It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
Since this would undermine the second amendment considerably, I really don't think that device would have any chance to get mandatory.
At the end of the day, the argument will always exist that 'guns don't kill', 'people do'. That is actually a statement of fact. Someone has to pull that trigger. Just as much a fact as 'religion doesn't kill', 'people do'.
Just because someone owns a gun doesn't make them a killer and the same goes for someone who worships god.
Having said that it's true that these assault type weapons have no place in the broader society and should be limited to areas where they can be used for hunting. Are there guns in the hands of the wrong people? Absolutely. Is it too easy to buy a gun? Absolutely. Should there be some restrictions? Certainly, for the greater good.
I am a believer in personal freedoms in general. Those who behave shouldn't be penalized on account of those who don't as a matter of public policy. Especially when there are other ways to tackle a problem in today's day and age than a blanket ban. However, I agree that the public interest must come first.
There are way to tailor policy and restrictions to limit the chances/probability of such an occurrence happening again without excessively infringing on personal freedoms. That would be my preferred option. Especially since someone can always find a gun if they really wanted to. It's a question of finesse in the policy measure, as opposed to a blunt approach, accounting for the cultural aspects. The same applies to any policy measure.
The freedom for people to go to school or enjoy pop concerts without being murdered by a gun is greater than the freedom from a minority to enjoy a hobby.
Again, (not being personal) but there is this air of arrogance that comes over as if there are no countries that have solved this issue years ago. I am sure there are many people in the UK and around Europe who, given the choice, would love to have an M16 in the garage or an AK47 in the loft. But we decide, for the commion good, to restrict their freedom and we can see the consequences of not doing so.
Do I look over to the USA and see how great a country it is as they have the freedom to own a gun? or do I look to ourselves and most of Europe and see how great it is to be able to live in a much much safer country where me and my family can walk about with a 20th the chance of being killed by a gun.
"accounting for cultural aspects", " a question of finesse",
it's as if we are discussing income tax policy or a tax on plastic bottles rather than the slaughter of innocent people. These events are so horrible, thats its easy for the brain to not take in the horror. You have to force yourself to imagine the scenes or the feelings of the parents. Would anyone want to meet the parent of a murdered child and defend the rights of hobbyists? See below re Sandy Hook. Perhaps actual pictures of their bleeding, lifeless bodies should be published on the web as the actual horror of these events does not seemed to have sunk in to the USA's public conciousness.
Students
Charlotte Bacon, 6
Daniel Barden, 7
Olivia Engel, 6
Josephine Gay, 7
Dylan Hockley, 6
Madeleine Hsu, 6
Catherine Hubbard, 6
Chase Kowalski, 7
Jesse Lewis, 6
Ana Márquez-Greene, 6
James Mattioli, 6
Grace McDonnell, 7
Emilie Parker, 6
Jack Pinto, 6
Noah Pozner, 6
Caroline Previdi, 6
Jessica Rekos, 6
Avielle Richman, 6
Benjamin Wheeler, 6
Allison Wyatt, 6
I'm not a gun owner (I don't even know how to use one and I'm actually personally against them) and I'm not religious (although my mother is). However, I've lived in the US, as well as the UK, Canada and Africa (Nigeria) in my time. I see differences in culture in all of these places, and I can appreciate how this must frame public policy debate and decisions. The one size fits all approach is not something I advocate for. The terrain is different, the cities and rural landscape are different, the level of security afforded the average citizen is different, the education and risks are different etc. etc.
I'm in agreement with you that something must be done about the gun problem in the US, but I don't have an ideological leaning on it. Just a public safety one, accounting for the cultural differences. So from my perspective it's a question of taking steps to minimize the chances of a weapon falling into the wrong hands and restricting how, when & where certain weapons can be used.
Are those in the UK who would love to shoot guns as a hobby being treated unfairly? Should we be freeing up gun laws in order for them to be enyoying thier hobby?
It seems strange to me to put the arguments of sport and hobby ahead of the arguments to save the lives of six year olds.
We have deranged people here in the UK and around Europe. Mental illness is not something unique to the USA . But people with a mental illness and access to guns? That seens to be a USA specialty.
I’ve bought one gun in my whole life (my Walther PPK of course!) and I did it with ZERO criminal record while being a Maryland State Trooper. And I still had to pay up front and wait one month for a full background check before I could pick it up and take it home.
So I mean, obviously gun control is there.
Is it just lax in other states, or what? I keep reading that the Las Vegas domestic terrorist had like 50+ guns. That’s a ton in my opinion but on the other hand I also keep hearing how he also had a clean record. So what does one do?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_by_state
Regarding the perpetrator in Las Vegas, the details are a bit hazy on him. Why haven't we heard anything about his internet use, political inclinations and what not? Curious. I'm sure that information is out there or at least is being investigated, to understand his motives given this was premeditated.
