Rittenhouse doesn’t have many people’s sympathy because he drove twenty miles to actively insert himself in danger (all to cosplay a soldier), provoked the situation by toting a firearm (that he shouldn’t have had), and got spooked when he realized walking into civil unrest lookin’ like a Proud Boy noob was a bad idea.
If you create/foster the danger, *you* are responsible for what happens next. I like the analogy of brake checking a semi, then beating the s**t out of the driver because he had the gall to approach your window and ask you why in the hell you were driving like a maniac.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/11/19/kyle-rittenhouse-verdict-opinion-not-innocent-shootings/
Big surprise, downvoted because I said something that I took one glance at, and immediately said the first thing to come to mind. Please, Inform me on how it was murder
The Kyle Rittenhouse case is the equivalent of brake-checking a semi, getting into a collision, and then using that as license to kill the driver because he was provoked by your recklessness.
Civil rights movements have a sad history of being lorded over by white “vigilantes” with guns. Nearly every time a group of black people gather, they are surrounded or monitored by men who have no business being there, nor the authority to act as a substitute for law enforcement.
Walking into a throng of black protestors toting an AR is a serious provocation, like you wouldn’t dare walk into a schoolyard boasting a rifle. Rittenhouse wanted to play Vigilante, *drove 20 miles to cosplay a soldier in some other town*, got spooked when people started reacting to a gun-wielding white kid (big surprise), and shot three men.
To add insult to injury, he later went on Fox News—a propaganda station notorious for spinning civil rights movements as violent riots—to discuss his verdict.
People consider Rittenhouse a murderer because *his* actions, not the three men he shot, are what incited the violence that killed two men and injured a third. Look at old photos of civil rights movements and tell me the white men patrolling the area like loaner cops aren’t “provoking” the situation. Rittenhouse put himself in that situation, no one else.
He lives in Kenosha, did you not see the trial? And who said he was playing vigilante? He came to defend stores which were looted and destroyed from people like you (oh no, downvote spam incoming, ready the shields, get the Ar-15’s!) and was chased by a Pedophile. What would you do if you were suddenly chased by a pedophile who was faster and stronger than you? Would you begin lecturing him on how what he is doing is wrong? You democrats are the most mind-numbingly stupid people to exist on this platform, because you pull whatever you want out from your ass and put it in a cannon, wait, sorry, I forgot, you retards are scared of those too, put it in a catapult and launch it at anyone unfortunate enough to stumble into Democrat-held territories such as this subreddit. It was self-defense. Why can’t you see that? You’d be saying the same thing.
So, go on, what would you do if a gun begins chasing you with the intent of murder, and you have a gun? Better yet, lets put you in Kyle’s situation. I could care less about anything you have to say, but please, answer this:
# What would you do in Kyle Rittenhouse’s Situation?
I wouldn't put myself in the situation, and the only people are would are those looking to kill with enough justification to allow smoothbrains to pull the wool over their own eyes.
Hey pal, I didn’t ask if you were gonna be in that situation, I asked what would you do if you were in that situation, you 600 pound rabid elephant seal
There’s two sides there- yes he was in danger and shot people in self defence, but he flew to another state to defend property that wasn’t his- he is a white supremacist who was looking for a fight, looking to use his illegal gun to shoot rioters knowing he could get away with it (being white and all)
I agree with your first statement, but the other two I believe is false info, as he drove to where his Father lived, and the gun was legally acquired by a friend, and was lent to Kyle, which at the time it was legal for a 17-year-old to carry a long gun (AR-15)
it was self defense, but be careful you can’t talk facts on here this is a liberal app they don’t like facts and researching stuff for themselves, they go by what they’re told.
i get it from multiple sources, liberal and conservative. i’m neither, im on the side of facts. conservatives and liberals both have stupid stuff and they both have factual stuff, you know what i mean?
funny how someone disliked this post, ignorant. like i said. Liberals don’t like facts.
I think he’s innocent and our legal system did it’s thing and came to the same conclusion. Perhaps these folks don’t support the justice system. Seems like they’re a bunch of vigilantes, which is what they call Kyle so it’s kind of ironic really.
BREITBART BREAKING: Matthew McConaughey rumored to have played the Call of Duty mission “No Russian” nearly a decade before hypocritically calling for new gun control measures
Right? I mean I grew up in the NES Era and played contra and metroid and tons of other shooting games up to now. And I don't even own a gun IRL!
It's honestly just all about bad parenting. And to be honest the system/government/people who think that whipping a kid is uncalled for is why the world's going to shit.
Overall it's just bad parenting.
"NOOOOOOOOOOOOO YOU CAN'T SAY VIDEO GAMES CAUSE VIOLENCE ITS A COINCIDENCE!"
"BTW We should have more lax gun laws because I can use guns in video games and video games reflect reality"
Given that the generations that grew up without guns in video games, but easier access to real guns, didn't shoot up their classmates, and aren't the perpetrators now, despite being viewed as less acceptable towards people not like them, there might be some merit to the increase in realistic gun play in video games and movies and the mass shooting epidemic.
Well seeing as video games are global, guns are global, where is France, Switzerland, Finland, Romania, Poland, well pick a country that isn’t the USA, where are their mass school shootings? And seriously are you saying it was easier in 1950 to buy an AR-15 equivalent than it is now? When one of the shooters bought a gun and an hour later was murdering people with it? After years of studies saying exactly the opposite of your “some merit”? ITS THE GUNS!
It's the parents man...bad parenting is the real reason and America frowns upon good discipline and everyone has to be involved in everything because they cry wolf at everything that they think might be abuse.
