd prefer it didn't (as well as ways we prefer it to), I'm afriad it does and afraid it must continue to do so if it's any point to it.

If you take the credit for making someone laugh or cry tears of joy with your work, you might want to consider taking credit for driving them insane too... If that was your intent. And maybe not your intent as well.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

David_lees (David_lees)
Username: David_lees

Registered: 12-2011
Posted From: 92.22.32.249
Posted on Monday, July 23, 2012 - 06:38 pm:   

Depressingly, the best coverage of this seems to be coming from pop culture websites rather than the mainstream media. This article in particular has made everything feel that much more real to me: http://www.uproxx.com/gammasquad/2012/07/aurora-colorado-victims/#page/1

Seeing those photos and reading about the victims' lives is just heart-breaking, whereas before I thought it was awful but in the detached way all tragic news stories feel awful - possibly because it's all been about the killer rather than the victims.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Craig (Craig)
Username: Craig

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 99.126.164.88
Posted on Tuesday, July 24, 2012 - 06:36 am:   

The usual ill-thought out line on why guns should be kept....

I'm not sure how sweeping a statement intended this was, Mark. But if you really believe that and are proud of it—why not put a big sign up on your front lawn for all to see? "100% Gun-Free Home."

(btw, just for full disclosure: I don't own a gun myself, and never have)
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Craig (Craig)
Username: Craig

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 99.126.164.88
Posted on Tuesday, July 24, 2012 - 06:41 am:   

I didn't know studies were being done, Caroline—it's good to know.

As for my other views on the art-vs.-influence matter... Proto has basically expressed it better than I could, and I'd say about the same, too.

Proto, the Constitution can be changed, it just takes a lot. And as long as it's one of the most central of tenants there... I'm saying it's pointless to go at it from that angle. We are simply not going to repeal the 2nd Amendment—but laws can be passed that keep it in check. I mean, citizens are not allowed to own sawed-off shotguns, let alone bazookas or tanks. So there are limits....
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Tony (Tony)
Username: Tony

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 217.44.185.15
Posted on Tuesday, July 24, 2012 - 09:54 am:   

Chris Rock says charge 1,000 bucks for each bullet.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Craig (Craig)
Username: Craig

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 99.126.164.88
Posted on Wednesday, July 25, 2012 - 04:39 am:   

This guy may just want to stop namby-pambying his viewpoint—he's too much like a cuddly kitten with these tepid opinions....

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jul/24/hurt-letter-christopher-nolan-se an-penn-warner-bro/
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ramsey Campbell (Ramsey)
Username: Ramsey

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 92.8.26.101
Posted on Wednesday, July 25, 2012 - 08:43 am:   

"Snuff film"? Come off it.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Simon Bestwick (Simon_b)
Username: Simon_b

Registered: 10-2008
Posted From: 194.75.171.106
Posted on Wednesday, July 25, 2012 - 09:30 am:   

What a complete, bloody idiot.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Weber (Weber_gregston)
Username: Weber_gregston

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 86.129.60.64
Posted on Wednesday, July 25, 2012 - 09:45 am:   

Is it just me or is blaming the film just a way for people to absolve the killer of any guilt? PLus of course the family and friends of the killer who must have known he was unbalanced and did nothing. And the society which thinks nothing of allowing people to stockpile a huge arsenal of weapons.

If you're keeping guns for self defense, you only need one and a reasonable amount of ammo. Keeping enough guns and ammunition to supply a small army is a sign that something is deeply wrong.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Jonathan (Jonathan)
Username: Jonathan

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 80.4.146.163
Posted on Wednesday, July 25, 2012 - 11:07 am:   

What Chris Fowler says:

http://www.christopherfowler.co.uk/blog/2012/07/24/cinema-shooting-hollywoods-re sponse/

That is also my position in this. Gun control is the answer. How can in not be?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Protodroid (Protodroid)
Username: Protodroid

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 109.79.61.231
Posted on Wednesday, July 25, 2012 - 11:36 am:   

That Washington Post fellow seems unhinged.

Surely we should be thinking of solutions, plural.

Let's start with things which obviously would have helped: active mental health support from a young age and gun control.

Then investigate every other environmental factor, including art.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Tony (Tony)
Username: Tony

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 86.158.157.153
Posted on Wednesday, July 25, 2012 - 12:05 pm:   

I heard the mental health care in the US has been drastically cut. These poor schmoes are being left to cope alone - and I do mean cope. There are people out there who just don't get loved or acknowledged and they hate us for it. Loneliness is the killer. I've tasted it too much myself (my own fault) and know how detrimental it can be to our everyday behaviour. This guy was mentally ill and slipped through the net - we all know oddballs and avoid them, but we mustn't, they *need* us. They are islands who have had to cling onto dreams for support because these dreams speak to them more deeply than their fellows do.
I think Batman has been too well made for the kind of thing it is, if that makes sense. It's the Catcher in the Rye of superhero cinema. It has awakened something in this man-child Holmes, spoken to him, and now he's waking up.
It's a tragic story all round.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Tony (Tony)
Username: Tony

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 86.158.157.153
Posted on Wednesday, July 25, 2012 - 12:05 pm:   

(Do I sound insane there?)
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Jonathan (Jonathan)
Username: Jonathan

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 80.4.146.163
Posted on Wednesday, July 25, 2012 - 01:12 pm:   

And now this:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-18980974

Brilliant. Well done America's gun laws.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Weber (Weber_gregston)
Username: Weber_gregston

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 82.145.209.195
Posted on Wednesday, July 25, 2012 - 01:21 pm:   

Wow! So if it happens again half the audience will be armed and how many people are going to die in the crossfire? Stupid stupid people
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