Indeed, one can't determine who is a likely mass killer based solely on their record. It has to be combined with other factors in my view. There should be a more comprehensive mechanism to determine who can purchase a gun and how many in my humble opinion, just like there is with piloting a plane. The consequences for a bad decision can be catastrophic in both cases.
Such a great scene, but I don t love atom bombs. Not sure what your point is.
This. It's discerning between reality and a scripted series or film. It's simple. It's the same as saying "you play violent video games, so you must be suppressing an urge to go out and murder countless people."
That comment is also coming from someone frequenting a James Bond forum, a character who has beat women and killed hundreds and hundreds of people. No violence to be found there!
Perfectly good question but, out of respect for those killed in real events, I'm not sure that discussing fiction is a good idea but a new thread perhaps?
You sort of answered your own question. One is real, one is not. It's really not hard to distinguish fantasy from reality. I enjoy playing Grand Theft Auto for instance because it's fun but that doesn't mean I want to go and steal cars and kill loads of people and embark on a life of crime in real life. You can enjoy seeing something in a film while recognising how messed up it'd be in real life (e.g. the finale in Kingsman where the whole world starts killing eachother to an 80s pop song).
I genuinely can't understand why people wouldn't happily give up gun ownership altogether to make their country just that bit safer. Because it wouldn't get rid of shootings entirely? "Well we could help decrease the chance of something horrible happening but it wouldn't stop shootings alrogether, so let me keep my 50 assault rifles, I need them for protection". Or because of a "right" written on a piece of paper written when slavery was still legal? Mental. No other word for it. I don't think I have anything more to say on the issue so I'll see you all in this thread next time (and there will be a next time).
The most inane post yet (and in this thread I don't say that lightly).
If there really is such a disconnect between fantasy and reality in the States that people can come out with this drivel then the problem is worse than I thought.
I can enjoy watching Bond or Red Dwarf but that doesn't mean I want to see my wife get shot in the head or be the last human being left alive marooned 3 million years into deep space!
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/violent-video-games-may-make-kids-more-agressive/
http://www.momjunction.com/articles/effects-of-video-games-on-teenagers_00352668/#gref
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_game_controversies
As far as the comments of “we’ll meet again, no doubt” and “Inane post”, if you want to make this personal you’re posting to the wrong person. Whether you like or dislike guns or like or dislike the 2nd Amendment that’s your issue, I’m usually too busy to post and generally avoid personal forum fighting, it’s boring and a waste of my time.
You actually seemed like a fairly reasonable guy up until you posted this. Do you really not understand the difference? Violent movies, games, books, etc, might inspire a someone to be violent if they're not all there. But being able to easily and legally purchase a gun actually gives them the means to do so in a very dangerous, easy way. The whole violent individuals will be violent so gun ownership isn't the problem is a really daft argument too imo. The Vegas shooter would have had much more of a job killing as many as he did if he couldn't buy assault rifles. Violent people will be violent sure but why does that mean we should make it easy for them?
"Gun ownership in and of itself is no more a threat to society than violent fantasy games" if you honestly believe that then there's no hope for you. A quick google search tells me that GTA V sold 80 million copies. Surely if we follow your logic we'd have seen loads of examples of people attempting to mimic the violence from the game in real life? I know there have been some nutjobs who have but with 80 million copies sold, you'd think there would have been a lot more if the problem was with the game rather than their own mental health.
So do you genuinely see watching the Bond films as some sort of sick dark pleasure that you allow yourself to indulge in rather than innocent escapism? Christ.
Enjoy living here if you want
But you'll have a hard time convincing the rest of us that gun ownership in the US isn't a problem, and when you equate owning a dangerous weapon that makes killing easy to playing a violent computer game or watching a violent movie you're really not doing yourself any favors.
Not now perhaps, but have you really thought it through?
So now you are dead, so sorry to hear that.I too had a knife to my throat at one time.I didn t have a gun either and now I am dead as well.
No offence, but you're saying you don't understand the difference between fiction and reality which is kind of, dumb.
It's not really that hard is it?
If you are psychotic, you can t help it .
Why not say everyone can drive as fast as they want on any road? It will only be a few nutters who do 150mph outside a school and having speed limits is unfair on the rest of us who drive responsibly.
Why not sell heroin in Tesco? Yes there will always be few who take it too far and end up injecting it 15 times a day into their eyeballs but that shouldn't stop those of us who take it recreationally once a month.
Surely society would be far more cohesive if we could do exactly whatever we wanted with no justice system except the comforting reassurance that everyone is carrying a .45 Magnum?