Comments about ‘In our opinion: Excessively violent entertainment and its impact on culture’

Return to article »

Published: Wednesday, Dec. 26 2012 12:00 a.m. MST

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Tyler D
Meridian, ID

@Schwa – “So let me get this straight - guns don't kill people, Quentin Tarantino does?”
And the even more brilliant - “Nobody ever walked into a school with a copy of Call of Duty and killed 20 kids.”

Please… enough with this bumper sticker nonsense. Not only are you NOT saying anything profound, you’re demonstrating a complete lack of ability to follow a causal chain of events and connect the dots in anyway.

By your logic, the correct conclusion after 9-11 should have been “planes kill people.” Not mental states, not religious derangement, not any of the other factors that turn people into murderers… just… planes.

Midwest Mom
Soldiers Grove, WI

None of this would matter if people did not bring this stuff into their homes or pay to watch it in theaters. Self-control is what's needed.

How the gun industry must laugh at its consumers. Alcohol, tobacco and firearms. They belong together in the ways they kill, enslave and damage society.

Self-control is what is needed.

Bifftacular
Spanish Fork, Ut

Not surprised at all to see a fair amount of comments defending violent movies and Hollywood - many I'm sure from the "guns are evil" crowd. After all, an attack on violent movies takes away THEIR right to participate in an activity that THEY'VE found a way to do peacefully and without harming others. How hypocritical. If media doesn't doesn't have the power to negatively affect people then by logic, media has no ability or power to positively influence anyone either. You can't have it both ways but by golly, Hollywood sure tries. When they come out with a movie that inspires, instructs, lifts, and edifies, the producers and actors can't accept praise and accolades fast enough. But when it's crass, vulgar, violent, nasty, horrible, "its just entertainment" and no one could possibly be negatively affected. What moronic and twisted reasoning that is.

LDS Liberal
Farmington, UT

I've said it before, I'll say it again...

What is the harm or violation of the 2nd Amendment gun nuts, to simply require --

A gun owner must provide proof of ownership of a gun SAFE, gun locks and licenses?

Having seat belts, locks, bumpers and safety glass doesn't take away my right to own a car,
and holding a valid driver's license doesn't take away my right to drive it either.

BUT -
Not having any of those restrictions, regulations, or requirements DOES effect the safety of me and eveyone else on the roads!

But -
I see the very same people refusing to complomise on the budget, just as reluctant to compromise on Gun safety as well.

Mukkake
Salt Lake City, UT

LDS Liberal,

Gun safes are expensive, unsightly, unnecessary, and heavy. One cheap rifle equals an expensive, over-sized safe? How will we define what a regulation safe is? Plus, just 'cause you have one doesn't mean you have to lock it.

Gun locks defeat the purpose of self defense, "Let me find the key an unlock my gun before I snap into action." Which means I would probably just keep my key near the gun, which would defeat the point. So will we mandate the key be kept a certain distance away?

And licenses are just another tracking document and revenue generator for the government. Which means some nosy journalist/activist can file a freedom of information request and post your name all over the internet, like just happened recently.

All of these are just feel good suggestions. Really only useful for keeping a 5 year old out of you guns, but wouldn't have stopped the shooting recently, or any other mass shooting, since all of the shooters had full access to their guns anyway. They would have just opened the safe and unlocked the triggers.

The right to an automobile isn't in the Constitution.

mark
Salt Lake City, UT

"Really only useful for keeping a 5 year old out of you guns,"

Wow. That seems like reason enough to me.

"The right to an automobile isn't in the Constitution."

There is a silly comment. Neither is brushing your teeth. Do you have a right to brush your teeth? You need to read your constitution a bit better: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. (You probably don't know, but that is from the Constitution.)

Biff, can you show me any study that shows that media violence causes real life violence?

And, what do you people that are critical of movie violence suggest? Do we need a new government agency that would censor all depictions of violence in media?

Mukkake
Salt Lake City, UT

mark:
["Really only useful for keeping a 5 year old out of you guns,"

Wow. That seems like reason enough to me. ]

Well, I, and plenty of others, don't have a 5 year old, so its really rather worthless to force it on the rest of us. Just like child proofing anything else in my home. People with kids also have to keep the cutlery, power tools, alcohol, prescription medicine, etc. out of little arm's reach. Me, all that stuff is kept where ever is the most convenient (alcohol in the fridge and pills on the bathroom counter), just like the guns.

["The right to an automobile isn't in the Constitution."

There is a silly comment.]

It was meant to be silly, to counter the silliness of comparing automobile regulations to gun regulations. Luckily the Constitution gives us the right to speech, religion, and weapons in the first 2 amendments.

mark
Salt Lake City, UT

You change a lot of things you said when someone calls you out on them. It sounds like, from what you wrote, that you are rather careless with your guns. It's strange, people I know that have guns, and no kids, also have gun safes. Mainly so when they are not home someone can't steal their guns. But then, that is being responsible. I have a gun sitting on the counter right now. But when I leave it will be locked up.

But I'm sure you will change what you wrote.

The only reason I wrote "silly" is because the monitors would not have let me write what I wanted to. You didn't mean that to be a "silly" argument. You thought it was a legitimate point. Don't try to say now otherwise. Own what you say. If you were wrong admit it.

AskmeAgainLater
Los Angeles, CA

Hollywood does glamorize violence! and our permissiveness as a culture to nudity, profanity, etc., has opened up a terrible Pandora's Box that is leading to the moral decay of our society.
As for Gun Control being an answer: I'd say, No Thing is intrinsically evil beyond the use to which we put it. A gun can protect or kill; a phone can convey positive information or gossip which can ruin someone's life, yet who would call for a ban on telephones?!
Most of us are reasonable, rational people who'd never train a gun on anyone, let alone shoot; but every age has its Jack the Ripper, Al Capone, or John Wayne Gacy. How we weather these is the mark of who we are as a society. To over-legislate individual responsibility is death to Democracy.
Our rights and freedoms are precious and must be "protected from enemies foreign and domestic." Gun Control would simply ensure the emergence of a black market for weapons. Beside law enforcement, only criminals would have guns. That is a scary thought!
Instead of Gun Control, let us allow GOD and PRAYER, back into our schools, Court Rooms, and lives.

Wally West
SLC, UT

@ AskmeAgainLater 9:50 a.m. Dec. 30

"To over-legislate individual responsibility is death to Democracy."

What about legislating morality?

AskmeAgainLater
Los Angeles, CA

Wally,
I never suggested legislating anything. Individual responsibility is a natural result of living by sound principles. Those principles should be taught at home, but barring that, need to be followed through in all other areas of our lives. I believe, we would not have to legislate tolerance if we returned to living in accord with the more wholesome (neighborly) (biblical) precepts upon which our forefathers founded this nation. I would certainly NOT suggest legislation; we already legislate everything to death, which abdicates personal responsibility in favor of mandating behavior, which (won't work carte blanche) clogs up our courts. I certainly do not suggest legislating morality... however, logic would dictate that a return to healthier, more spiritual living (found in the aforementioned biblical precepts) would see a return to a healthier, saner populace, and how could that be a bad thing???
I suggest that all atheists, non-believers and amoral people can carry on status quo; it is their God-granted privilege. However, there's always a boat or plane bound elsewhere, for those who are intolerant enough to be offended by prayer, and God, in general. If you have a better way, pray, share your vision with us.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments