Follow Us

Film Freak Central's Bookstore

March's Most-Read

  1. Noah
  2. The Grand Budapest Hotel
  3. Nympho-maniac
  1. Hannibal Season 1
  2. Game of Thrones Season 3
  3. Saturn 3

E-Mail Us


« Mission: Impossible III (2006) | Main | Shrek Forever After (2010) »

May 20, 2013


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


ugh someone ban this doofus.


Whereas the anti-gun side are all such saints.

Oh wait, no they're not:-

"Convicted rapist organizes gun control demonstration at Dayton gun show; Media fails to note his sex offender status"

That's just one of the most obviously self-serving advocates for gun control, but there's very, very few amongst the whole lot of 'em that'd have anything like a 'crisis of conscience' over the 'victim disarmament' aspect of gun control.


The timing of this NRA conversation is pretty amusing given that it took place just before the organization had its "worst week ever":

Amazing that on "Gun Appreciation Day" at sanctioned gun-loving events the nuts managed to shoot five of themselves. Yeah, more guns can't be equated with more shootings ...


Um, my 'fellow plebs' aren't 'filling each other with bullets'. You know, since there's at least 43 million households with lawfully owned firearms, if your ideas were in any way true the annual gun death toll would number in the millions and would be broadly distributed across the entirety of the gun-owning populace, instead of being more-or-less concentrated in the (gun-free) inner cities.

As for your excoriating the NRA for supposedly making cynical reference to the situation the gangbangers create, I'd better tell you that I'm not a member of the NRA and pay little attention to what they in particular have to say about anything. That gangbangers contribute an exceedingly high proportion of the annual gun death toll is, in fact, common knowledge, despite it being denied by the 'agenda-driven'.

For one thing, the truth of this is revealed by statistics compiled by the FBI - so I suppose you'd better chew them out for giving legitimacy to the NRA. You'd also better have some sneering remarks ready for those, like me, who became aware of this phenomenon through their own independent research rather than being 'fed talking points by the NRA' as you so condescendingly have it.


Pleb is working pretty hard here. I wonder if he's aware of the irony of calling himself a pleb while frantically defending an extremely corporatized lobby group.

That aside, justifying the fact that the NRA lobbies against any kind of gun control by saying that most gun crimes are committed by 'gangbangers' in urban areas with strict gun laws ignores the fact that there are a shitload of guns manufactured and sold in the US because there's a massive market for them, and lobbying against any kind of regulation on that front guarantees that the tap stays wide open, and those are the same guns that end up on the streets. unregistered guns are still the same guns, manufactured in the same factories. If there are millions of guns lying around, people are going to catch bullets.

The idea that there's any legitimate argument for a situation like that is a joke. the fact that pleb's spending so much energy on such an argument reveals a pretty shocking cynicism in the face of the kind of news an american wakes up to every morning. does he wonder why his fellow plebs are filling each other with bullets every day while rich guys tell them having guns is their most sacred right?


@ Jonathan

You say, 'You appear to acknowledge' -

Of course the above only serves to highlight that YOU have NOT acknowledged the role played in the gun death rate by criminals/gangs, which is to be expected, after all, people on your side of the gun ownership issue do not believe in making any acknowledgement of or concession to those who disagree with you. Concessions and compromise are for the OTHER person to make, not you.

I'd suggest that that has more to do with you wanting to duck out than not being able to change my mind or whatever.


RE: Jonathan

[I've noticed lately that a lot of the reviews here have had to be "edgy," such as giving the Hobbit half a star and railing against 48p for half the post rather than detailing why he believed the film to be that poor. I'm disappointed because for years this has been my favorite and most trusted site for movie reviews. It would be a shame if FFC mutated into an Armond White equivalent because I truly would miss the well-reasoned and carefully considered reviews of days past.]

What past are you referring to? Walter Chaw is no more inflammatory than he's ever been. He's always been liberal with one stars, half stars, and zero stars. Just because he's starting to tread on your sacred cows doesn't mean the site has changed. That's classic internet narcissism.


The explanation was only "tortured" after I went to lengths to break it down for you. The original was actually very succinct if you recall. In it, guns were compared to other dangers like cigarettes or speeding. Now, you could argue that speeding kills more people than guns do and nobody tries to ban cars but cars serve another purpose besides killing, while guns are very singular in their use. And we still regulate cars, limiting how fast they are allowed to go and who is allowed to drive them for instance.

You appear to acknowledge that non-gang members do commit some gun violence (or accidents occur even) but pin the majority on gangs/criminals using wording like: "a large proportion of those are attributable to gangs/criminals" and "responsible for many more deaths in proportion." This would indicate that you know that even in the hands of the larger, non-criminal public guns are still attributed to SOME deaths and are therefore dangerous. You can surely see then why it follows that an organization that promotes guns could likewise be viewed as dangerous.