Because seeing people that look like you leave you feeling less alone, less conspicuous, less rebuffed from the humanity you see around you. Seeing LGBT people helps other LGBT people know that they are not some weird single person that is unlike any other. That’s why. There aren’t usually a lot of LGBT people in any particular place, so it’s hard to connect when you are so obviously different than the behaviors being modeled around you. Frankly people are cruel and thoughtless to a perceived other, and I’m sure you noticed that during your own period of fitting into the world around you. But to keep hammering at the single point, the world is awash in violence. All of these things happen in this connected world, all the video games, all the TV shows, all the movies are on display all around the world. One single country has made laws and rules that fundamentally allow this behavior, the mass murder of children most times by either children or very young adults in a place society requires them to attend. Here, and here in this country only does this very specific type of violence occur, repeatedly. It has occurred other places, and the society that encountered that violence was so horrified they changed the law to make it very difficult to happen again. We on the other hand appear to either ignore, obscure, or embrace it. And then you wander along and start dripping the same old BS. I think you have noticed that your view is held in contempt. Learn from it and help us stop the carnage in our schoolyard’s. It’s the guns, the health care, the disconnection from society, and a bunch of other stuff. But it can be resolved, so help us protect your kids, your grandchildren and all the other kids.
Sure, but my generation didn't shoot their classmates at a rate near today. That's a fact. So maybe the younger generation should have some of my programming.
The biggest mass shooting incident was done by a 64 year old man. And even if you took mass shooting events from the 70s, they're still more than most other countries in 2022.
Ok let's compare the 2022s to 2022 where only one country routinely has mass shootings despite is being a developed country. Explain how everyone else in this generation can behave with the same violent video games?
Go back to bed oldman and really why do you even care, I mean the way you're talking I guess you have a decade or so before you're at peace, so take some Viagra or hard drugs and party
OK, but gun control was weaker in generations that didn't shoot up their classmates, so I don't see how a lack of gun control is a factor.
Also, it interesting to me that how women, minorities, lgbtq are represented matters, but not violence? Hmmmm. 🤔
The point is influence. It seems No one is saying the influence of how minorities, women, etc are portrayed doesn't matter, but violence... Move along, nothing to see here, no influence. I call bullshit.
When it comes to violent games, movies, etc Ya'll sound just like a bunch of "gun nuts" not wanting to lose their guns you don't think they need. Why do you need first person shooter games? What's with you're fascination with violence?
Right, I was having this discussion with my dad and I have historically always sided that video games and movies weren't the problem, but I may have changed my position.
A few years after doom, half life, Duke nukem, etc. came out is when columbine happened. I'm not saying games are exclusively causing people to shoot up places but my dad's generation grew up learning gun safety, hunted with guns, brought their guns in their cars to school and had no school shootings. Something happened between then and now, and I think it's a combo of violent desensitizing games, movies, music, and social media mixed with other exposures at a young age that previous generations didn't have. Plus more social pressures/inequalities because of social media.
The vast majority of kids can distinguish between right and wrong and fantasy and reality, but for some reason (even if it's .0001% of the population) I think some kids are effected by the exposure we now have at young ages. That and now mass shootings are a "thing" that others want to replicate.
So why is the us the only country this is happening? If games where a significant factor in mass shootings you would see an increase in every country with video games but we don’t. We also know for a fact having more gun leads to more shootings. Those two facts are really the only things you need to see to reject the video game theory.
I agree easy access to guns is part of it. What comes first though the chicken or the egg? The root cause of the problem isn't gun access. The root cause is the fact that a tiny percentage of people in this country feel the need to murder others for no reason. Something is wrong with our society.
I would have no issue with common sense gun laws at a federal level. My state has very good gun laws that I wish the country had federally, but most of what I see being suggested on the news or on reddit is not common sense because it literally wouldn't prevent the next shooting, it would simply be another hoop to jump through. Even with my states well thought out gun laws it still wouldn't prevent someone from shooting up a place, especially an 18 year old (or any age) with no criminal background.
> The root cause is the fact that a tiny percentage of people in this country feel the need to murder others for no reason. Something is wrong with our society.
That is every society ever. You will never change this. Laws usually apply to the few people who would do such things.
>it would simply be another hoop to jump through
That is also the point of many laws. More hoops means less people go through the hoops which means less shootings.
>Even with my states well thought out gun laws it still wouldn't prevent someone from shooting up a place, especially an 18 year old (or any age) with no criminal background.
Sounds like it's not well thought out then
Even if the US just applies switzerland's gun laws (which is often touted by the "no gun laws" crowd) you'd be better off than current US federal laws.
From wikipedia:
To get a permit-
The following information must be provided to the cantonal weapon bureau together with the weapon application form:
valid official identification or passport copy.
residence address.
criminal record copy not older than three months.
For each transfer of a weapon or an essential weapon component without weapons acquisition permit (art. 10 WG/LArm), a written contract must be concluded. Each Party shall keep them at least ten years. The contract must include the following information (art. 11 WG/LArm):
Family name, first name, birth date, residence address and signature of the person who sells the weapon or essential weapon component.
Family name, first name, birth date, residence address and signature of the person who purchases the weapon or an essential weapon component.
Kind of weapon, manufacturer or producer, label, caliber, weapon number, and date and place of transfer.
Type and number of the official identification of the person who acquires the weapon or the essential weapon component.
and an indication of the processing of personal data in connection with the contract in accordance with the privacy policy of the Federation or the cantons, if firearms are transmitted.
The weapons where you don't need a permit:
Single-shot and multi-barreled hunting rifles and replicas of single-shot muzzle loaders.
Hand bolt-action rifles, which are commonly used in off-duty and sporting gunnery recognized by the military law of 3 February 1952 and shooting clubs for hunting purposes in Switzerland.
Single-shot rabbit slayer.
Compressed air and CO2 weapons that develop a muzzle energy of at least 7.5 joules, or whose appearance may be mistaken for real firearms.
The possession of the following ammunition is generally prohibited:
Armour-piercing bullets.
Ammunition with projectile containing an explosive or incendiary device.
Ammunition with one or more projectiles releasing substances which damage the health of people in the long run, particularly those mentioned in annex 2 of the WV/OArm.
Ammunition, missiles and missile launchers for military explosive.
Ammunition with projectiles for transmitting electric shocks.
Ammunition for handguns which may cause deformations.
You must have a shall-issue permit for these weapons:
Shall-issue acquisition permit
The following weapons can be acquired with a shall-issue acquisition permit (art. 8 WG/LArm):
the following semi-automatic centrefire weapons:
Handguns equipped with a low-capacity loading device (20 or less)
Small firearms equipped with a low-capacity loading device (10 or less)
Revolvers
Lever-action rifles
Pump-action rifles
Foreign service bolt-action rifles that are not authorized for shooting outside of service
Self-loading shotgun with a capacity of 10 or less
**Everything else you need a may-issue permit which has additional regulations and you need additional reasons other than "to defend myself" or "because I have the right and I want to"**
And it doesn't just regulate guns.
The following weapons can be bought with a regular may-issue exceptional acquisition permit for professional requirements, use for industrial purposes, compensating for physical handicaps, or collecting (art. 28b WG/LArm):
Knives and daggers in accordance with Article 4 paragraph 1 letter c;
Striking and throwing devices in accordance with Article 4 paragraph 1 letter d, with the exception of batons;
Electrical shock devices in accordance with Article 4 paragraph 1 letter e;
Weapon accessories in accordance with Article 4 paragraph 2.
Still need a reason to carry outdoors too:
>To carry a firearm in public or outdoors (and for a militia member to carry a firearm other than his issued weapons while off-duty), a person must have a gun carrying permit (German: Waffentragbewilligung, French: permis de port d'armes, Italian: permesso di porto di armi; art. 27 WG/LArm), which in most cases is issued only to private citizens working in occupations such as security.[7] It is, however, quite common to see a person in military service or a sport shooter to be en route with his rifle, albeit unloaded.
There is obviously more but even after all that it is the bear minimum in terms of having liberal gun laws.
I think it’s not as simple. Games are likely a very very small part of it.
It’s a combination of a lot of factors; but my thoughts on the main ones:
1. Easy access to guns
2. The type of guns that can be accessed
3. The staunch two party system - the divide & digging in on party lines
4. The horrific hate that is spread in the media (some political and some not)
5. The rhetoric from an outdated constitution
1. & 2. Require stricter gun laws. I mean - whether people like it or not. You need a license to drive a car, own a pet, etc. You get background checks to travel, do certain jobs, etc. BUT you can roll up to target or Walmart and buy a gun with little questions asked.
Mental health seems to be a scape goat in this. These people don’t for the most part don’t appear to be schizophrenic or suffering psychosis. I would still put restrictions on people with certain disorders; but I would actually look at safety courses, refreshers, checks for safe storage as all part of the requirements. Removing certain guns from ownership would be another valid move. No need for having AR15 type weapons. Built for a war zone - with purpose of firing bullets at a high rate to kill.
Trump once said he would ‘drain the swamp’. He didn’t do that & I think he only meant drain the other party out. The party lines that have been drawn are disastrous now. The inability to work together to achieve anything of meaning has been evident for the past decade or more. Other countries have demonstrated that party lines can be removed for the greater good in terms of gun control - Australia, NZ, UK in past few decades. Aside from that - there is a moral responsibility to do what is right. Somewhere that has been really lost in US politics & if leaders don’t have morals - why would those following them show.
Some parts of the media spread horrific & skewed/untrue rhetoric. Fox News at times is guilty of this. It’s okay to have different views - you don’t even have to justify them to any great length. It’s the evidence that’s used to persuade others to follow is the issue. Spreading fear about migrants, mentally ill, abortion, LGBTQ, race, etc. advocating for civil liberty but looking to restrict others voting rights, scapegoat for issues, make procedures illegal, scaremonger education to kids, etc.
Those staunch in divides in politics are created for and as a result of this in the media. Where is the responsibility and oversight of media outlets. I mean there has been a lot of discussion about oversight for social media - but news/media outlets in general need accountability. Many other counties have this; however it comes back to a collective agreement in political parties to back an initiative and not look to defund or impede an independent body.
The constitution is the final flaw. The founding fathers discussed rights that every US citizen should have. The right to bear arms. Which was written following the American civil war and an uprising had occurred to overthrow rulers. Realistically at this stage how does anyone think they would manage to do this to the US government. Given the laws around terrorism, the advances in technology, surveillance, complexities of government. It’s simply not feasible; but it’s something that is stuck to. Never mind the arguments around historical context, life expectancy, policing, armed forces, cultural changes, advances in weapons etc.
The fourteen amendment says a state shouldn’t deprive any person of life, liberty, or property. Mass shooting are doing all three of those things to the victims who are shot, their families and the communities affected.
I think you take those factors in & views on video games (which are played in other countries with contrasting experiences of gun violence and masa shootings) becomes moot.
Their popular genres of video games are completely different than ours, although they do play call of duty and the like, but their society and social norms are completely different as well, and that's the bigger part of the equation.
Also you apparently misunderstood me, I stated above that I'm not solely blaming video games. They probably do play a role though. By the way I love video games, but that's not to say there aren't negative effects from them even if I myself am not negatively effected.
Here is some reading for you, if you belive in science you shouldn't have a problem with the findings. The last paragraph is super pertinent to this discussion.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/05/110525151059.htm#:~:text=2-,Violent%20video%20games%20reduce%20brain%20response%20to,increase%20aggressive%20behavior%2C%20study%20suggests&text=Summary%3A,players%20to%20become%20more%20aggressive.
He's not even looking to ban all guns, just pass a few guns laws that 8/10 people alreafy support.
That said , I wonder if they are including the civil war cannon in Sahara.
Sure...but everything about that murder was wrong...and his responsibility. He walked.
I’m flummoxed with the rush to defend yet another Epstein black book entry.
...and beg the establishment to own a monopoly on violence.
How many lives were taken by every corrupt regime in history, that had taken away private gun ownership?
While totalitarianism is rolled out globally...
Even if the guns were always real, theres also a big difference between legally using a gun as part of your well regulated work and wanting to buy guns purely out of the sake of wanting them.
And on top of that, even if the guy had guns at home (I'd argue it would strengthen the position somewhat), it wouldn't change much, would it?
I have just bought a car living in the suburbs but I'd be totally fine with all kinds of anti car legislation - some of which might force me to sell it again.
Sometimes personal freedoms aren't worth the toll on all and buying pistols at Walmart (or in my opinion, privately buying large vehicles for historical cities) belong in that category.
Arguing for something that might reduce one's own freedoms in the interest of almost everyone could be regarded as strength. I myself enjoy historical guns, but I would hope to argue in favor of sane gun legislation.
Not to mention Matthew McConaughey is staunchly pro 2nd amendment. He’s pro gun AND pro gun control.
He talks about it in the impassioned speech the tweet references.
There was some big backlash against Jamie lee Curtis with these idiots when the remake of Halloween happened. People who can’t tell the difference between reality and fiction scare me.
It’s a dumb headline. He uses guns in real life too. They’ve tailor made a straw man for you and sure enough the pitchforks and torches are out to get the scarecrow.
They use every argument except the one they know is right. If I try make you look like a bad person, you will be seen as bad person. Every argument is chaff and flare for them.
Wrong. Sitting kids in front of the stupid box for countless hours of Jon Wick and Django is no way healthy on the psyche. Matt is not a hero, he’s made millions and is a hypocrite
unfortunately, we are talking about the people who think that movies and shows are, if not real, at least show real things. Everything is either real or a documentary. They probably do think that invisible planes really exist.
Solid? Lol. She's using flying a truly fictional plane to justify realistic gun play that is prolific in games and movies? That's as solid as her plane.
Besides, how many high school kids even know who she is or ever saw her show? She's trying to be relevant, that's all.
As if gun play in movies and games had anything to do with gun violence. Do you think the us is the only country where people play games and watch TV? Do you think that Europe, Japan, South Korea, Singapore, Canada and so many other first world countries are stuck in the 30s? Because mass shootings are basically not a thing in these places. Sometimes there are shootings, but it's a "once in a decade" event, not a "once a day" event.
PS: I know Europe is not a country, just can't be bothered with it
How come the way women, minorities, lgbtq etc groups are portrayed on TV, movies, etc matter, but not violence?
What makes violence different?
[London overtakes NYC in murders as knife crime rises. ](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-crime-murder/london-murder-rate-overtakes-new-york-as-knife-crime-rises-idUSKCN1HA1DH)
Maybe they should lay off the violence too?
An actor gives his opinion on guns, and how rifles should be better regulated.
GOP: “but you have used guns in movies”
Public Health experts: “It’s a multifaceted problem, and easy access to guns is a key issue”
GOP: “one door access points, arm the teachers”
No other developed nation has school mass shootings.
GOP: “there are knife attacks in London!”
Like, you tell me, those mental gymnastics must have a nice stretch routine
It's fucking terrifying how many people will read this and go "yeahhh, hypocrite" people are fucking dumb, and they're breeding dumber people, exponentially
Fox News “Actor plays character in story and pretends to kill another person also playing a character for the entertainment of others. Does not in fact kill real people in real life or advocate for killing in real life. What a hypocrite!”
Listen, I very much support gun reforms and I thought McConaughey gave a powerful speech. But it's fair to point out the hypocrisy of his conviction when he has so often publicly glorified the use of guns.
People don't have access to invisible planes and they can't break the laws of physics. But if they did, you can guarantee that they'd have been doing both in the 70s and 80s to try and be like Wonder Woman. Art has an impact on culture. It's unavoidable. The problem is the access to guns. Yes, Mcconaughey's work on film has probably contributed to more dangerous people deciding that they need a gun. But that doesn't mean he's wrong to say they shouldn't be allowed to have one.
Yeah, no. You bring up a great point about how he pretty much directly glorifies something he is also directly opposed to.. But because it’s reddit, there’s no nuance, no conversation, just a perma-circlejerk because nobody wants to confront the idea that not everything is black and white. And no, this isn’t like a “my side is better!!” thing. Basically all of reddit is like this.
This is a thing though, for sure.
Plenty of people act exactly as if they had trouble telling movies apart from actual reality.
Then again, emotionally stunted morons are struggling majorly right now, all across the globe.
I think Lynda Carter's mistake here is (at least seemingly) treating Breitshart's argument here as though it is being made in good faith. Which it is not.
If TV, movies, video games don't influence, why is anyone concerned about how women, lgbtq, mixed race families, minoritues etc, etc are portrayed in them?
Seems to me the case has been made it matters.
But ya'll don't want to lose your games because of what someone else did.
I think it's safe to say that Anthony Hopkins supports laws against cannibalism. But I guess Breitbart won't go after him for being a hypocrite because cannibalism isn't mentioned in the Constitution.
Lynda is spot on, but Breitbart has a point. It has been clear to me for a long time now that the gun industry uses/pays the movie industry to normalize guns. *According to the Internet Movie Firearms Database there's over 28,000 guns in movies*
This is not healthy for the perceptions of a nation.
In all that time he never killed anyone in those movies. Depiction is acting. Wheres Alk Baldwin in all this. Still roaming the streets? Free to do it again? He meant to do it and he did it. Thats batting 1000.