David_lees (David_lees)
Username: David_lees

Registered: 12-2011
Posted From: 92.22.61.173
Posted on Wednesday, July 25, 2012 - 01:43 pm:   

Here's a slightly more positive, if bizarre, story to come out of all of this:

"The survival of a woman shot in the head during the Colorado cinema massacre has been hailed as a miracle after a shotgun pellet traversed the precise course of a brain defect she was unaware she had.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/world/miracle-woman-who-survived-thanks-to-brain-defect-sh e-never-knew-she-had-20120725-22odr.html#ixzz21dM3O7Er
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Craig (Craig)
Username: Craig

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 99.126.164.88
Posted on Wednesday, July 25, 2012 - 03:18 pm:   

We can bluster and bellow. But facts are stubborn things:

"According the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the overall murder rate peaked in 1980 at 10.7 per 100,000 people and then fell by more than half to 4.8 in 2010—a much more substantial drop in the murder rate than in tightly gun-controlled Canada...."

( http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/07/22/colorado-massacre-no-causes-no- cures.html )

"Gun control" is too vague—do the people that use that phrase mean complete, or stricter, or more? We have gun control in the U.S. No one can own a tommy gun; that alone is a form of gun control. And then, what about hand-grenades, Molotov cocktails, makeshift bombs? Laws preventing those exist, and read the regular news about deranged evil-mongers using or attempting to use those. Many of our States have heavy laws prohibiting the sale and distribution of fireworks... think that ever stops anything?

The event is really one big tragic meteor, a falling boulder along a road, a tree falling, a strike of lightning... here, by chance or design, a mind snapped, with ripple effects... life's random terribleness. "Then two shall be in the field; one shall be taken, the other left." (Matthew 24:40)
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Jonathan (Jonathan)
Username: Jonathan

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 80.4.146.163
Posted on Wednesday, July 25, 2012 - 03:22 pm:   

How about not having guns available to anyone outside of the army and the police?

Guns are made to wound or kill, that is not a right any human being should have over any other human being.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Protodroid (Protodroid)
Username: Protodroid

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 147.252.230.148
Posted on Wednesday, July 25, 2012 - 03:24 pm:   

Let's start by banning automatic and semi-automatic weapons. Give everyone muskets, which was what the writers of the 2nd ammendment had in mind.

Seriously, have crime and ballistics experts examine which weapons are the most dangerous to the population and ban them. This is not difficult.

Next?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Craig (Craig)
Username: Craig

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 99.126.164.88
Posted on Wednesday, July 25, 2012 - 03:33 pm:   

How about not having guns available to anyone outside of the army and the police?

Tyrants, alive or in their graves the world over, are applauding this notion.

But yes, I am for further controls and restrictions. Something is more than clearly wrong with things, if this total insaniac can secure this degree of arsenal.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Jonathan (Jonathan)
Username: Jonathan

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 80.4.146.163
Posted on Wednesday, July 25, 2012 - 03:38 pm:   

"Tyrants, alive or in their graves the world over, are applauding this notion. "

How so? I was talking about taking guns out of the hands of civilians, not members of the armed forces or peacekeeping forces etc.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Craig (Craig)
Username: Craig

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 99.126.164.88
Posted on Wednesday, July 25, 2012 - 04:12 pm:   

Seriously, Jonathan?

Forget the Constitutional aspect alone: you're talking a right removed that is so integral to what it means to be American, whatever your think about it, that I return to my previous analogy: it'd be like banning royalty in Britain. Even King Canute'd laugh at the idea of banning guns from the populace.

No, forget that. Assume it's passed. Just see how that'd go over today in Anaheim, California, alone... imagining it actually passed, and the benevolent-seeming-always cops are sweeping the streets, trying to take all the guns away... good luck with that. You'd see more gun violence in attempting to take them away, than you'd ever see just letting everyone fucking keep them.

So what you seem to be arguing for, is a Judge Dredd system? If not, why not?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Protodroid (Protodroid)
Username: Protodroid

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 147.252.230.148
Posted on Wednesday, July 25, 2012 - 04:18 pm:   

So we do the easy thing, not the correct thing?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Craig (Craig)
Username: Craig

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 99.126.164.88
Posted on Wednesday, July 25, 2012 - 04:22 pm:   

What?! What's the "do" part, Proto?

The hard thing is to go trundling down to the waves with your throne and order the tides to stay away.

If you like going in for that kind of thing, well, more power to you (any power to you!).
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Protodroid (Protodroid)
Username: Protodroid

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 147.252.230.148
Posted on Wednesday, July 25, 2012 - 04:25 pm:   

The US is a foreign country, so I'm sure Craig has a better insight into what the way that a segment of its population thinks. I think there's a fundamental difference between civic values of Western Europe and the USA. The former values justice, the latter freedom.

This is nuts but it only NOW just occurred to me that the USA is a post-colonial country and its hangups are post-colonial, and here I can speak with some authority. Post-colonial countries tend to place freedom above justice and vibrant fast talk above logic. They have a disfunctional relationship with authority: anti-authoritarian to a fault, but also strangely submissive to authority and passive.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Protodroid (Protodroid)
Username: Protodroid

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 147.252.230.148
Posted on Wednesday, July 25, 2012 - 04:28 pm:   

What?! What's the "do" part, Proto?

Ban automatic and semi-automatic weapons. Hold an amnesty, if you like.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Jonathan (Jonathan)
Username: Jonathan

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 80.4.146.163
Posted on Wednesday, July 25, 2012 - 04:31 pm:   

"it'd be like banning royalty in Britain."

Last time I checked the British Royal family didn't go round killing their citizens.

