|
My Imaginary GF posted:Whats the tactful way to message this which resonates with rural, small-town voters while also avoiding pissing off big-city donors? Just rephrase the same opinion or campaign talking point as salt-of-the-earth common sense.
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2014 20:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 2, 2024 02:48 |
|
|
nutranurse posted:Why. This is America. I know several people with assault rifles (tho I'm p. sure it's illegal), kevlar, and one of them is turning his basement into a fortified compound. We've got tons of gun crazies in this country, and we don't really seem all that interested in restricting their access to assault rifles, kevlar, and fortified bunkers. Or in the case of someone like Wade Michael Page, they just ran their neonazi militia on an actual military base, while still in the service.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2014 20:33
|
|
|
comes along bort posted:That's more because the Pentagon staffers who tell Hollywood what to write in exchange for getting to use military equipment as props pushed foreign terrorists as the bad guys. What? Movie villians have always followed the current flavor of the week in America's political/military enemies.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2014 20:38
|
|
|
PupsOfWar posted:It is true. What about unprosecuted white collar crimes by corporations? Are they on the downswing too?
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2014 20:43
|
|
|
Aliquid posted:Just rephrase the same opinion or campaign talking point as salt-of-the-earth common sense. "This ain't about guns: this about theys gouging youse on the price of ammo once ya get your gun, when ya don't gots a reloading press in your family" ? effectual posted:What about unprosecuted white collar crimes by corporations? Are they on the downswing too? Well, frankly, the answer is yes, for the worst reason. While the rate of white collar crimes going unprosecuted has remained relatively stable and within 95% CI IQRs over the past 60 years for which more accurate data is available, the gross amount of white collar employees has decreased giving a net reduction in total crimes that fall within the bounds of prosecution. My Imaginary GF fucked around with this message at 20:46 on Nov 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2014 20:44
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:"This ain't about guns: this about theys gouging youse on the price of ammo once ya get your gun, when ya don't gots a reloading press in your family" ? yes, literally "brian urlacher don't need guns to defend this house, i don't need guns to defend mine" folksy and stupid is the future
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2014 20:53
|
|
|
twodot posted:The government will definitely not confiscate your car if your license expires or is suspended, They definitely will if you're operating with a suspended license, and the registration and safety items are often a reason for police to initiate contact with poor people. Cops don't call them warrant wagons for nothing. Not just cars either. You can spot the people of probation because they're the ones most conspicuously riding their bikes with lights and helmets.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2014 22:50
|
|
|
Triskelli posted:Okay, on a list of "Things that are killing americans" school shootings are as about as statisitically significant as deaths from Ebola, but the fact that we even have school shootings when other developed nations have few to none is important. We just need to move the discussion away from "no one should ever have guns" and "it's my right to be able to walk into Wal-mart and buy a shotgun no questions asked", and being able to intercept people buying them for emotional reasons. And yes, even if school and mass shootings are a drop in the bucket compared to other causes of death, everything in our power should be done to prevent them. Other societies with comparable levels of gun ownership never remotely see the amount that we do. And the laws put into place to make sure these things wouldn't happen would not impact normal gun ownership in the least (IE: don't sell guns to people with mental illness and institute a background check when you buy a gun). There are many people who see any restrictions on guns or even gun safety as fascist and the government coming to take their toys away (and for militias and red-dawn types, they are toys). See the people that invented the smart pistol and subsequently those who recieved death threats from just planning to sell it because it could maybe possibly somehow (not really) lead to an infringement on the second amendment. These are the people that would rather have a violent, paranoid schizophrenic walk into a gun store and buy an AR-15 than to restrict his access because they might be 'next'. All because of some idiotic fantasy that they might be able to hide in the woods and play red-dawn if the government ever becomes tyrannical to overthrow it. Hint: the government has drones with IR and can shove a patriot missile up your rear end before you can shout 'Socialism'. You wouldn't even see a new-world order UN trooper. They'd just kill your stupid, fat red-neck rear end with predator and reaper drones and laugh at you. But this reality does little to dissuade them, keeping their impotent revolutionary fantasies is more important than saving lives. And for the record, I'm not lumping all gun owners in with these assholes. I am for legitimate, responsible ownership. I'm not for idiots who poo poo themselves at their own shadow and need an M-60 to feel safe. And I wasn't only drawing attention to school and mass shootings, which happen far more than they should, but also to our mental health care system. As in, we don't have one. Since prisons and county jails now hold more mentally ill people than all mental institutions in this country. A lovely consequence of 'tough on crime', fighting health-care spending and our treatment of the homeless.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2014 23:03
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Well, frankly, the answer is yes, for the worst reason. While the rate of white collar crimes going unprosecuted has remained relatively stable and within 95% CI IQRs over the past 60 years for which more accurate data is available, the gross amount of white collar employees has decreased giving a net reduction in total crimes that fall within the bounds of prosecution. Difference being that violent crime has actually dropped whereas nonviolent crime is just becoming more legal (as long as you've got the cash).