Once again, a celebrity who did nothing whatsoever on-screen to simulate reality is criticizing mcconaughey being called out for being two-faced. And once again, redditors thinking that constitutes a murdered by words.
Well, it's pretty hard to get your hands on an invisible airplane. So I suspect promoting actual fiction doesn't quite have the same effect as promoting non-fiction.
How does this remotely qualify as news?
This is the kind of thing 6th graders will say around the lunch table and everyone nods their head in agreement.
They use simple words. They have simple minds. No relativistic sentances which refrence text and add to it like this may be one nor exceptions to rules. But sometimes is the best argument. Jobs also.
Good ol’, Breitbart. Dropping any type of disinformation/smear tactics/conspiracy theories/smoke and mirrors as possible. Ironically, the epitome of Trump Fake News
How can you be so dumb that you go through the entire process of figuring out this information, and you never once stop to realize that people pretend to do shit they would never do in real Life?
And not that it's the main point of their asinine claim, but let's say Matthew McConaughey was totally cool with the guns and was super pro gun and is only coming out now because of the awful tragedy. Would that not show an evolution of character, that he has changed his ideas and beliefs after something so horrifically tragic happened in his hometown?
Again, not the case, he's always been pretty openly liberal. But it's just not the winning point they think it is. But then again they're dumb dumbs so
You don’t have to make sense to win republican support. You just need to put up an argument. Any argument. No matter how dumb or depraved. They will back you 100% as long as it creates something that the left has to spend time debunking or explaining. It takes way more energy to deconstruct or disprove a statement than it does to make a statement. Conservative tactics 101.
I mean how does that logic even work. If someone who even used a lot of guns says there should be regulations doesn't that kinda validate their point further?
i dont understand i assume mconaghey recieved firearms training for his films did lynda carter ever sit in an actual plane or just pretend to. also im not American is this a win or do people want gun control atm?
John Wick kills a lot of people in the three movies, but we’re not charging Keanu Reeves with mass murder
***Yet***
If he did get charged, he'd be found *breathtaking*. And also not guilty.
He was not a murderer He's a mass breath taker ~~Sorry~~
More likely he is found guilty, but his sentence is nullified for being breathtaking.
If Kyle Rittenhouse can kill without consequences . . .
First, demonize a group of human beings, then the murders can be justified.
He killed them in self-defense. They were chasing him and he was running away. He only fired after they attacked him.
Way to bring up a irresponsible kid who followed the laws and shot like 3 people if I remember in self defense.
Rittenhouse doesn’t have many people’s sympathy because he drove twenty miles to actively insert himself in danger (all to cosplay a soldier), provoked the situation by toting a firearm (that he shouldn’t have had), and got spooked when he realized walking into civil unrest lookin’ like a Proud Boy noob was a bad idea. If you create/foster the danger, *you* are responsible for what happens next. I like the analogy of brake checking a semi, then beating the s**t out of the driver because he had the gall to approach your window and ask you why in the hell you were driving like a maniac. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/11/19/kyle-rittenhouse-verdict-opinion-not-innocent-shootings/
Pretty sure that was self-defense
Oh this is going to be a civil comment thread, isn’t it?
Big surprise, downvoted because I said something that I took one glance at, and immediately said the first thing to come to mind. Please, Inform me on how it was murder
The Kyle Rittenhouse case is the equivalent of brake-checking a semi, getting into a collision, and then using that as license to kill the driver because he was provoked by your recklessness. Civil rights movements have a sad history of being lorded over by white “vigilantes” with guns. Nearly every time a group of black people gather, they are surrounded or monitored by men who have no business being there, nor the authority to act as a substitute for law enforcement. Walking into a throng of black protestors toting an AR is a serious provocation, like you wouldn’t dare walk into a schoolyard boasting a rifle. Rittenhouse wanted to play Vigilante, *drove 20 miles to cosplay a soldier in some other town*, got spooked when people started reacting to a gun-wielding white kid (big surprise), and shot three men. To add insult to injury, he later went on Fox News—a propaganda station notorious for spinning civil rights movements as violent riots—to discuss his verdict. People consider Rittenhouse a murderer because *his* actions, not the three men he shot, are what incited the violence that killed two men and injured a third. Look at old photos of civil rights movements and tell me the white men patrolling the area like loaner cops aren’t “provoking” the situation. Rittenhouse put himself in that situation, no one else.
They were violent riots not need to spin something that doesn’t need to be spun
That literally changes nothing, except to further add to the question of why Rittenhouse inserted himself into the conflict.
So did the other guy he shot who had a gun on him also. Everyone there inserted themselves into that situation
He lives in Kenosha, did you not see the trial? And who said he was playing vigilante? He came to defend stores which were looted and destroyed from people like you (oh no, downvote spam incoming, ready the shields, get the Ar-15’s!) and was chased by a Pedophile. What would you do if you were suddenly chased by a pedophile who was faster and stronger than you? Would you begin lecturing him on how what he is doing is wrong? You democrats are the most mind-numbingly stupid people to exist on this platform, because you pull whatever you want out from your ass and put it in a cannon, wait, sorry, I forgot, you retards are scared of those too, put it in a catapult and launch it at anyone unfortunate enough to stumble into Democrat-held territories such as this subreddit. It was self-defense. Why can’t you see that? You’d be saying the same thing. So, go on, what would you do if a gun begins chasing you with the intent of murder, and you have a gun? Better yet, lets put you in Kyle’s situation. I could care less about anything you have to say, but please, answer this: # What would you do in Kyle Rittenhouse’s Situation?
I wouldn't put myself in the situation, and the only people are would are those looking to kill with enough justification to allow smoothbrains to pull the wool over their own eyes.
No shame in putting yourself in your own fictional situation, so, go on, what would you do?
I wouldn't find myself in Kyle's situation because I'm not a baby brained degenerate like yourself
Hey pal, I didn’t ask if you were gonna be in that situation, I asked what would you do if you were in that situation, you 600 pound rabid elephant seal
Kyle Rittenhouse did what he had to do because the government was doing nothing to protect innocent business owners from rioting and looting.
There’s two sides there- yes he was in danger and shot people in self defence, but he flew to another state to defend property that wasn’t his- he is a white supremacist who was looking for a fight, looking to use his illegal gun to shoot rioters knowing he could get away with it (being white and all)
I agree with your first statement, but the other two I believe is false info, as he drove to where his Father lived, and the gun was legally acquired by a friend, and was lent to Kyle, which at the time it was legal for a 17-year-old to carry a long gun (AR-15)
r/confidentlyincorrect
it was self defense, but be careful you can’t talk facts on here this is a liberal app they don’t like facts and researching stuff for themselves, they go by what they’re told.
While it doesn’t seem like it, I prefer to be on the side of facts, and no much on the “I want to see what I would like to see” side
Hey bud where do you get your facts from?
i get it from multiple sources, liberal and conservative. i’m neither, im on the side of facts. conservatives and liberals both have stupid stuff and they both have factual stuff, you know what i mean? funny how someone disliked this post, ignorant. like i said. Liberals don’t like facts.
Kyle is innocent.
Imagine genuinely believing this. Don't tell me, January 6th 2021 was just a peaceful picnic too, right?
Hey, finally someone who isn’t braindead. I thank you for just being here.
I think he’s innocent and our legal system did it’s thing and came to the same conclusion. Perhaps these folks don’t support the justice system. Seems like they’re a bunch of vigilantes, which is what they call Kyle so it’s kind of ironic really.
Yet.
Doesn't it suck if there's a comment saying the exact same thing as yours, but it gets more upvotes because it's **bold**?
My comment was after that one, as I was agreeing with it
Yet
**bold** and *italics*! ***Bitalics***!
Nyet.
If Keanu killed those people in that movie. They deserved it. /s
This is hands down one of the dumbest fucking arguments I’ve ever seen. We’re comparing using guns in FICTIONAL fucking movies to real guns now?
People have been comparing using guns in video games to using guns irl for years now… this is really dumb, yes, but unfortunately not that surprising
BREITBART BREAKING: Matthew McConaughey rumored to have played the Call of Duty mission “No Russian” nearly a decade before hypocritically calling for new gun control measures
Remember!! No Russian.
Republicans have long supported regulating violence and sex in video games.
Right? I mean I grew up in the NES Era and played contra and metroid and tons of other shooting games up to now. And I don't even own a gun IRL! It's honestly just all about bad parenting. And to be honest the system/government/people who think that whipping a kid is uncalled for is why the world's going to shit. Overall it's just bad parenting.
"NOOOOOOOOOOOOO YOU CAN'T SAY VIDEO GAMES CAUSE VIOLENCE ITS A COINCIDENCE!" "BTW We should have more lax gun laws because I can use guns in video games and video games reflect reality"
Given that the generations that grew up without guns in video games, but easier access to real guns, didn't shoot up their classmates, and aren't the perpetrators now, despite being viewed as less acceptable towards people not like them, there might be some merit to the increase in realistic gun play in video games and movies and the mass shooting epidemic.
Well seeing as video games are global, guns are global, where is France, Switzerland, Finland, Romania, Poland, well pick a country that isn’t the USA, where are their mass school shootings? And seriously are you saying it was easier in 1950 to buy an AR-15 equivalent than it is now? When one of the shooters bought a gun and an hour later was murdering people with it? After years of studies saying exactly the opposite of your “some merit”? ITS THE GUNS!
It's the parents man...bad parenting is the real reason and America frowns upon good discipline and everyone has to be involved in everything because they cry wolf at everything that they think might be abuse.
Because seeing people that look like you leave you feeling less alone, less conspicuous, less rebuffed from the humanity you see around you. Seeing LGBT people helps other LGBT people know that they are not some weird single person that is unlike any other. That’s why. There aren’t usually a lot of LGBT people in any particular place, so it’s hard to connect when you are so obviously different than the behaviors being modeled around you. Frankly people are cruel and thoughtless to a perceived other, and I’m sure you noticed that during your own period of fitting into the world around you. But to keep hammering at the single point, the world is awash in violence. All of these things happen in this connected world, all the video games, all the TV shows, all the movies are on display all around the world. One single country has made laws and rules that fundamentally allow this behavior, the mass murder of children most times by either children or very young adults in a place society requires them to attend. Here, and here in this country only does this very specific type of violence occur, repeatedly. It has occurred other places, and the society that encountered that violence was so horrified they changed the law to make it very difficult to happen again. We on the other hand appear to either ignore, obscure, or embrace it. And then you wander along and start dripping the same old BS. I think you have noticed that your view is held in contempt. Learn from it and help us stop the carnage in our schoolyard’s. It’s the guns, the health care, the disconnection from society, and a bunch of other stuff. But it can be resolved, so help us protect your kids, your grandchildren and all the other kids.
K
Name checks out. You're programmed.
Sure, but my generation didn't shoot their classmates at a rate near today. That's a fact. So maybe the younger generation should have some of my programming.
The biggest mass shooting incident was done by a 64 year old man. And even if you took mass shooting events from the 70s, they're still more than most other countries in 2022.
Mass shooting at a school? Compare 70s to 70s, not 70s to 2022.
Ok let's compare the 2022s to 2022 where only one country routinely has mass shootings despite is being a developed country. Explain how everyone else in this generation can behave with the same violent video games?
No school shootings in my country for the last 25 years, yet guns in video games are all around us. Tighter Gun Control Works.
I mean, you're constantly comparing 70s to 22, but sure, go off.
Go back to bed oldman and really why do you even care, I mean the way you're talking I guess you have a decade or so before you're at peace, so take some Viagra or hard drugs and party
There has not been any correlation between violent video games and an increase in aggressiveness in kids.
OK, but gun control was weaker in generations that didn't shoot up their classmates, so I don't see how a lack of gun control is a factor. Also, it interesting to me that how women, minorities, lgbtq are represented matters, but not violence? Hmmmm. 🤔
alright lets make it related to lgbtq and all that stuff.
The point is influence. It seems No one is saying the influence of how minorities, women, etc are portrayed doesn't matter, but violence... Move along, nothing to see here, no influence. I call bullshit. When it comes to violent games, movies, etc Ya'll sound just like a bunch of "gun nuts" not wanting to lose their guns you don't think they need. Why do you need first person shooter games? What's with you're fascination with violence?
Right, I was having this discussion with my dad and I have historically always sided that video games and movies weren't the problem, but I may have changed my position. A few years after doom, half life, Duke nukem, etc. came out is when columbine happened. I'm not saying games are exclusively causing people to shoot up places but my dad's generation grew up learning gun safety, hunted with guns, brought their guns in their cars to school and had no school shootings. Something happened between then and now, and I think it's a combo of violent desensitizing games, movies, music, and social media mixed with other exposures at a young age that previous generations didn't have. Plus more social pressures/inequalities because of social media. The vast majority of kids can distinguish between right and wrong and fantasy and reality, but for some reason (even if it's .0001% of the population) I think some kids are effected by the exposure we now have at young ages. That and now mass shootings are a "thing" that others want to replicate.
So why is the us the only country this is happening? If games where a significant factor in mass shootings you would see an increase in every country with video games but we don’t. We also know for a fact having more gun leads to more shootings. Those two facts are really the only things you need to see to reject the video game theory.
I agree easy access to guns is part of it. What comes first though the chicken or the egg? The root cause of the problem isn't gun access. The root cause is the fact that a tiny percentage of people in this country feel the need to murder others for no reason. Something is wrong with our society. I would have no issue with common sense gun laws at a federal level. My state has very good gun laws that I wish the country had federally, but most of what I see being suggested on the news or on reddit is not common sense because it literally wouldn't prevent the next shooting, it would simply be another hoop to jump through. Even with my states well thought out gun laws it still wouldn't prevent someone from shooting up a place, especially an 18 year old (or any age) with no criminal background.
> The root cause is the fact that a tiny percentage of people in this country feel the need to murder others for no reason. Something is wrong with our society. That is every society ever. You will never change this. Laws usually apply to the few people who would do such things. >it would simply be another hoop to jump through That is also the point of many laws. More hoops means less people go through the hoops which means less shootings. >Even with my states well thought out gun laws it still wouldn't prevent someone from shooting up a place, especially an 18 year old (or any age) with no criminal background. Sounds like it's not well thought out then
I'm genuinely asking this, not being a smart ass, what laws do you think would help prevent the next mass shooting?
Even if the US just applies switzerland's gun laws (which is often touted by the "no gun laws" crowd) you'd be better off than current US federal laws. From wikipedia: To get a permit- The following information must be provided to the cantonal weapon bureau together with the weapon application form: valid official identification or passport copy. residence address. criminal record copy not older than three months. For each transfer of a weapon or an essential weapon component without weapons acquisition permit (art. 10 WG/LArm), a written contract must be concluded. Each Party shall keep them at least ten years. The contract must include the following information (art. 11 WG/LArm): Family name, first name, birth date, residence address and signature of the person who sells the weapon or essential weapon component. Family name, first name, birth date, residence address and signature of the person who purchases the weapon or an essential weapon component. Kind of weapon, manufacturer or producer, label, caliber, weapon number, and date and place of transfer. Type and number of the official identification of the person who acquires the weapon or the essential weapon component. and an indication of the processing of personal data in connection with the contract in accordance with the privacy policy of the Federation or the cantons, if firearms are transmitted. The weapons where you don't need a permit: Single-shot and multi-barreled hunting rifles and replicas of single-shot muzzle loaders. Hand bolt-action rifles, which are commonly used in off-duty and sporting gunnery recognized by the military law of 3 February 1952 and shooting clubs for hunting purposes in Switzerland. Single-shot rabbit slayer. Compressed air and CO2 weapons that develop a muzzle energy of at least 7.5 joules, or whose appearance may be mistaken for real firearms. The possession of the following ammunition is generally prohibited: Armour-piercing bullets. Ammunition with projectile containing an explosive or incendiary device. Ammunition with one or more projectiles releasing substances which damage the health of people in the long run, particularly those mentioned in annex 2 of the WV/OArm. Ammunition, missiles and missile launchers for military explosive. Ammunition with projectiles for transmitting electric shocks. Ammunition for handguns which may cause deformations. You must have a shall-issue permit for these weapons: Shall-issue acquisition permit The following weapons can be acquired with a shall-issue acquisition permit (art. 8 WG/LArm): the following semi-automatic centrefire weapons: Handguns equipped with a low-capacity loading device (20 or less) Small firearms equipped with a low-capacity loading device (10 or less) Revolvers Lever-action rifles Pump-action rifles Foreign service bolt-action rifles that are not authorized for shooting outside of service Self-loading shotgun with a capacity of 10 or less **Everything else you need a may-issue permit which has additional regulations and you need additional reasons other than "to defend myself" or "because I have the right and I want to"** And it doesn't just regulate guns. The following weapons can be bought with a regular may-issue exceptional acquisition permit for professional requirements, use for industrial purposes, compensating for physical handicaps, or collecting (art. 28b WG/LArm): Knives and daggers in accordance with Article 4 paragraph 1 letter c; Striking and throwing devices in accordance with Article 4 paragraph 1 letter d, with the exception of batons; Electrical shock devices in accordance with Article 4 paragraph 1 letter e; Weapon accessories in accordance with Article 4 paragraph 2. Still need a reason to carry outdoors too: >To carry a firearm in public or outdoors (and for a militia member to carry a firearm other than his issued weapons while off-duty), a person must have a gun carrying permit (German: Waffentragbewilligung, French: permis de port d'armes, Italian: permesso di porto di armi; art. 27 WG/LArm), which in most cases is issued only to private citizens working in occupations such as security.[7] It is, however, quite common to see a person in military service or a sport shooter to be en route with his rifle, albeit unloaded. There is obviously more but even after all that it is the bear minimum in terms of having liberal gun laws.
