What is it with Walmart and these mass shootings!

106 posts / 0 new
Last post
Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

First, I don't know why you think these victims are all Trump voters. They just seem to be generic non-billionaires. Second, it seems that the victims will overcome their elite hunters/tormentors. Esthetically, all I see here is a crappy, cheap-ass version of Kill Bill.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

I went to the Wikipedia page:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hunt_(2019_film)

If you look at the description, the film is clearly a right-wing dystopian fantasy about "liberal elites" hunting Trump supporters.   The film clearly isn't advocating the mass execution of Trump supporters, and nobody has ever been the subject of violent persecution for being right-wing in the U.S., as no one ever will be.

The link indicates the studio is pulling back on marketing the film, and in all liklihood it will never even be released. 

So no, Paladin, Hollywood is not trying to incite massacres of rightists.  And there was never anything done to conservatives in Hollywood that was even remotely similiar to the miseries inflicted on leftists during the HUAC era.  But you knew that.

Paladin1

Without looking it up I have no clue what HUAC is.

Hollywood is hypocritical. They make billions of dollars selling graphic violence. Here is a list of 22 some celebrities speaking out about gun control

https://www.elle.com/culture/celebrities/g19070006/celebs-speak-out-gun-...

Now tell me how many of them haven't stared in a movie that featured violence and firearms.

 

bekayne

Paladin1 wrote:

Without looking it up I have no clue what HUAC is.

Hollywood is hypocritical. They make billions of dollars selling graphic violence. Here is a list of 22 some celebrities speaking out about gun control

https://www.elle.com/culture/celebrities/g19070006/celebs-speak-out-gun-...

Now tell me how many of them haven't stared in a movie that featured violence and firearms.

 

Since a lot of that list were singers (along with one gymnast), I'd say most of them.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

bekayne wrote:

Paladin1 wrote:

Without looking it up I have no clue what HUAC is.

Hollywood is hypocritical. They make billions of dollars selling graphic violence. Here is a list of 22 some celebrities speaking out about gun control

https://www.elle.com/culture/celebrities/g19070006/celebs-speak-out-gun-...

Now tell me how many of them haven't stared in a movie that featured violence and firearms.

 

Since a lot of that list were singers (along with one gymnast), I'd say most of them.

HUAC was the House Committee on Un-American Activities(known to its opponents as the "House Un-American Activities Committees").  It focused on calling people to testify about the Communist Party U.S.A.  People who were called to testify would be blacklisted if the A)denied they were in the CPUSA-in some cases even if they actually weren't, and B) refused to name other people as Party members-note:  Because the FBI had massively infiltrated the CPUSA, they actually KNEW the name of every Party member and "fellow traveler", or person who wasn't a formal member but followed the CP "line" anyway-Paul Robeson was probably the most famous "fellow traveler"-but they wanted to have everyone who was or "ever had been" a Party member to be publicly humiliated and anathemized.  Their actions, which were totally out of proportion-there was never any real possibility that the U.S. would be subject to a "Communist takeover"-and mainly had the effect of punishing people for brief flirtations with the Paryt that, in some cases, had ended twenty years earlier.

Peoples careers were ruined.  Some never worked again in their industries where they had been employed.  Some simply never worked again.  Some ended up killing themselves out of despair.

Nothing remotely like that ever happened to a single conservative in Hollywood.  Nothing like that ever will.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

And you don't have to abstain appearing in action movies to be allowed to support gun control.  Action movies, not that they are a particularly good thing, are of trivial importance in causing gun violence in the U.S. compared to the relentlessly violent rhetoric from the currne U.S. president, a head of state who actually wants to incite his supporters into violence towards those who disagree with them and oppose him.  

Paladin1

bekayne wrote:

Since a lot of that list were singers (along with one gymnast), I'd say most of them.

Quick glance from that list who has been in films or TV shows with firearms and violence.

Rihanna, Lili Reinhart, Chris Rock, Mandy Moore, Julianne Moore, Gal Gadot, Cara Delevingne, Gabrielle Union, Jessica Alba, Lena Headey, Diane Kruger, Zendaya, Harry Styles, Anne Hathaway, Olivia Wilde, Karlie Kloss.