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2014 23:24
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:Difference being that violent crime has actually dropped whereas nonviolent crime is just becoming more legal (as long as you've got the cash). This is a good point, and now you've gotten me wondering. Does a decrease in violent crime rates with improved rates of violent crime assertainment correspond with increased rates of white collar crime?
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2014 23:29
|
|
|
There's always the possibility that the police and local government have just gotten really good at the white colour crime of faking statistics. That's how Rahm got Chicago's murder rate down after all: http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magazine/May-2014/Chicago-crime-rates/
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2014 23:41
|
|
|
Aliquid posted:yes, literally "brian urlacher don't need guns to defend this house, i don't need guns to defend mine" THE ONLY GUNS I NEED ARE RIGHT HERE  Paid for by Camacho 4 a better 2morro.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2014 00:11
|
|
|
Boon posted:What? They're talking about poo poo like how the CIA's propaganda department was funding a lot of 80s action movies to build anti Soviet opinions. Dapper Dan posted:These are the people that would rather have a violent, paranoid schizophrenic walk into a gun store and buy an AR-15 than to restrict his access because they might be 'next'. All because of some idiotic fantasy that they might be able to hide in the woods and play red-dawn if the government ever becomes tyrannical to overthrow it. Hint: the government has drones with IR and can shove a patriot missile up your rear end before you can shout 'Socialism'. You wouldn't even see a new-world order UN trooper. They'd just kill your stupid, fat red-neck rear end with predator and reaper drones and laugh at you. But this reality does little to dissuade them, keeping their impotent revolutionary fantasies is more important than saving lives. And for the record, I'm not lumping all gun owners in with these assholes. I am for legitimate, responsible ownership. I'm not for idiots who poo poo themselves at their own shadow and need an M-60 to feel safe. Anyone who knows poo poo about revolutions in the modern era pretty much understands you need anti air guns and/or a counter air force or you can go the gently caress home.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2014 00:24
|
|
|
SirKibbles posted:They're talking about poo poo like how the CIA's propaganda department was funding a lot of 80s action movies to build anti Soviet opinions. No, what they were talking about was how the military (as in, not the CIA but the actual US Army and co) will lend you their equipment to use in films, but they have to sign off on the film's material, so you don't make a movie that makes them look bad. Fortunately(?) the advent of CGI seems to have made this much less of a factor than previous years.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2014 00:27
|
|
|
computer parts posted:No, what they were talking about was how the military (as in, not the CIA but the actual US Army and co) will lend you their equipment to use in films, but they have to sign off on the film's material, so you don't make a movie that makes them look bad. I honestly didn't know that that's super scummy.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2014 00:32
|
|
|
I don't see how that's scummy. You wouldn't get Ford to give you free vehicles for shooting if your movie was going to call them lovely.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2014 00:34
|
|
|
I was under the impression that even with CGI the military will lend an adviser to "make sure it's accurate". Hence why video games fall into the same trap despite not needing props.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2014 00:34
|
|
|
Ron Jeremy posted:They definitely will if you're operating with a suspended license, and the registration and safety items are often a reason for police to initiate contact with poor people. Cops don't call them warrant wagons for nothing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2014 00:35
|
|
|
computer parts posted:No, what they were talking about was how the military (as in, not the CIA but the actual US Army and co) will lend you their equipment to use in films, but they have to sign off on the film's material, so you don't make a movie that makes them look bad.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2014 00:35
|
|
|
