YOU GUN NUTS ARE THE CAUSE OF ALL THE KILLING ! !

F

Frank Haertlein

Moderator
When the movie "Throw momma from the train" came out one scene had a robber using a pressurized container of gasoline to spray the teller behind the bullet proof glass. He says something like "give me the money or I light this lighter". The teller would have been burned to death had she not handed over the money.

Lo and behold, it wasn't 2 weeks later that someone robbed a teller in exactly the same way. This is a matter of public record if any of you want to check into it.

The question is "do you blame the producer who was exersizing his freedom of speech for the act commited by the robber? The robber got the idea from the movie so why don't we blame freedom of speech for this event? Maybe it's because it is ludicrous to blame the law abiding movie producer for a scene where someone gets sprayed with gasoline and thus gives the idea to a lunatic.

Then why do people blame a gun owner for someone going into a school and killing a bunch of children? Did you know the recent spate of schoolyard killings were "COPYCAT" in nature and many people suspect the juveniles got their ideas from seeing news reports on similar occurences? Then why don't we blame the media just like they blame gun owners? I'll tell you this much, it isn't gun owners who are going around teaching a nation of children how to kill! It's the media who is doing that. Now of course you may say baloney to that! Well then, my friends, what if I printed out some literature on how to kill someone you didn't like with the use of gasoline? Let's say I teach how to pressurize a fire extinquiser with gasoline in it and then teach children how to spray people and light them afire? What if I disguised this information as entertainment and used my freedom of speech rights to go to all schools and distribute this information to every child I could? Would you come after me for expressing my freedom of speech? Do you think that maybe a small percentage of children would actually resort to such methods to "get back" at those they don't like? Would you call me irresponsible for teaching children such things? WHY OF COURSE YOU WOULD!

Then why do you not consider the media irresponsible for bombarding our youth with countless scenes of gun violence in movies, television, cartoons, etc? Is it because the producers are exersizing their freedom of speech and its curtailment would be too high a cost for freedom even though the negative effect that media has on society is clear? Would you blame the gasoline if a child were to actually use the information I gave him/her on how to kill with it?

The recent, modern phenomena of children going into schools and killing children is learned. It is learned from somewhere yet you would never consider blaming the movie producer for someone using an idea learned from the screen to kill another individual, would you? Then why, in God's good name, would you blame guns for the violence in our schools?

I have a very simple question for you. If it could be proven that the amount of murders would go down after severely restricting freedom of speech by curtailing violence in movies, violence in television and learned copycats killings because of news reporting would you be willing to give up freedom of speech as well as your violent entertainment?

PS. The US Surgeon General has already determined there IS a link! And that was 20 years ago. Also, virtually evey study of the subject has yielded similar results. That is to say there is a conclusive link between what people watch as news and entertainment and violence in society. Please, answer the question, truthfully. Or is freedom of speech a freedom anti gunners hold dear and thus they don't want it curtailed? If they can understand that, then they can understand gun owners and their fight for gun rights. We will not give up our freedoms because of the deranged acts of a few......just like a movie producer wont give up his freedom of speech to make violent movies that lead to killing!!






[This message has been edited by Frank Haertlein (edited November 05, 1999).]
 
Frank,

Not to be nit-picky, but I think the movie you're referring to is "Money Train", or something like that. :)
 
I sometimes wonder who is responsible. While some killings are clearly carried out by criminals or lunatics, there have been some that seem to fit a pattern. Those incidents go like this:

1. Disturbed person with no money suddenly finds the bucks to travel and to buy an expensive gun of the exact type to be banned by pending legislation.
2. Disturbed person calmly kills several people; he is described as having a glazed look and a slight smile.
3. Disturbed person commits suicide, neatly preventing questioning.
4. Gun control lobby issues detailed press release minutes after CNN broadcasts the news.

And what was the connection between Handgun Control and the Columbine killers?

Jim
 
Frank, I don't doubt that some movies are a catalyst for some crimes, but I don't think they should be banned or held responsible. For me, it always comes down to the individual and his/her decision and action.

Personally, I think it is the education system that is part of the problem for the situation we have today. Our schools are nothing more than a vocational school for business. There is no liberal education - education that brings to life the age old problems of who we are, what we're doing here, what is the meaning of life, governmental history, logic, how to think for yourself so that you are not at the beckon call of the propagandists on all sides out there.