16 out of 22?

Ken Burch wrote:

And you don't have to abstain appearing in action movies to be allowed to support gun control.

You're absolutely right. They can support gun control or banning whatever until their hearst content.

They're just making millions of dollars staring in movies with firearms and violence while publically speaking out against the same firearms.

Quote:
compared to the relentlessly violent rhetoric from the currne U.S. president, a head of state who actually wants to incite his supporters into violence towards those who disagree with them and oppose him.  

This is the same president that was basically called a wimp, weak, and indecisive for choosing NOT to bomb and kill 150 Iranians after they shot down that US Drone. Not being coy here, do you have actual quotes from him where he's inciting violence in his supporters towards anyone who disagrees with him?

It's ironic because he's already instituted MORE gun control in America than Obama ever did.

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

Paladin1 wrote:

Not being coy here, do you have actual quotes from him where he's inciting violence in his supporters towards anyone who disagrees with him?

Here you go.

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

And, of course, there's always this little gem.

WWWTT

OK so I guess this is the latest mass murder with guns thread. The difference here would be that there's no religious and or color/race undertones (but hey I could be wrong?)

All the stuff that came out in those past threads (a couple months ago as dictacted by the imperialist corporate media, but really, in the US, this is a daily event!) still applies. Mental health lack of opportunity poor social services glorification of violence by hollywood and of course way too many guns and even more important, way too many bullets!

So really, why should I add anymore to this thread? What's the difference this time?

Here's an imperialist corporate country that for decades unleashed its wrath of horrific violence on the world's peoples and demonizes communism, the very thing that can only bring salvation on its miserable souls. 

The US hasn't hit rock bottom yet

 

cco

Paladin1 wrote:

They're just making millions of dollars staring in movies with firearms and violence while publically speaking out against the same firearms.

It's a head-scratcher, all right. That kind of rank hypocrisy is endemic in Hollywood, though. Steven Spielberg made hundreds of millions of dollars off Schindler's List, and I heard a rumour that he didn't even support the Holocaust.

Unionist

cco wrote:
Paladin1 wrote:

They're just making millions of dollars staring in movies with firearms and violence while publically speaking out against the same firearms.

It's a head-scratcher, all right. That kind of rank hypocrisy is endemic in Hollywood, though. Steven Spielberg made hundreds of millions of dollars off Schindler's List, and I heard a rumour that he didn't even support the Holocaust.

I love debating with NRA bots! Though I wish they'd update their glossary and spell "publicly" correctly. That's what happens when you spend too much time having orgasms contemplating your gun collection, I guess. Priorities.

bekayne

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Ken Burch wrote:

Paladin1 wrote:

Without looking it up I have no clue what HUAC is.

Peoples careers were ruined.  Some never worked again in their industries where they had been employed.  Some simply never worked again.  Some ended up killing themselves out of despair.

Nothing remotely like that ever happened to a single conservative in Hollywood.  Nothing like that ever will.

If people haven't seen this movie yet it is very well done and gives a good historic account of the era.

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt3203606/

NorthReport
Paladin1

cco wrote:

It's a head-scratcher, all right. That kind of rank hypocrisy is endemic in Hollywood, though. Steven Spielberg made hundreds of millions of dollars off Schindler's List, and I heard a rumour that he didn't even support the Holocaust.

I haven't forgot aboput your other posts, I plan on going back to rehash where you debunked my comments.

Regarding this, though, you mean to tell me you don't see any hypocrisy with actors raking in millions of dollars staring in violent movies shooting up people then turning around and condeming firearms? It's just pretend so it's okay? If that's the case thats fine I'm just curious.

Paladin1

Michael Moriarity wrote:

Paladin1 wrote:

Not being coy here, do you have actual quotes from him where he's inciting violence in his supporters towards anyone who disagrees with him?

Here you go.

Thanks for that. You're right, I'm definitely in the wrong.