I don't give a flying monkeys how well banning guns would go down with the populace. I'm sure those victims of such attacks would welcome it with open arms. You shouldn't kill people at all. Making it easier for people to kill people is not a good thing. How is removing a tool for that a bad thing? Okay, it may be a difficult thing to do, but you also seem to be arguing that it's the wrong thing to do.

How on earth am I arguing for a Judge Dredd system? Seriously.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Stephen Theaker (Stephen_theaker)
Username: Stephen_theaker

Registered: 12-2009
Posted From: 92.232.184.137
Posted on Wednesday, July 25, 2012 - 05:29 pm:   

"Last time I checked the British Royal family didn't go round killing their citizens."

And if they did, we would get rid of them!
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Protodroid (Protodroid)
Username: Protodroid

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 147.252.230.148
Posted on Wednesday, July 25, 2012 - 06:32 pm:   

Eh? They've been killing their own citizens (subjects) for centuries you're still not rid of them!
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

David_lees (David_lees)
Username: David_lees

Registered: 12-2011
Posted From: 92.22.61.240
Posted on Thursday, July 26, 2012 - 12:19 am:   

A better analogy might be banning alcohol in the UK, I think. Everyone knows how much damage it does, both it terms of personal health and violent behaviour but (at least here in Scotland) even the prospect of minimum pricing is overwhelmingly opposed by most people. Any suggestion of a ban would be political suicide.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

David_lees (David_lees)
Username: David_lees

Registered: 12-2011
Posted From: 92.22.61.240
Posted on Thursday, July 26, 2012 - 12:22 am:   

For instance:

"I don't give a flying monkeys how well banning alcohol would go down with the populace. I'm sure those victims of alcohol-fuelled attacks would welcome it with open arms. You shouldn't assault people at all. Making it more likely for people to assault people is not a good thing. How is removing a tool for that a bad thing? Okay, it may be a difficult thing to do, but you also seem to be arguing that it's the wrong thing to do."
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Craig (Craig)
Username: Craig

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 99.126.164.88
Posted on Thursday, July 26, 2012 - 07:40 am:   

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/dark-knight-rises-shooting-peter-bogdanovi ch-353774
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Tony (Tony)
Username: Tony

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 86.158.157.153
Posted on Thursday, July 26, 2012 - 11:00 am:   

Good article - from the hip, it felt, heartfelt. He's right about the porn aspect. I still can't believe these films are only 12a's.
People's reactions here are very odd. It was obvious Craig was talking about the monarchy in a hypothetical way.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Tony (Tony)
Username: Tony

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 86.158.157.153
Posted on Thursday, July 26, 2012 - 11:04 am:   

The government shouldn't have to ban guns; if people hated them so much they would just get rid of them themselves, or do something about themselves, complain. People can change what they want - if they really want to.
Anyway, I've just heard sales of guns over there have gone UP.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

David_lees (David_lees)
Username: David_lees

Registered: 12-2011
Posted From: 92.22.61.240
Posted on Thursday, July 26, 2012 - 12:47 pm:   

Police in Maine just nabbed a potential copycat on his way to kill his employer:

http://bangordailynews.com/2012/07/23/news/portland/police-arsenal-of-guns-seize d-from-biddeford-man-who-saw-batman-movie-with-loaded-weapon/
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

David_lees (David_lees)
Username: David_lees

Registered: 12-2011
Posted From: 92.22.61.240
Posted on Thursday, July 26, 2012 - 01:08 pm:   

And here's an article about the rise in gun sales. Apparently it's not unusual for that to happen after a mass shooting:

http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_21142159/gun-sales-up-since-tragedy#ixzz21XE0B BJE
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Jonathan (Jonathan)
Username: Jonathan

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 80.4.146.163
Posted on Thursday, July 26, 2012 - 01:19 pm:   

Thing is, in ref to David's point above, alcohol can be used reasonably. Not everybody who drinks is an alcoholic and, in moderation, it's not awfully harmful. To me, it doesn't seem that there's any reasonable way to use a gun or use one in moderation. So I do think they are two separate arguments. Arms control IS a no brainer, where also alcohol prohibition is a more complex issue.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Weber (Weber_gregston)
Username: Weber_gregston

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 109.145.129.137
Posted on Thursday, July 26, 2012 - 01:25 pm:   

Actually I'm a damned good shot with a rifle (or I was when I was a teenager). They can be used in moderation - shooting ranges and hunting food. So i can see his point.

However, If I stockpile alcohol, it means I'm going to have a party where people enjoy themselves. People who start stockpiling weapons...
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Jonathan (Jonathan)
Username: Jonathan

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 80.4.146.163
Posted on Thursday, July 26, 2012 - 02:01 pm:   

Yeah, but weapons are made for killing or maiming. Yes, they can be used for hunting, but that's killing and maiming. And there's no reason gun control will lead to a ban on hunting with firearms; that too can be controlled.

But yes, I see what you mean.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

David_lees (David_lees)
Username: David_lees

Registered: 12-2011
Posted From: 92.22.61.240
Posted on Thursday, July 26, 2012 - 04:03 pm:   

Yeah, Weber beat me to my own response there. Sports, hunting, target shooting, self defence etc. I do think a lot of people outside the US have a very emotional response to firearms while I tend to just think of them as tools and I do think it's a more complex issue than many people want to admit to themselves.