twodot posted:No, they will impound your car, but you can have it back. Regardless, even if you want to argue that impounding is similar enough to confiscation, the fact that the scheme he described isn't at all like driver's license still stands for the several other reasons. Yeah, you can have it back if you place it in your driveway and never let it move sure. So I take it you'd be ok with guns having all parts necessary for firing removed then?  Edmund Lava posted:I was under the impression that even with CGI the military will lend an adviser to "make sure it's accurate". Hence why video games fall into the same trap despite not needing props. It's not a trap dude, it's an active marketing ploy. "Military approved" sells pretty well and as a bonus it alienates just about no potential consumers.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2014 00:37
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Yeah, you can have it back if you place it in your driveway and never let it move sure.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2014 00:39
|
|
|
twodot posted:They don't disable your car, you just aren't allowed to operate it on government property. In other words you can't use it unless you are a massive landowner. For the vast majority of people in this nation this means the car is inoperable unless you really like going a few feet backwards and forwards in a garage/driveway. By that standard it's ok to remove the firing mechanisms from your guns if you lose your gun license because hey, you could still manually set up a black powder contraption in there to shoot it, right?
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2014 00:42
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:In other words you can't use it unless you are a massive landowner. For the vast majority of people in this nation this means the car is inoperable unless you really like going a few feet backwards and forwards in a garage/driveway. twodot fucked around with this message at 00:53 on Nov 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2014 00:49
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:"This ain't about guns: this about theys gouging youse on the price of ammo once ya get your gun, when ya don't gots a reloading press in your family" ? Please give us more of this.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2014 00:55
|
|
|
Edmund Lava posted:I was under the impression that even with CGI the military will lend an adviser to "make sure it's accurate". Hence why video games fall into the same trap despite not needing props. Is it really a trap if they don't actually disagree with what the military wants in the script rewrites?
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2014 01:06
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:Is it really a trap if they don't actually disagree with what the military wants in the script rewrites? And if they did how would we know? The entertainment industry is basically a propaganda arm for the military. Not that this is anything new, and it doesn't hurt studios bottom lines. My point was that any work critical of the military is unlikely to be made, and the military itself does what it can to make sure of that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2014 01:17
|
|
|
Edmund Lava posted:And if they did how would we know? The entertainment industry is basically a propaganda arm for the military. Not that this is anything new, and it doesn't hurt studios bottom lines. It's not like you're forced to accept a military advisor. And plenty of works critical of the military are made, sooooo...
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2014 01:30
|
|
|
twodot posted:This is not at all true, they can allow other people to use it or use it illegally (edit: this is what actually happens) or use it somewhere private if they can get someone to transport it there. This analogy is obviously terrible what value do you think it has? Even if it were correct (which it isn't), there's no reason to think that guns and cars should have similar regulations. It is possible to have a car impounded though as punishment for repeated license violations though. There are also insurance regulations that can mean someone cannot in fact lend out out their car as it won't be under legal insurance, and so on. There are many man y ways that repeat traffic offenders can have their car be unable to be legally used period. Edmund Lava posted:And if they did how would we know? The entertainment industry is basically a propaganda arm for the military. Not that this is anything new, and it doesn't hurt studios bottom lines. We would know because it's easy to make a "military is bad" movie without actual military assets.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2014 01:34
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:Is it really a trap if they don't actually disagree with what the military wants in the script rewrites? I don't think so, Activision loving hired Oliver North to consult on a Call of Duty game.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2014 01:38
|
|
|
Boon posted:What? Yeah, like how all the polling these days shows that Americans are really worried about the rise in giant robot attacks. Ron Jeremy posted:Not just cars either. You can spot the people of probation because they're the ones most conspicuously riding their bikes with lights and helmets. ...wait, what?