NorthReport

On and on it goes Where it stops nobody knows

https://www.google.ca/amp/s/amp.usatoday.com/amp/1973474001

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

And in any case, it's actually only a relatively small number of Hollywood stars who specialize in action films.  Are those who mainly don't do this films-or who never do them at all-free to speak out against America's domestic militarism-the TRUE "American Carnage"-without you endlessly raising accusations of hypocrisy?

If you really want to attack Hollywood violence-and there is a good case to do so-you SHOULD be attacking the studio heads who insist on perpetuating it.  If they agreed to stop making such films, the films wouldn't be made.  It's about what the executives do, not the actors.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Many, if not most action film stars actually have right-of-center politics and oppose gun control of any sort.

Paladin1

Ken Burch wrote:

And in any case, it's actually only a relatively small number of Hollywood stars who specialize in action films.  Are those who mainly don't do this films-or who never do them at all-free to speak out against America's domestic militarism-the TRUE "American Carnage"-without you endlessly raising accusations of hypocrisy?

If you really want to attack Hollywood violence-and there is a good case to do so-you SHOULD be attacking the studio heads who insist on perpetuating it.  If they agreed to stop making such films, the films wouldn't be made.  It's about what the executives do, not the actors.

People are free to speak out about whatever their heart desires. If an actor is making money from films that feature firearms, then lament about firearms in society, I'm going to call it hypocrisy.

 

 

Aristotleded24

Timebandit wrote:
"So what if someone enjoys target practice at the range? Who is it actually hurting?" Why don't we ask Coulton Boushie? Oh, wait, you can't - someone killed him with a handgun. Outside a shooting range. Hey, totally acceptable collaterol damage for what is essentially supposed to be a hobby item. I'm sure the body count for model trains is high, too.

Stanley didn't aim his gun and fire at a target. He aimed it and fired it at an actual human being. Even if no gun was available, what would have stopped him from using something else as a weapon, beating Boushie or one of his companions to death, or running them over with farm equipment?

Timebandit wrote:
Ready access to guns also means more dead women in domestic violence situations. In the US, you are far more likely to be killed by a family member, either intentionally or accidentally, than a gang member.

If firearms increase the likelihood of a woman being the victim of domestic violence, then we need to look at the poorly understood, but problematic aspect of police officers who commit domestic violence.

NorthReport

There is no justification for a single solitary gun in an urban area and if the gun nuts don’t stop with their sickness then all guns rural and urban need to be confiscated

NorthReport
Aristotleded24

Paladin1 wrote:
Timebandit wrote:

Mass shootings are only one of the reasons to lose the guns. 

It's pretty easy to say ban guns. In practice there's probably a bit more involved. (Well, that's not exactly true, guns in Canada are already banned. You need to pay for permission to own them, but I know what you mean)

Guns in the US? I can't see it happening honestly. It's a great call to arms (no pun intended) but is it actually in the realm of possibility?

400 million guns. The government couldn't afford to buy that many guns off people, and lets be honest most probably won't willing give up their guns.(Quebec and New Zealand has so far given a big finger to registration and confiscation, respectively)

But would the US hire thousands (or tens of thousands) more police officers for the sole function of confiscating these firearms? That's a lot of money for training and new equipment. Or call in the military to knock on doors with machineguns and tanks?

In Canada there's 37 million people and an estimate 10-20 million guns. There's 4500 firearm related businesses and it's growing every day. The us has 400 million guns, no idea how many firearm related businesses but I'm guessing it's a lot. That's a hell of a lot of unemployment.

By that logic, we shouldn't try and convince people to stop smoking because then people who work for the tobacco companies would be unemployed.

voice of the damned

Paladin1 wrote:

Ken Burch wrote:

And in any case, it's actually only a relatively small number of Hollywood stars who specialize in action films.  Are those who mainly don't do this films-or who never do them at all-free to speak out against America's domestic militarism-the TRUE "American Carnage"-without you endlessly raising accusations of hypocrisy?

If you really want to attack Hollywood violence-and there is a good case to do so-you SHOULD be attacking the studio heads who insist on perpetuating it.  If they agreed to stop making such films, the films wouldn't be made.  It's about what the executives do, not the actors.

People are free to speak out about whatever their heart desires. If an actor is making money from films that feature firearms, then lament about firearms in society, I'm going to call it hypocrisy.