For instance, over here we only hear news in relation to firearms when an atrocity occurs, but I'd love to see some figures, if they exist, of how many robberies/assaults/rapes are prevented by the ownership of firearms, just for the sake of balance. It's easy, when something like this happens to say "the victims would welcome a ban", but I think it would be considerably less easy to say that to someone who's legally-owned firearm was the only thing standing between them and being raped, or their family being hurt. And the old "there're other ways to defend yourself" argument just doesn't hold water with me, and is usually used by people who haven't had any experience of being vulnerable or of real violence beyond wind-milling punches at another boy in primary school. Everyone thinks they'll turn into Jason Bourne when it comes to the crunch while they're sitting in a comfy chair facing imaginary threats.

I do find the legal ownership of what I'd consider military hardware like AK-47's totally bizarre and unecessary though. I can't remember where I heard it, but I did hear a quote from someone saying, in relation to revolvers, if you need to fire more than six shots in a self-defence scenario you're probably screwed anyway.

Also, Weber, you HOPE people will enjoy themselves at that party, but someone might end in hospital getting their stomach pumped while two other alpha males lose their self-control and kick lumps out of each other in your garden :-) But yeah, stock-piling guns just isn't healthy in my opinion and overall I'm perfectly happy living in a country where they're not available.

Good lord that went on a bit. Sorry!
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Tony (Tony)
Username: Tony

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 86.158.157.153
Posted on Thursday, July 26, 2012 - 05:01 pm:   

I've just read an amazing thing.
A moment ago I picked up a book on teaching literature (to fire me up to get some writing done) and in it found a chapter on suicide. Apparently literature teachers have to tread carefully round the subject of fiction that features suicide because it CAN inspire suicide. It's apparently quite a big issue on the teaching field.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Craig (Craig)
Username: Craig

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 99.126.164.88
Posted on Thursday, July 26, 2012 - 05:20 pm:   

I know that by even linking to her column, I might make some readers' heads explode. But she's making well the same points I've been making, and I like to come off like I'm ahead of the curve, because it strokes my fragile ego, so... I'm willing to risk it. http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2012-07-25.html

Quote: "I don't blame Hollywood any more than I blame the gun. But the refusal to consider the possibility of a Hollywood connection proves that not talking about Holmes is pure grandstanding. If these self-righteous champions of the victims really cared about stopping the next mass murderer, shouldn't they consider all possible factors?" Yes! My point all along!

And I admit I love her final line, attacking all these pundits and anchors and newspeople and such, who are saying they won't name the killer in reports because they don't want to give him any publicity for what he did: "But many in the media have taken it on themselves to censor the news as their personal act of retaliation. Not making James Holmes famous -- even famously evil -- is what people who make their living on TV see as the cruelest punishment they can inflict." Zing.

Meanwhile, another film suffers in the wake of a tragedy: a long delay, and censorship—already, there are film-fans who will be wondering if the DVD will ever have the original print, etc.... http://www.deadline.com/2012/07/warner-bros-confirms-delay-of-gangster-squad-til l-january-11/

(The Ben Stiller film being released this week in the States, The Watch, also suffered from news-related tragedies: it was originally scheduled to have been released earlier in the year, under the much stronger title Neighborhood Watch—but then the Treyvon Martin shootings happened....)
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Craig (Craig)
Username: Craig

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 99.126.164.88
Posted on Thursday, July 26, 2012 - 05:26 pm:   

The government shouldn't have to ban guns; if people hated them so much they would just get rid of them themselves, or do something about themselves....

Brilliant point, Tony!
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Tony (Tony)
Username: Tony

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 86.158.157.153
Posted on Thursday, July 26, 2012 - 05:40 pm:   

It's true - it's like we're kids. we need to grasp these nettles ourselves.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Protodroid (Protodroid)
Username: Protodroid

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 109.79.26.62
Posted on Thursday, July 26, 2012 - 11:15 pm:   

The government shouldn't have to ban guns; if people hated them so much they would just get rid of them themselves, or do something about themselves....

Brilliant point, Tony!

--------

Craig, with this you've shown how much your stance on gun control has forced you to abandon logic (or vice versa) and so no further debate with you is possible on this matter.

Saying that people who want guns will keep guns isn't even circular logic. It's a tautology. But you call this a brilliant point.

(And it makes the assumption when the possession of a gun has no affect on those who don't own one.)

As for Anne Coulter, this is all we need to know:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vg7IhR0ccgo&feature=related

Piers Morgan comes out looking like the nicer person.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=SQYSX4KYPs4
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Craig (Craig)
Username: Craig

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 99.126.164.88
Posted on Friday, July 27, 2012 - 12:35 am:   

Proto, in what context does my thinking Tony's point "brilliant," show I've "abandon[ed] logic"? Because I didn't say people who want guns will keep them; what I'm agreeing with, is the notion that there is not a national consensus (here in the States, at least) to exercise complete gun control; and I'm agreeing that the government shouldn't impose its will (which, btw, complete gun control is not) upon the people. That is called: tyranny.

In fact, your logic is a bit off, Proto, with all due respect; because I can assure you, assure you, a large majority of (a) those in power, (b) those whose job it is requires firearms (police, armed-services, etc.), and (c) the vast general populace, want nothing to do with oppressively restrictive gun control laws. As well, as I've shown, gun violence has diminish in the last 30 years; and gun control laws have not ever been shown to (in and of themselves) reduce gun violence as a whole (as entertainment never has, in and of itself, to increase it).

But leaving that last sentence aside even: WHO do you propose, is going to come forward and impose its minority will on a gigantic overwhelming majority? Not those in government... not the law-enforcers... not the people... so who? The sanctimonious and ratings-plummeting Piers Morgan?

So my point is: Why are we talking about all this when a vast majority don't want it done at all? And when the evidence isn't conclusive that further restricting gun laws, will do anything either?