Unfortunately, your refusal to admit this to yourself and language like "Is there some reason why the gangs etc. aren't railed against as much as the NRA?" would indicate that you either aren't serious about the conversation at best or you have no grounding in this reality. Either way, I understand that I will not change your mind so I will let this go. I hope you have a good day.


That's one tortured, reaching 'explanation' (actually non-explanation) for Walter's contention that the NRA are dangerous, since the NRA has no direct responsibility for gun deaths. That would be the persons committing the acts leading to those gun deaths, as I explained before, a large proportion of those are attributable to gangs/criminals, so it seems that those criminals are far more 'dangerous' than you expect us to believe the NRA are. Is there some reason why the gangs etc. aren't railed against as much as the NRA?

That's also why I don't have to agree that 'more guns = more deaths from guns' since you're lumping in the guns bought by the general law-abiding majority with the guns used by criminals, which are responsible for many more deaths in proportion to the number of guns owned by non-criminals.


Josh already explained it, but I am foolish enough to try again. The NRA has 1 (one) goal: to sell more guns. Now, this is America and it's the job of every lobbying group to support their products so I don't hold it against them. But you have to agree that more guns = more deaths from guns. It doesn't matter that the NRA isn't explicitly advocating their sale to gangbangers or whatever term you used, that's just saying "well it's not as bad as it could be." Which I agree with, it could definitely be worse but you must also agree that for every additional gun the probability of a gun crime rises EVER SO SLIGHTLY. An unnoticeable amount by itself maybe but with the volume of guns sold every year the cumulative amount becomes something significant. So that's why the NRA is inherently dangerous. Even if things could be worse and even if what they are doing isn't illegal and is their God-given right as American citizens. I won't get off on a tangent addressing your other points.

Now Walter, he won't come in here and defend his comment because I don't think he really cares and he only throws those little remarks in as click-bait for the easily riled conservative types like Mr. AtheistConservative (who of course swallowed the hook immediately). I've noticed lately that a lot of the reviews here have had to be "edgy," such as giving the Hobbit half a star and railing against 48p for half the post rather than detailing why he believed the film to be that poor. I'm disappointed because for years this has been my favorite and most trusted site for movie reviews. It would be a shame if FFC mutated into an Armond White equivalent because I truly would miss the well-reasoned and carefully considered reviews of days past.

One last note, I think Walter is confused about Mr. Kim's directing history since he cites A Bittersweet Life as containing "the best, most innovative knife-fight in a movie until the naked scuffle in Eastern Promises." While A Bittersweet Life contains several, in my opinion, iconic scenes (the opening fight on the table, the scene at the gun dealer's, even the end credits have stuck with me) I cannot recall a knife fight scene in that film. I believe he is confusing it with the far inferior Man from Nowhere, and I wanted to clarify to do Mr. Kim's best work justice.


Ah, but the NRA doesn't promote the equivalent of cancer or speeding. As for your statement about guns killing 20000 per year (actually something like 8000 last year I believe), I think you'll find that the vast majority of murders/unlawful shootings are committed by gangbangers/criminals in urban areas with stringent gun control laws.

Perhaps you could point me to efforts being made to disarm the gangbangers/criminals in those areas, as opposed to the roundabout and ineffective tactic of hoping disarming 'Mr & Mrs America' would lead to the criminals being disarmed. Which you might call 'trickle-down' gun confiscation.

You've failed to give a good explanation of why the NRA is dangerous. But I don't suppose Walter could himself offer a better one, if he could, no doubt he'd have spoken up himself by now.


but enough of this madness. the real story here is that arnold is supposedly going to play conan again, king by his own hand. aging conan nerds rejoice.


Isn't any organisation based on the promotion of a weapon dangerous by definition? Especially a weapon that kills like 20000 of your people a year... It's like having an association that promotes the value of cancer, or cigarettes, or speeding in high-traffic areas. Wake up.


Yeah, but why are they 'dangerous'?


Yeah, Walter doesn't like the NRA — him and 45% of nation.

Why don't you go read some Big Hollywood rather than lamenting that someone does not share the same political beliefs as you? I'm certain they're much more up your alley...

Slick McFavorite

Big 'if'.


Oh Walter bashing the NRA again. Like when he proclaimed the NRA to be 'dangerous' in a review posted some time ago... of course he never explained or gave any sense as to in which way he felt the NRA were 'dangerous'. Perhaps he'll chime in with an elaboration here! If he knows what he was talking about, that is.

Michael Moses

what issues do you think Walter has, Mr. AtheistConservative?


Walter, you have issues. Serious ones.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Please Support Film Freak Central

Please note that "RECENT POSTS" also lists archival content that's just been imported from the old site.

Letterboxd - Bill Chambers's Screening Log