So, if Penguin Books publishes the Marquis De Sade, the owner of the company has no right to speak out against misogynistic violence?

https://tinyurl.com/y59bfwe3

(link possibly NSFW)

I love a good roasting of hypocrites myself, and have never bought that whole "vice paying tribute to virtue" thing(the real tribute to virtue would be for vice to simply cease). However, I don't think it applies to cases where people enact fantasies of violence on the screen. Maybe in some cases, like if we're talking about the Death Wish films, where it seems to be the case that the film is, in fact, endorsing the main character's actions: Charles Bronson probably wouldn't be the most credible spokesperson against gun violence.  

 

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

voice of the damned wrote:

Paladin1 wrote:

Ken Burch wrote:

And in any case, it's actually only a relatively small number of Hollywood stars who specialize in action films.  Are those who mainly don't do this films-or who never do them at all-free to speak out against America's domestic militarism-the TRUE "American Carnage"-without you endlessly raising accusations of hypocrisy?

If you really want to attack Hollywood violence-and there is a good case to do so-you SHOULD be attacking the studio heads who insist on perpetuating it.  If they agreed to stop making such films, the films wouldn't be made.  It's about what the executives do, not the actors.

People are free to speak out about whatever their heart desires. If an actor is making money from films that feature firearms, then lament about firearms in society, I'm going to call it hypocrisy.

So, if Penguin Books publishes the Marquis De Sade, the owner of the company has no right to speak out against misogynistic violence?

https://tinyurl.com/y59bfwe3

(link possibly NSFW)

I love a good roasting of hypocrites myself, and have never bought that whole "vice paying tribute to virtue" thing(the real tribute to virtue would be for vice to simply cease). However, I don't think it applies to cases where people enact fantasies of violence on the screen. Maybe in some cases, like if we're talking about the Death Wish films, where it seems to be the case that the film is, in fact, endorsing the main character's actions: Charles Bronson probably wouldn't be the most credible spokesperson against gun violence.  

 

And in point of fact, Charles Bronson was a reactionary "law and order type" who never supported gun control.  Most of the film stars who specialize in action films actually aren't gun control supporters.  It's bullshit to call out movie actors who don't appear in action films for hypocrisy when THOSE people support gun control or speak out against real-life gun violence-actors can't be held responsible for movies they don't appear in or produce or direct.

NDPP

There has been some discussion here about Second Amendment rights to bear arms. The late Robert Parry did a good piece looking at those claims and Consortium News has republished it:

More Second Amendment Nonsense

https://consortiumnews.,com/2019/08/10/more-second-amendment-madness/

"The Right's powerful propaganda apparatus has sold millions of Americans on the dangerous and false notion that the Framers of the US Constitution incorporated the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights so an armed population could fight the government that the Framers had just created..."

Paladin1

Aristotleded24 wrote:

By that logic, we shouldn't try and convince people to stop smoking because then people who work for the tobacco companies would be unemployed.

I hear you. Wasn't that the Liberal excuse with SNC? But think of the jobs!  As distasteful as it is, jobs can and do play a part in government decision. That's why I say when people say just ban guns, okay well in Canada that's 4500 businesses that are done. Millions in property loss and how many thousands out of a job?

 

NorthReport

Canada’s economy, particularly in B.C. is so strong that the loss of jobs in the killing industry wouldn’t make a dent. Learn coding etc or get a science degree, any science degree, or a trade, and you will be set for life

Paladin1

voice of the damned wrote:
So, if Penguin Books publishes the Marquis De Sade, the owner of the company has no right to speak out against misogynistic violence?

That seems like a very specific example.

If you said Penguin books makes millions of dollars selling books featuring women getting the shit out of them by abusive men (to an audience that laps that stuff up) then turns around and speaks out against violence against women I would call them hypocrites, yes, because they're making money off it.

 

Maybe my views are the ones that are hypocritical. I think it's great that movie stars speak out against real life violence and are pro gun control (to an extent, like me). My issue isn't them saying violence is bad or shooting people is bad or something like that. Movies are movies and shouldn't be confused with real life. My issue is when they make millions off using firearms in movies then turn around and suggest other people shouldn't (lawully) own or use firearms.