There are other issues out there like parental involvement, entertainment, etc. But it still comes down to each person is responsible for his own life and the actions he/she takes. Blaming it on the system, environment, parents, movies, teachers, friends, in other words, anyone or anything but themselves is a big reason why we are where we are.
 
Frank makes a reasonable argument against those who consider the First our "most cherished amendment", yet seek to abolish the Second as does Bradley. They may even carry the analogy further by stating that "Sure someone may learn and copy a violent act from a film or book, but the how many examples go unreported of an individual who learned how to avoid or survive a violent attack from the same sources?" The individual is ultimately reponsible and is often the product of the quality of his parenting. Government makes for a very poor parent.
 
Well, I'm of the school that says that movies/TV have a tremendous influence on people.

Movies were used for propaganda to great effect during WWII. Take a look at some of them -- dead guys coming back and watching over their relatives, "A Guy Named Joe", "The Fighting Sullivans", etc. (delude the people into believing they aren't "really" dead); Gung Ho pictures, including one by that name, to whip up the guys to enlist; John Wayne movies encouraged many to do so. (William Manchester, marine veteran, remarked on TV that they booed JW off the stage in some Pacific island. "We weren't sorry we were Marines, but we wouldn't have been in this sh**thole if it wasn't for him".)

I worked in Kuwait before the war and was told that the "Six Million Dollar Man" was banned over there because kids were stepping out in from of those giant twin-axle Mercedes
trucks, trying to stop them "just like in the movies".

It goes on and on, and it is the height of hypocrisy when Hollywood, et al asks "Who, me?" when somebody copycats the movies and commits a crime/murder using the same modus operandi.

------------------
If you can't fight City Hall, at least defecate on the steps.
 
Frank, don't take this as a shot, but you're preaching to the choir. Your point is well taken though, but therse days, everyone is a'victim' and it's easy to blame the instrument, not the operator. And as you guys are pointing out, there seems to be a fundamental problem with getting people to think at all, let alone think for themselves and also take responsibility for their actions and their lives. And then there's us independent types, who are regarded as loose canons (or worse. We really are living in the time of the sheeple and the mediocre, and it sucks. M2

[This message has been edited by Mike in VA (edited November 06, 1999).]
 
Oatka, I have no doubt that media has the power to influence. To use a similar example, there were several instances of kids jumping off houses and being injured after superman came to tv in the 60's here in the states. Should we ban or "regulate" superman or the six million dollar man? Good grief. Perhaps the government should evaluate every citizen to determine what information he should receive.
 
Words matter. The anti's have been running this game too long, and we need to keep changing the terms of this debate.

To your question re: 'gun nuts', I respond that this is a bigoted remark - those who utter such nonsense are 'gun bigots'. They are intolerant of those whose philosophy includes a right to self defense. Consider using it next time some idiot brands you or your friends as Neanderthals because you cherish this liberty. They are Gun Bigots. They are anti-self defense. And, they are anathema to the historical freedoms of our country.

Regards from AZ.
 
Dear Friends,

I doubt the portrayal of graphically violent crimes in movies and TV should be considered a form of speech protected by the 1st Ammendment.

"The president is a big fat liar, and I think we should throw him and his kind out of Washington altogether." This is speech.

"The policies of our government are threatening the security of the country." This is speech.

The first ammendment guarantees our right to express our views, especially political ones, without fear of reprisal from the government. It has nothing to do with the graphic portrayal of fictional violence for viewing by children.

JP

------------------
Nehemiah 4:18 " ... and each of the builders wore his sword at his side as he worked."
 
All I'm saying is that Hollywood knows how much they can influence people, yet when someone uses a firearm, copying one of their scenarios, they all point their fingers at the gun as if that was the sole motivator.

People are responsible for their own actions, but when some ringleader arouses a crowd to violence, the authorities nail him straight away. So far, Hollywood and TV have ducked the bullet, so to speak, from getting nailed on a "incitement to riot" charge.

------------------
If you can't fight City Hall, at least defecate on the steps.
 
"TRENCH COAT MAFIA!!!"

OOOOOOooouuuuuuhhhhhhhh!!!! This was one consistant mantra that the media continued to stress throughout every newscast in regards to the attack. INSTEAD of calling them what they were, juvinile "murderers", they kept on glamourizing the maggots by using a self glamourizing title that the maggots themselves chose for noteriety. By continueing to refer to them as "THE TRENCH COAT MAFFIA", I believe that the media did knowthing but fuel the evil intents of other potentially murderous young individuals considering the same.

On top of all that, for the next two months, all you hear about are schools and dress codes trying to find patterns/profiles of the "sinister trench coat" wearing students. After all was said and done, the only solns. I heard was,

1. No tollerance policies for:

a) Certain clothing
b) Talk or anything remotely resembling bladed tools or guns.

2. Cops in the schools.

3. New ways to remove our rights and actually make scho0ls more of a target for murderous maggots.

BTW, Wonder what society would see in terms of copy cat violence IF:

A. Media and Polly ticians used terms like "murderous maggots" instead of "TRENCH COAT MAFFIA!" and deomonize the individuals and their actions for what they are INSTEAD of cow towing to the criminals own self deluded perceptions?

B. Teachers, staff, parents, and responsible kids had firearms available to put a stop, a high calibre stop, to murderous criminals?

I guess common sense thinking like this would do our govts disservice by taking away their need to be soo large and powerful, depending upon THEIR protection.....

I'm preaching to the media guys, Not you. I think you already know this...Its just that the parents of the dead kids and the ones who will yet loose family members through violence have depended on what the establishment can/will do to protect thier loved ones.... They don't/can't. Nor do most school systems permit the innocent the means to defend themselves.

I believe that the media has the liberty to say what ever they want to say. I do not agree, nor do I often listen to their lies either. Yes, they are irresponsible. What is even more tragic is that Polly ticians and much of the public parrot thier philosophies.
Robert
See Colosians 2:8
ALSO:

------------------
"But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip; and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one." -Jesus Christ (Luke 22:36, see John 3:15-18)
 
Media! Freedom of Speech! Freedom to bear Arms!

Remember folks, you cant have you cake and eat it to, if the gun folks blame the media, and call for legislation, then the media is gonna blame the Guns vice versa, And its gonna contiunue to be a vicious circle, personaly I dont know who to blame, I think its kind of odd that the investigators in littleton found, guns and bomb making paraphenellia in the kids room.


now whether or not this places liability with the parents is another story all together, I do thing, we all could do a better job with "instructing" our children now a days, theres alot more crap out there that wasnt around say in the 50's.


But hey I had rifles and shotguns in my closet when I was a teenager, then again I wasnt a psycho either.
 
There was also a movie where a group of kids went out into traffic on a busy highway and laid down in a row on the double-yellow line. A couple of weeks later a group of five kids did the same thing -- four dead, one critical.

They claimed it wasn't the movie's fault.
 
Equalizer-
The nice thing about zero tolerance policies is that they remove the need for critical though and judgment on the part of either/any party (the preceding was a completely facetious and sarcastic comment aimed at all the nanny left- and right-wingers).

While I'm a major proponent of accountability and personal resposibility, suspending a kid over a nail clipper or an asprin is stupidity personified, and if I weren't already a bit paranoid, I'd think it was all a plot to condition the next generation into numb, mindless unquestioning obedience to any perceived authority figure, along with TV for turning them into lazy, unthinking consumerbots.

Lordy, I think I'm gonna barf. M2
 
" I don't think mature people hold one person responsible for the conduct of others"
President Clinton

The president is right.
FNG
 
Cpt. John Park,

I don't want you to think that this is a flame, but I do take exception to your statement, "I doubt the portrayal of graphically violent crimes in movies and TV should be considered a form of speech protected by the 1st Ammendment."

The reason that I don't buy into that statement is that you could, by that logic, come to the conclusion that "I doubt that the owning of Assault Rifles and Cop Killer Bullets should be considered a right to keep and bear arms as protected by the 2nd Amendment."

What applies to one must apply to the rest. The bill of rights is either accepted as a whole or rejected as a whole.

I'm not saying that graphically violent movies should be watched by children, but that the responsibility falls to the parents, not the government.

I hope I have convinced you that your statements may not be entirely correct. You have the right to your beliefs, but I just don't agree. Please feel free to respond.

-Dave

------------------
RKBA!

"A right is not what someone gives you; it's what no one can take from you." - Ramsey Clark

"Rights are liable to be perverted to wrongs when we are incapable of rightly exercising them." - Sarah Josepha Hale
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top