Want to pass a law that would restrict specifically mass murders in theaters like this one? Pass one that says all secondary/emergency exits in movie theaters must have working alarms. You'd get overwhelming majorities of the populace to approve this. And you'd pretty much nick in the bud any attempt to ever have something like this happen again.

... But that's so mundane, so, what... obvious. It's sad, that something so trivial and marginal, should have saved so many lives. But it's so.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Craig (Craig)
Username: Craig

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 99.126.164.88
Posted on Friday, July 27, 2012 - 12:37 am:   

Geez, though... how did Ann not know Canada didn't send troops to Vietnam? I mean the big thing was going to Canada exactly to escape getting shipped there! But we all have our blind-spots, I suppose....
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Craig (Craig)
Username: Craig

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 99.126.164.88
Posted on Friday, July 27, 2012 - 12:44 am:   

And in the second clip, she was obviously afraid to say: she wouldn't be happy about it.

Which by the way, doesn't make her evil, nor say anything about her character. Forget all the devote, loving Christians out there who might feel the same way, and are torn up with guilt over even thinking this—you know how many untold mothers/fathers are probably walking around, who secretly wished they had a son rather than a daughter, or a daughter rather than a son? But is it a ground of being for them in any way? I doubt it. And does it fucking matter what people carry anyway, deep down in their hearts? I mean, Jesus, can we all just stop judging each other for the personal opinions that they keep to themselves?!
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Protodroid (Protodroid)
Username: Protodroid

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 109.79.106.34
Posted on Friday, July 27, 2012 - 01:04 am:   

I won't talk any more about the guns with you. You were right about that.

Ann Coulter DOESN'T keep her personal opinions to herself. By trying to force them on everyone else through the media and laws, she has made her personal opinions public and therefore absolutely fair game. She opposes gay marriage, but becomes suddenly coy when asked about her personal motivations for doing so. There's a nasty streak behind it all. You can see some of it peeking through here, like an chilly white gesso beginning to show on a cracking portrait.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pkqSd9TERA8&feature=related

And if she self-consciously flicks her hair away again, I shall be sick through my fingers.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Craig (Craig)
Username: Craig

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 99.126.164.88
Posted on Friday, July 27, 2012 - 01:29 am:   

Well, I'm on a bit of a fence, logically (I think I'm being logical) concerning that latest clip. Do I believe you can "pray the gay away"? No, but then, I don't believe you can pray the ANYTHING away. But then, I'm not Christian. And Christians believe you CAN pray for anything... so why not believe you can "pray the gay away"? It doesn't make you a hateful Christian, it makes you a consistent one.

And can someone tell me what's with the whole LGBT term as it is? First, you got "lesbian" and then "gay"—so why not just GBT? But what's with the "B," bisexual? Maybe I'm just not understanding it, but as far as I know (?), "bisexual" means you are sexually attracted to men and women, somewhat equally. But how is this of any relevance in discussions of "tolerance"? The L, the G, and the T, are states of being; but (again, unless I'm missing something), the B is a lifestyle choice: you are either G or you are H (heterosexual) at any given point in time. But if you are actively B, then you are polygamous, non-exclusive, multiple-partnered ("sleeping around," others less charitable might have put it). So isn't it more accurate to say, the LGT and genetically-disposed-towards-multiple-non-same-sex-partnered-up individuals?* For shorthand we'll call this new category "gdtmnssp," all lower-case, and remove the redundant L. Resulting in: the GgdtmnsspT community.

*(Can't be just a man who wants two women, after all—that'd be unseemly; besides, tolerance is about the inner-wiring, not lifestyle choices [too bad for you if your wiring's for 2 chicks]. A smart man with two girlfriends would add a guy to his repertoire: then he'd instantly have a whole network of sympathetic support!)
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Protodroid (Protodroid)
Username: Protodroid

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 109.79.64.22
Posted on Friday, July 27, 2012 - 01:35 am:   

The questions is WHY she is opposed to homosexuality. The problem is inside Ann Coulter's head, not the external world.

*increasingly desperate hair flick*
*broken bitter laugh*
*rotten smile*
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Craig (Craig)
Username: Craig

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 99.126.164.88
Posted on Friday, July 27, 2012 - 01:40 am:   

That's easily answered—she thinks it's a sin. So do millions upon millions upon millions of Christians, Jews, and Muslims alone.... Purely by the numbers, she's not in the minority, she's in a vast vast majority.

A majority that would not find any of this funny (since we've already wandered off the thread's topic, why not keep going, with more comedy relief?): http://youtu.be/ejFDw4yz56o (The second half especially, resonates with my RC upbringing....)
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Protodroid (Protodroid)
Username: Protodroid

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 109.79.64.22
Posted on Friday, July 27, 2012 - 01:47 am:   

"That's easily answered—she thinks it's a sin."

If that's so, why doesn't she just say that she believes she has a right to restrict marriage from certain people because the magic book says so?

But no, I don't believe it's because it's s sin, primarily. There are many many other sins going on all the time, but she isn't as angry, as upset about those. I suspect she's a lesbian, closeted even from herself. She's textbook.

(That comedian leaves me cold. I'm not sure what it is about him. Not really the material, which is okay, it's just... there's just something about him I don't like, don't trust...

Now I'm the vague one.)
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Protodroid (Protodroid)
Username: Protodroid

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 109.79.64.22
Posted on Friday, July 27, 2012 - 02:00 am:   

Usury is a much more common sin, but considered okay by society. Why isn't she protesting against banking and the stock market? No, it's personal.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Craig (Craig)
Username: Craig

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 99.126.164.88
Posted on Friday, July 27, 2012 - 02:34 am:   

Well then, if she is that closeted, I guess we should have more sympathy....

Usury is oddly neglected by the reigning religulous[sic.]—especially those who take credit cards for supplemental materials. (Who knew the Bible needed those?)