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2014 01:58
|
|
|
I am guns.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2014 02:18
|
|
|
Edmund Lava posted:And if they did how would we know? The entertainment industry is basically a propaganda arm for the military. Not that this is anything new, and it doesn't hurt studios bottom lines. Works critical of the military are unlikely to be made because of how anti war movies are interpreted by pro war people, not because the military won't subsidize films. They assist in plenty of movies critical of them and war, and have refused to assist with pro war pro hardware movies. And those of you talking about needing a license or your gun gets taken away need to look up Prior Restraint.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2014 02:23
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:It is possible to have a car impounded though as punishment for repeated license violations though. quote:There are also insurance regulations that can mean someone cannot in fact lend out out their car as it won't be under legal insurance, and so on. There are many man y ways that repeat traffic offenders can have their car be unable to be legally used period. Seriously, directly answer why you think this analogy is good. (edit: To be clear, acknowledging that we should regulate guns differently from cars means we have the option of regulating guns more strictly than cars. Thinking we should treat guns and cars the same leads to madness) twodot fucked around with this message at 02:26 on Nov 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2014 02:24
|
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:Works critical of the military are unlikely to be made because of how anti war movies are interpreted by pro war people, not because the military won't subsidize films. They assist in plenty of movies critical of them and war, and have refused to assist with pro war pro hardware movies. When WAS the last movie that was critical of the US military, anyway? I remember a movie called Green Zone several years ago (which was pretty mild), has there been anything like that since then? Also, I didn't see Lone Survivor, but from the reviews and stuff it sounded just like the movie inside Inglorious Basterds, but real. Samurai Sanders fucked around with this message at 02:27 on Nov 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2014 02:24
|
|
|
twodot posted:You're just re-making old arguments. So are you, guy who's mad that anyone would dare regulate guns. Why don't you give them a kiss.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2014 02:25
|
|
|
Swan Oat posted:I am guns. I've become one with the gun 
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2014 02:27
|
|
|
Chantilly Say posted:...wait, what?
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2014 02:28
|
|
|
Samurai Sanders posted:Also, like in the ID4 example, they can and will make the US military look completely awesome with or without government support. That one, I was also thinking of Stealth, which is as rah rah go war go drones go pilots and the navy only helped for external reshoots after they agreed to cut the love story during post production. It was as blatantly as propaganda as you get short of a pitch to invest in Lockheed martin and they wouldn't assist because it depicted fraternization in the ranks. Meanwhile, they helped with Jarhead, which the whole point of is that the military sucks, down to the point that the movie poster was a pair of dog tags with the words "Welcome to the Suck"
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2014 02:31
|
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:Meanwhile, they helped with Jarhead, which the whole point of is that the military sucks, down to the point that the movie poster was a pair of dog tags with the words "Welcome to the Suck" Also I seem to remember them talking about another Marine who had become so addicted to masturbation that they had to send him home. It seems like a VERY odd movie for the Marines to promote. edit: I guess if you consider ALL of that to be merely subtext that most of the audience won't see...but that's just getting insane. If I walk up to someone and hit them with a baseball bat, can I argue that no one saw the baseball bat hit their head because it was just subtext? Samurai Sanders fucked around with this message at 02:41 on Nov 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2014 02:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 2, 2024 02:48 |
|
|
Swan Oat posted:I am guns. I'd love to work for a Democratic candidate with squaky-clean record, who is straight, and whose natural born name is 'Billyray Gunn'. You find me a hunting audience that won't respond to Billyray Gunn's proposals to provide a tax exemption for ammunition purchases for registered gun owners only, and I'll tell you what I gots an audience I can win over by goin' fishn an' bringin' an ol' crank telephone. Shiiiittteee, I 100% loving guarantee I'll be get'n em to love fuckn caviar before noon. Seriouspost SedanChair, it ain't bout the gently caress'n guns, its bout giving a taxbreak on ammo to registered owners. [Has anyone, anywhere, tried to frame gun control as an ammunition rebate?] E: I'd settle for a candidate who married someone with the surname "Gunn." 'I love guns so much, I married one! (cut to image of pretty spouse and two to five children) [Chorus: He sure did!]' My Imaginary GF fucked around with this message at 02:48 on Nov 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2014 02:45
|
|