It's okay for me to make money off using guns but you can't use them recreationally. (Can I get a spell check on recreationally, Unionist?)

Paladin1

What does the Toronto chief of police have to say?

https://www.cp24.com/mobile/news/saunders-reveals-300-accused-on-firearms-charges-free-on-bail-in-toronto-1.4542792

Quote:
Three-hundred and twenty six people charged with firearms offences are free on bail in Toronto today, Chief Mark Saunders revealed Friday as he seeks to redistribute blame for the sudden increase in gun violence in the city over the last seven days.

 

326 Torontonians (probably not hunters or target shooters) are charged with firearm offenses and out on bail.

I'm going to guess that these people are mostly gang members who illegally possessed handguns. They get caught, charged, and now they're back on the street to, what? Find another gun and get caught again?

Quote:
Saunders said, strongly suggesting the people charged and freed on bail following a shooting incident are at higher risk of shooting again.

Right back on the street.

Quote:
He asked for continued cooperation from residents in areas impacted by shootings, and distanced himself from calls for a handgun ban, something Toronto Mayor John Tory supports.

Chief of police doesn't think a handgun ban will work (has stated elsewhere aswell).

Quote:
But in recent years we have seen that 80 per cent of the firearms are coming in from the border,” he said.

 

Quote:
Saunders said evidence from that scene indicated the two people struck by gunfire were armed themselves and returned fire.

Betting they didn't have a license to own guns and for sure not to transport them or carry them.

Quote:
In the majority of the incidents, Saunders said there is evidence emerging that they arise out of a continuing cycle of provocation and retaliation by rival street gangs.

 

 

Quote:
As of Friday, the city has had 35 homicides. At this point last year, 59 people had been murdered.

Call for handgun bans, or banning all guns, as much as you want. It's not going to fix the problem of gangs shooting up the streets.

cco

Paladin1 wrote:

Regarding this, though, you mean to tell me you don't see any hypocrisy with actors raking in millions of dollars staring in violent movies shooting up people then turning around and condeming firearms? It's just pretend so it's okay? If that's the case thats fine I'm just curious.

I really don't, any more than I see hypocrisy in someone who acts in Macbeth and then condemns regicide.

Paladin1 wrote:

It's okay for me to make money off using guns but you can't use them recreationally.

Are any of these actors calling for other people to be banned from acting in movies that feature guns? If not, it's a rather different recreational use. Movie firearms are firing blanks. If only blanks were available for any gun sold in Canada, the only gun problem would be hearing loss.

The idea that enjoying violent media means approving of actual violence has been preposterous since I first heard it in the 1990s debates about rap music. Chris Rock said it well: "White man makes guns? No problem. Black rapper says 'guns'? Congressional hearing." There's a difference between fantasy and reality. Not being able to tell the difference, in court, makes you not criminally responsible for your acts.

Ward

Anyone can buy a chainsaw st Canadian Tire.

NorthReport

I remember when Walmart was first coming to Canada and there was an effort made to stop them  including allowing them to be built in Vancouver 

They should have been shown the door a long time ago 

https://www.salon.com/2019/08/10/walmart-under-increasing-pressure-to-stop-gun-sales-to-remove-violent-video-game-displays-instead/

Ward

Walmart or any other entity is not the source of the problem...its you and your loved ones

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Ward wrote:
Walmart or any other entity is not the source of the problem...its you and your loved ones

The problem is in the deliberate creation of rage and paranoia about the world by our leaders, and the chemical reaction between that rage and paranoia and the speeches given by leading figures in American politics which are heard by too many people as calls to violent action.

BTW, some have claimed the Dayton killer was a leftist seeking to cause a socialist revolution.  No way.  Who tries to incite a socialist revolution by slaughtering black people? 

 

Ward
NorthReport
NorthReport
NDPP

Ken Burch wrote:

BTW, some have claimed the Dayton killer was a leftist seeking to cause a socialist revolution.  No way.  Who tries to incite a socialist revolution by slaughtering black people?