All this religious obsession over sexual matters! Jesus never mentions sex at all in the context of sin—he talks about marriage and adultery, but that's more like contractual disputes. There is but one (in?)famous line about sex I can think of, and that's Matthew 5:27-28:

Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery. But I say unto you, that whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

This line has long vexed scholars and others. But they say much of Jesus' words are collected lines out of context and consistency, like the Buddha's; and Matthew 5 certainly reads this way. I think actually what Jesus says makes sense if you understand it as a sarcastic response to a holier-than-thou whiner. Holier-than-thou whiner: "Hey, Jeezy. Sure, I'm usurious, I abuse my slaves, I'm selfish with my things, I turn a blind eye to injustice, all that.... But in my heart, Jesus, in my heart, I do all sorts of good things! Shouldn't I be judged not by what I do, but what's here in my heart?" Jesus: "Sure, man, it's all good. Oh, and by the way," Matthew 5:27-28.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Tony (Tony)
Username: Tony

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 217.42.48.48
Posted on Friday, July 27, 2012 - 09:40 am:   

That book said something about 'glorifying suicide'. Can fiction glorify things? What does that word really mean? It means quite deep stuff, doesn't it? It sometimes strikes me that words lose power, and that once we remember them we see what can happen in life that gives them their meanings. Art gives things significance, importance. Art is the invisible thing that sort of connects us. I think if it's played with in the right or wrong way we are changed.
Are some ideas like places deep underground, like areas of a mine that must be boarded off? Or can art change things, and once it has found a 'bad place to go' can steer paths through it? Are there places we shouldn't go with the mind and ideas?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Tony (Tony)
Username: Tony

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 217.42.48.48
Posted on Friday, July 27, 2012 - 09:41 am:   

I hate all the fighting by the way, even if it doesn't last. It makes us feel like we have to take sides somehow, and I hate that.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ramsey Campbell (Ramsey)
Username: Ramsey

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 92.8.23.87
Posted on Friday, July 27, 2012 - 10:01 am:   

"Are there places we shouldn't go with the mind and ideas?"

I'd say not.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Tony (Tony)
Username: Tony

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 217.42.48.48
Posted on Friday, July 27, 2012 - 10:05 am:   

That's what I'd normally feel, but lately...I don't know. I wonder.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Jonathan (Jonathan)
Username: Jonathan

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 80.4.146.163
Posted on Friday, July 27, 2012 - 10:23 am:   

"So do millions upon millions upon millions of Christians, Jews, and Muslims alone.... Purely by the numbers, she's not in the minority, she's in a vast vast majority. "

You seem to be saying that the vast majority of Christians and members of other major faiths, think homosexuality is a sin. This seems a bit of a generalisation to me.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ramsey Campbell (Ramsey)
Username: Ramsey

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 92.8.19.71
Posted on Friday, July 27, 2012 - 11:10 am:   

I know quite a number of Christians who don't seem to think it.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Tony (Tony)
Username: Tony

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 217.42.48.48
Posted on Friday, July 27, 2012 - 11:12 am:   

He said millions 'OF' Christians and Jews etc, not Christians and Jews. I don't think he meant them all, just 'A' vast number.
But the 'visor' is down, isn't it?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ramsey Campbell (Ramsey)
Username: Ramsey

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 92.8.19.71
Posted on Friday, July 27, 2012 - 11:28 am:   

Sorry, I don't understand the last sentence.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Protodroid (Protodroid)
Username: Protodroid

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 109.79.104.12
Posted on Friday, July 27, 2012 - 11:32 am:   

"Are there places we shouldn't go with the mind and ideas?"

I'd say no too, but only when we're ready for them , or mostly ready (which is where horror comes in).
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Jonathan (Jonathan)
Username: Jonathan

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 80.4.146.163
Posted on Friday, July 27, 2012 - 11:32 am:   

Tony, it's still a generalisation. Where is that information coming from? What's it based on?

And no, the visor isn't down. I'm willing to debate the issue but I don't think I'm being unreasonable on calling someone on an unsupported generalisation.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Protodroid (Protodroid)
Username: Protodroid

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 109.79.104.12
Posted on Friday, July 27, 2012 - 11:36 am:   

"So do millions upon millions upon millions of Christians, Jews, and Muslims alone.... Purely by the numbers, she's not in the minority, she's in a vast vast majority. "

And I would disagree any one of them who tries to force that view into the lives others who don't share it. I didn't seek out Ann Coulter, she sought out us.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Jonathan (Jonathan)
Username: Jonathan

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 80.4.146.163
Posted on Friday, July 27, 2012 - 11:46 am:   

I'd agree to that. However, in my wide experience of folk of faith, amongst many denominations, it's not been something I've come up against often. Quite a lot of people express their faith in quiet, personal ways.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Protodroid (Protodroid)
Username: Protodroid

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 109.79.104.12
Posted on Friday, July 27, 2012 - 12:05 pm:   

I agree, if Ann Coulter is a closet case (and I have no evidence of this other than her stridency) then my attempts to push through the rhetoric into the personal are attempts to push past hatred and get to the fear, where the real problem lies and can be fixed. We can't empathise with those who hate, but we can with those who are afraid.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Protodroid (Protodroid)
Username: Protodroid

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 109.79.104.12
Posted on Friday, July 27, 2012 - 12:07 pm:   

And if she's not afraid and it's all hatred, then really, who cares what she thinks?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Craig (Craig)
Username: Craig

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 99.126.164.88
Posted on Friday, July 27, 2012 - 03:51 pm:   

It's called, common sense, Jonathan.

