Hollywood glorifies violence, but blames the NRA and Conservatives

Originally posted by jaden101
I am. I've posted numerous times on how to increase safety, lesson the liklihood of shootings yet maintain people's rights to own guns. . Unfortunately people are so entrenched in their partisan ways that no one is interested in other's ideas.

Oddly enough that's exactly what a 15 year old girl said to Trump in the listening session. Wise girl.

I've seen you post ideas on how to restrict who and where guns can be used. is that what you mean about lessoning the liklihood of shootings?

Originally posted by Robtard
^ Actually 100% wrong again. Half of that thread was Surtur crying how the Governor of Virginia was trying to use yet another shooting as a platform to talk about gun control. Imagine that, wanting to talk about gun control/reform after another shooting. Crazy.

Well, yeah, imagine not wanting imbeciles spewing false talking points?

But no, cold medicine harder to get than assault rifles, etc etc.

But hey, now Trump is talking about it after a shooting, so it's no longer a low-class act, as you've stated several times. Special rules.

Originally posted by Silent Master
I've seen you post ideas on how to restrict who and where guns can be used. is that what you mean about lessoning the liklihood of shootings?

Yes. If a gun is unable to be fired in certain locations then that would lessen the liklihood of a shooting occurring in that area.

As I stated, this would be something that would take root over a period of time as new technologies replaced old.

Unfortunately most people don't seem to have the patience for long term solutions.

Originally posted by jaden101
Yes. If a gun is unable to be fired in certain locations then that would lessen the liklihood of a shooting occurring in that area.

As I stated, this would be something that would take root over a period of time as new technologies replaced old.

Unfortunately most people don't seem to have the patience for long term solutions.

They're also concerned that they may have to pay a bit more for their precious and that's just not worth it.

Originally posted by jaden101
Yes. If a gun is unable to be fired in certain locations then that would lessen the liklihood of a shooting occurring in that area.

As I stated, this would be something that would take root over a period of time as new technologies replaced old.

Unfortunately most people don't seem to have the patience for long term solutions.

None of that addresses the person committing the crime, so you're ok with attacks happening, so long as guns aren't being used?

Originally posted by Silent Master
None of that addresses the person committing the crime, so you're ok with attacks happening, so long as guns aren't being used?

The only REAL way to get rid of violence and attacks is to change human nature, the next thing is to analyze the weapons used to cause said violence.

Do you have a solution to change human nature/behavior, I'd like to hear it since that is the only logical progression in your discussion of not assigning blame to inanimate objects.

Originally posted by snowdragon
The only REAL way to get rid of violence and attacks is to change human nature, the next thing is to analyze the weapons used to cause said violence.

Do you have a solution to change human nature/behavior, I'd like to hear it since that is the only logical progression in your discussion of not assigning blame to inanimate objects.

So if you can't get rid of 100% of attacks, you shouldn't even try?

Originally posted by Silent Master
None of that addresses the person committing the crime, so you're ok with attacks happening, so long as guns aren't being used?

How does your brain even interpret that from anything I've posted?

You're clearly not interested in solutions. Just strawmanning nonsense.

Yes...yes I'm perfectly OK with someone going into a school with a flamethrower and burning kids alive. Or maybe some grenades.

Or maybe even a homemade dvd launcher that fires copies of Battlefield Earth through children's faces at supersonic speeds.

Originally posted by Silent Master
So if you can't get rid of 100% of attacks, you shouldn't even try?

Um, he's asking what can be done in regards to people, as that seems to be your angle.

Are you just being a time-waster-troll again?

Originally posted by Robtard
Um, he's asking what can be done in regards to people, as that seems to be your angle.

I hear genocide works.

#BanPeople

Originally posted by Robtard
Um, he's asking what can be done in regards to people, as that seems to be your angle.

Are you just being a time-waste-rtroll again?

And you are not considered a time wasting troll?

Originally posted by Blindside12
And you are not considered a time wasting troll?

Because my points quite often crush the nonsensical points of people like you 👆

Originally posted by Robtard
Because my points quite often crush the nonsensical points of people like you 👆

How is that any different then your nonsensical points conflicting with his and you calling him a time wasting troll?

Answer: He didn't really address Snow's question.

Are you done doing flips now.

Originally posted by jaden101
How does your brain even interpret that from anything I've posted?

You're clearly not interested in solutions. Just strawmanning nonsense.

Yes...yes I'm perfectly OK with someone going into a school with a flamethrower and burning kids alive. Or maybe some grenades.

Or maybe even a homemade dvd launcher that fires copies of Battlefield Earth through children's faces at supersonic speeds.

None of your ideas have addressed the person committing the crime, what else am I supposed to think?

Originally posted by jaden101
I hear genocide works.

#BanPeople

Just look at this:

Originally posted by Blindside12
Liberals don't blame people, they blame organizations and things.

People are never accountable

^ Literally from the guy who made this thread blaming real-life violence on films.

A no you, how cute.

Originally posted by Silent Master
None of your ideas have addressed the person committing the crime, what else am I supposed to think?

So you want a discussion on what?

Mental health treatment?

Education and the school system?

Nature vs nurture in regards to evil acts?

The evolution of psychopathy?

Is there any impetus to tackle even more complex and longer term problems?

Seems to me that the US is far better at coming up with technological solutions to problems than it is at fixing societal issues.

I'm trying to be pragmatic.

Could the US spend 20% of its military budget of socialised mental health care and still dominate the world in firepower while providing the most comprehensive mental health system the world has ever seen? Yes it could. Will it? There's more chance of them banning all guns.

Originally posted by jaden101
So you want a discussion on what?

Mental health treatment?

Education and the school system?

Nature vs nurture in regards to evil acts?

The evolution of psychopathy?

Is there any impetus to tackle even more complex and longer term problems?

Seems to me that the US is far better at coming up with technological solutions to problems than it is at fixing societal issues.

I'm trying to be pragmatic.

Could the US spend 20% of its military budget of socialised mental health care and still dominate the world in firepower while providing the most comprehensive mental health system the world has ever seen? Yes it could. Will it? There's more chance of them banning all guns.

In the same thread where you mentioned ways to restrict guns. I brought up making mental health checks part of regular medical visits and better background checks. my ideas directly addressed the people involved.

You aren't being pragmatic, even if your tech ideas stopped 100% of gun crimes. if the violent people are still out there, they'll just pick a different weapon. in the end all you would've done is change what weapon is used.