 

NDPP wrote:

Oh I dunno - the CIA perhaps? AFRICOM? But seriously,  'Self-Professed 'Leftist', Warren and Sanders fan' was the only thing actually posted about that here. Obviously the guy was batshit crazy, not that other 'self professed leftists' and 'progressives' aren't also known on occasion to support actions that kill far more than these American psychos do. Democrats just passed Trump's massive war budget after all and I seem to remember good  NDP 'socialists' cheering on Canadian  'heroes' that helped murder Libya or that now train Azov Nazis for NATO in Ukraine, so perhaps we'd best not go any further down that road of embarrassing contradictions eh? Anyway, here's some of what RT reported on Betts:

'A brief scan of Betts' alleged Twitter feed shows that he was a supporter of the Democratic Party, and not a fan of President Donald Trump. He urged people to 'vote blue' and rallied behind Democratic hopefuls Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders. In one reply he wrote he wouldn't vote for Kamala Harris 'cuz Harris is a cop.' In his profile description, Betts described himself as a 'leftist'..."

https://on.rt.com/9zem

Here's more from an Australian source:

Chilling Detail in Photo of Ohio Gunman with Slain Sister

"Betts was a self-described 'leftist', who wrote online that he would happily vote for Democrat Elizabeth Warren, praised Satan, was upset about Donald Trump winning the election, and declared: 'I want socialism, and I'll not wait for the idiots to finally come round in understanding...' He was also vocal about gun control - or lack of it - in the US. 'This is America. Guns on every corner, guns in every house, no freedom but that to kill,' he wrote in December 2018...On Feb 14, 2018 he tweeted at Sen Rob Portman: 'hey rob. How much did they pay you to look the other way? 17 kids are dead. If not now, when? 'That was the date of the mass shooting at a school in Parkland, Florida..."  

https://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/real-life/news-life/ohio-gunman-with-s...

So, who knows? Had he not done his demented and dastardly deed he could have ended up as just another anonymous confused and murderous Democrat in Amerikka supporting its latest racist war.

Paladin1

Ward wrote:

Anyone can buy a chainsaw st Canadian Tire.

 

NDPP

Yikes!

SRA: Socialist Rifle Association

https://twitter.com/socialistra?lang=en

"The Socialist Rifle Association is comprised of anti-fascist, anti-racist socialists who defend the right of the working-class to keep and bear arms..."

voice of the damned

The rhetoric of that organization doesn't seem satirical, though going by their website, they don't seem to have much of an off-line presence. Their "local chapters" page takes you to a bunch of twitter accounts, with no named participants, as far as I can tell.

Their statements about workers and guns actually resembles the original position of the Black Panthers in the 1960s. But I'm curious to know what sort of serious socialist group in the year 2019 adopts heraldry that was last fashionable during the Soviet era(and which even at that time, didn't have a lot of fans in the west). 

https://tinyurl.com/y6f6lmxj

 

Misfit Misfit's picture

Former Ontario premier Bill Davis commissioned a Royal Commission on violence in the communications industry and that royal commission found that people commit copy cat acts of violence that they see on tv and in movie theatres. 

So yes, Paladin is  correct that these actors who glorify violence in movies are, in fact, contributing to the problem and then acting hypocritically by speaking out against the use of firearms. 

bekayne

voice of the damned wrote:

The rhetoric of that organization doesn't seem satirical, though going by their website, they don't seem to have much of an off-line presence. Their "local chapters" page takes you to a bunch of twitter accounts, with no named participants, as far as I can tell.

Their statements about workers and guns actually resembles the original position of the Black Panthers in the 1960s.

And you what the results were when they started carrying guns? Gun control laws. From Republicans.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulford_Act

bekayne
NDPP

Don't Tread on Me...

https://youtu.be/ajprebkRFbA

Paladin1

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_dlrNE2wdV0

13 year old female competitive shooter.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Y-8kyEHbFM

12 minutes of "funny gun fails".

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O8-azG3Iokk

This is scary. Guy shoots a truck full of Tannerite binary explosives froma few feet away and almost gets hit with shrapnal.

You don't need a llicense to buy this explosives- they sell it at a gas station near me.

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

Pages