Let's just take Muslims alone. There are about 550 million in Africa; a little over 60 million between Europe and the Americas; and over 1.3 billion in Asia.

So if you actually don't think millions upon millions of Muslims in the world think homosexuality is a sin? The vast majority of them?... That's just not being rational.

Of course, Iran, they have no homosexuals (so says Ahmadinejad, who followed up that statement to some students he was lecturing with a request that if they could find any, he'd like to know where they were).

According to a study conducted just this last May, 44% of Christians in America think homosexuality is a sin... not a majority? Well, 43% don't, and 13% are undecided. No, it's not the vast majority, in America, I stand corrected. But it is a majority.

Sorry, but press a Christian long enough, and with enough uncomfortable questions, and they will give you uncomfortable answers.... Which is why most have long learned to not press uncomforts in religion anymore—tends to shrink the take on collection plates.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Craig (Craig)
Username: Craig

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 99.126.164.88
Posted on Friday, July 27, 2012 - 03:57 pm:   

Proto, seriously—where is the "hate" towards homosexuals in what Ann says? Why must we run always to this term "hate"?

Let me return to my point: her religion tells her it is a sin—she won't admit it, but clearly she thinks so. That's where her mind is, sadly.

There are Christians who think alcoholics are sinning: that doesn't mean they "hate" them. There are Christians who don't like their own children cohabiting with others in unmarried states—"living in sin." That doesn't mean they "hate" their own children.

Can we not run to this term "hate" all the time when we don't like something someone says? It's just immature.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ramsey Campbell (Ramsey)
Username: Ramsey

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 92.8.19.71
Posted on Friday, July 27, 2012 - 04:24 pm:   

Perhaps not so much hate as "feigned rage"?

http://www.theliberal.co.uk/hitchens.htm
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Craig (Craig)
Username: Craig

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 99.126.164.88
Posted on Friday, July 27, 2012 - 04:46 pm:   

She does indeed, Ramsey, seem more often to be "typing rather than writing," in her various works—which are dished out fast and promptly forgotten. And, there's a whole other question: She may not be a hater, but does she not perhaps deserve whatever appellations are thrown out to her? She is hardly a shrinking violet, in fact an admitted bomb-thrower; and those who throw bombs should not be chagrined when bombs are thrown back.

There is an entire industry of "feigned rage" here in the States, which rests almost solely on one person: Obama. When he's out of office (the polls say this will be likely), the good news is that all of these people will probably vanish, because there will be no use for them for their followers anymore. I sense a great seismic shift coming, where the Rush Limbaughs, the Sean Hannitys, the Ann Coulters, and others, simply... fade away, like a morning mist.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Craig (Craig)
Username: Craig

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 99.126.164.88
Posted on Friday, July 27, 2012 - 04:53 pm:   

http://www.deadline.com/2012/07/harvey-weinstein-maker-of-violent-movies-calls-f or-filmmaker-summit-on-violence-in-movies/

I love the last line of this: As a successful screenwriter pal of mine emailed about Harvey’s ‘summit’ call: “Wonderful. It’s going to take place at the corner of Hubris St. and Hypocrisy Blvd, in the city of Sanctimony, right near the Self-Righteous Cineplex.”
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Jonathan (Jonathan)
Username: Jonathan

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 80.4.146.163
Posted on Friday, July 27, 2012 - 05:06 pm:   

Well, I do seem to be constantly being told by the internet that as a Christian I must be a gay-hating, dinosaur denying, creationist nut job. Must be true then.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Protodroid (Protodroid)
Username: Protodroid

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 109.79.22.104
Posted on Friday, July 27, 2012 - 06:11 pm:   

I think she's displaying hatred: anger's illogical and destructive brother. Though as Ramsey points out, it IS feigned. I think its purpose is to evoke real hatred in others.

And Craig, you say the USA is divided by Obama's 3 1/2 years in office. Do you consider that more divisive than the eight years spanning 2000-2008 when Bush Jnr. was running the country?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Weber (Weber_gregston)
Username: Weber_gregston

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 194.66.23.11
Posted on Friday, July 27, 2012 - 06:33 pm:   

As far as i can tell from the news etc, Obama is a world leader who is extraordianarilly well respected in almost every country in the world - except his own. He's trying to introduce a fair health care system similar to the NHS in the UK with free Point of Care healthcare for all, and for some reason, for this he gets pilloried. He's trying to help out the poor and the needy in your country - something that hasn't been done by an American President for a long time. Remember how long it took Bush to send a simple message of condolence to the New Orleans victims?

Romney is almost universally hated outside of the US as a hate filled bigot who intends to run the US in such a way to make the rich richer and fuck the poor. The Limbaughs etc will fade into the woodwork if he gets into power - and for one reason only. Their mouthpiece will be running your fucking country. It will be an unmitigated disaster.

You Americans really need to look outside yourselves and see how people see you.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Weber (Weber_gregston)
Username: Weber_gregston

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 82.145.210.14
Posted on Friday, July 27, 2012 - 06:57 pm:   

Please add the words 'some of' to the start of my last sentence. Romney is the type of 'christian' that gives the rest of us a bad name. Between him and obama i know which one appears to follow the actual teachings of christ.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Hubert (Hubert)
Username: Hubert

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 178.116.61.103
Posted on Friday, July 27, 2012 - 07:38 pm:   

Quite a few christians here, apparently . . . I was raised in catholic surroundings (including schools), but quietly turned away from it all at age 12. I haven't looked back.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Protodroid (Protodroid)
Username: Protodroid

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 109.79.20.222
Posted on Friday, July 27, 2012 - 09:57 pm:   

"I haven't looked back."

Don't. It's right behind you.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Craig (Craig)
Username: Craig

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 99.126.164.88
Posted on Saturday, July 28, 2012 - 05:06 am:   

Weber, that's a very biased view that's seem to have taken hold there, concerning our two candidates....

I mean, you might not like Romney, but come on—a "hate filled bigot"? What?! Towards what exactly is Romney bigoted? (Let alone "hate-filled"?! The guy seems genetically incapable of hating!)

If you say "gay marriage," the only thing I can possibly think of, considering his religion... sorry, but here's what is in my book worse than a sincere, religiously-held (if misguided) "bigotry," if you want to call it that: sheer craven hypocrisy.

On Wednesday, May 9, of this year, Obama decided to change his opinion from being exactly what Mitt's was concerning gay marriage. Obama said publicly, he supports it (and he only did that because his VP Joe Biden outed his opinion, and he had to make a clarifying statement!). So: for his first official act as President of the United States, concerning this shift in opinion?... Jack shit. His Jack Shit Act on gay marriage still stands today.

As of that weekend in May, he was running ads that could have been missives from Oceania, because they rewrote history to make it sound like Obama was always pro-gay marriage, and Mitt was a neanderthal knuckle-dragger lost in the Dark Ages; again, go back less than a week, both of their official opinions were the same. Meanwhile, the Jack Shit Act was busily in place, doing jack shit everywhere it could, towards helping those in the gay community attain equal marriage rights under the law.

Detestable hypocrisy. That's just a pet peeve of mine, my own little peccadillo, hating hypocrisy (but trying not to, the hypocrite).

Or is there some other "bigotry" you're talking about?...
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mick Curtis (Mick)
Username: Mick

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 86.178.159.240
Posted on Saturday, July 28, 2012 - 11:51 am:   

Quite a few christians here, apparently . . . I was raised in catholic surroundings (including schools), but quietly turned away from it all at age 12. I haven't looked back.

Same with me, except I was fourteen,
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ramsey Campbell (Ramsey)
Username: Ramsey

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 92.8.28.38
Posted on Saturday, July 28, 2012 - 01:03 pm:   

Sixteen in my case. Any advance?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Protodroid (Protodroid)
Username: Protodroid

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 109.79.4.118
Posted on Saturday, July 28, 2012 - 01:53 pm:   

Seventeen, though I was never totally convinced. It did, however, give me a similar sense of awe for the inner space of mind and soul that the Galaxy gave me for outer space. And a kinship with candlelit churches, which can be very beautiful indeed (but not the church).


Craig, I'm no fan of Obama - talk about gun control! Yesterday he unilaterally sabotaged a month of fierce negotiations to control the international arms trade. Because of his actions, China and Russia are prevaricating now as well. Nothing less than several generations of world instability could be his legacy. Or do you think the 2nd amendment should remain a domestic right only?

Still, do you believe that 8 years of mutliple wars, financial degregulation, born again Christianity and the erosion of civil liberties was more divisive that 3.5 years of feeble Obama posturing?

I'll take the ineffectual hypocrite over the effective lunatic any day. Sad that these are our choices, but it seems that the last decent man to be POTUS was Jimmy Carter. (I know, I know...)
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Hubert (Hubert)
Username: Hubert

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 178.116.61.103
Posted on Saturday, July 28, 2012 - 02:09 pm:   

Jimmy Carter wasn't potus. He was peanuts.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mick Curtis (Mick)
Username: Mick

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 86.178.159.240
Posted on Saturday, July 28, 2012 - 02:11 pm:   

I'm sure I've told the tale here before but I got very disillusioned with my catholic teachings when I got into trouble for asking questions.
Like:-
"why does the pope live in a huge city owned by the church when Jesus was a simple carpenter?" and...
"why not sell the valuable works of art in the Vatican, and the Vatican itself, and use the money to feed starving children in Africa?" and...
"churches are huge - why not let homeless people live in them?"...

...and so on and so forth.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mick Curtis (Mick)
Username: Mick

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 86.178.159.240
Posted on Saturday, July 28, 2012 - 02:12 pm:   

Still - the guilt! Ooh, the guilt!
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Hubert (Hubert)
Username: Hubert

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 178.116.61.103
Posted on Saturday, July 28, 2012 - 02:15 pm:   

I know. Plus I still know how to pray in Latin.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Craig (Craig)
Username: Craig

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 99.126.164.88
Posted on Saturday, July 28, 2012 - 04:06 pm:   

... Jimmy Carter, btw, one of the few blatantly open Christians to be potus.

But again, I just think it's too strong to label Romney a "lunatic" at this early stage—he doesn't come off as a lunatic by any means, there's not even a hint of dark demons in his past (like Bush's alcoholism).

Perhaps however we're entering Lynch territory, where the very absence of anything untoward, where white-picket-fenced perfection, is itself the horror waiting to unfold....
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Craig (Craig)
Username: Craig

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 99.126.164.88
Posted on Saturday, July 28, 2012 - 04:07 pm:   

Mick, you should have thrown in, as long as you were asking, "And does the Pope really shit in the woods?"
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mick Curtis (Mick)
Username: Mick

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 86.178.159.240
Posted on Saturday, July 28, 2012 - 05:04 pm:   

Mick, you should have thrown in, as long as you were asking, "And does the Pope really shit in the woods?"

If only, eh?

Add Your Message Here
Post:
Bold text Italics Underline Create a hyperlink Insert a clipart image

Username: Posting Information:
This is a private posting area. Only registered users and moderators may post messages here.
Password:
Options: Enable HTML code in message
Automatically activate URLs in message
Action:

Topics | Last Day | Last Week | Tree View | Search | Help/Instructions | Program Credits Administration