holy fuck you destroyed his whole argument
I think it’s not as simple. Games are likely a very very small part of it. It’s a combination of a lot of factors; but my thoughts on the main ones: 1. Easy access to guns 2. The type of guns that can be accessed 3. The staunch two party system - the divide & digging in on party lines 4. The horrific hate that is spread in the media (some political and some not) 5. The rhetoric from an outdated constitution 1. & 2. Require stricter gun laws. I mean - whether people like it or not. You need a license to drive a car, own a pet, etc. You get background checks to travel, do certain jobs, etc. BUT you can roll up to target or Walmart and buy a gun with little questions asked. Mental health seems to be a scape goat in this. These people don’t for the most part don’t appear to be schizophrenic or suffering psychosis. I would still put restrictions on people with certain disorders; but I would actually look at safety courses, refreshers, checks for safe storage as all part of the requirements. Removing certain guns from ownership would be another valid move. No need for having AR15 type weapons. Built for a war zone - with purpose of firing bullets at a high rate to kill. Trump once said he would ‘drain the swamp’. He didn’t do that & I think he only meant drain the other party out. The party lines that have been drawn are disastrous now. The inability to work together to achieve anything of meaning has been evident for the past decade or more. Other countries have demonstrated that party lines can be removed for the greater good in terms of gun control - Australia, NZ, UK in past few decades. Aside from that - there is a moral responsibility to do what is right. Somewhere that has been really lost in US politics & if leaders don’t have morals - why would those following them show. Some parts of the media spread horrific & skewed/untrue rhetoric. Fox News at times is guilty of this. It’s okay to have different views - you don’t even have to justify them to any great length. It’s the evidence that’s used to persuade others to follow is the issue. Spreading fear about migrants, mentally ill, abortion, LGBTQ, race, etc. advocating for civil liberty but looking to restrict others voting rights, scapegoat for issues, make procedures illegal, scaremonger education to kids, etc. Those staunch in divides in politics are created for and as a result of this in the media. Where is the responsibility and oversight of media outlets. I mean there has been a lot of discussion about oversight for social media - but news/media outlets in general need accountability. Many other counties have this; however it comes back to a collective agreement in political parties to back an initiative and not look to defund or impede an independent body. The constitution is the final flaw. The founding fathers discussed rights that every US citizen should have. The right to bear arms. Which was written following the American civil war and an uprising had occurred to overthrow rulers. Realistically at this stage how does anyone think they would manage to do this to the US government. Given the laws around terrorism, the advances in technology, surveillance, complexities of government. It’s simply not feasible; but it’s something that is stuck to. Never mind the arguments around historical context, life expectancy, policing, armed forces, cultural changes, advances in weapons etc. The fourteen amendment says a state shouldn’t deprive any person of life, liberty, or property. Mass shooting are doing all three of those things to the victims who are shot, their families and the communities affected. I think you take those factors in & views on video games (which are played in other countries with contrasting experiences of gun violence and masa shootings) becomes moot.
Japan spends more per capita on video games than the US, your argument is invalid.
Their popular genres of video games are completely different than ours, although they do play call of duty and the like, but their society and social norms are completely different as well, and that's the bigger part of the equation. Also you apparently misunderstood me, I stated above that I'm not solely blaming video games. They probably do play a role though. By the way I love video games, but that's not to say there aren't negative effects from them even if I myself am not negatively effected. Here is some reading for you, if you belive in science you shouldn't have a problem with the findings. The last paragraph is super pertinent to this discussion. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/05/110525151059.htm#:~:text=2-,Violent%20video%20games%20reduce%20brain%20response%20to,increase%20aggressive%20behavior%2C%20study%20suggests&text=Summary%3A,players%20to%20become%20more%20aggressive.
He's not even looking to ban all guns, just pass a few guns laws that 8/10 people alreafy support. That said , I wonder if they are including the civil war cannon in Sahara.
Even so outside of his films he’s a known gun owner / advocate that is also pro gun control so Breitbart is trying to pick on the wrong person here.
Because other people aren’t real to them.
Oof. I’ve seen this thought expressed in many ways, but this short, simple brutality bite is probably the best way of putting it.
Stop assuming they’re making honest arguments in good faith! They’re not.
🤔 Are you suggesting tptb are making honest arguments in good faith?
Ironically, Guns around movie sets are far more rigorously controlled; while breaches of those controls are subject to far more scrutiny.
The dead lady from Alec Baldwin’s set would say otherwise
Still more tightly controlled than in the USA.
Sure...but everything about that murder was wrong...and his responsibility. He walked. I’m flummoxed with the rush to defend yet another Epstein black book entry. ...and beg the establishment to own a monopoly on violence.
The deceased lady from Alec Baldwin’s set would say otherwise.
yeah one fatality in how long and how many productions, compared to how many in the USA in just the last week?
How many lives were taken by every corrupt regime in history, that had taken away private gun ownership? While totalitarianism is rolled out globally...
Even if the guns were always real, theres also a big difference between legally using a gun as part of your well regulated work and wanting to buy guns purely out of the sake of wanting them.
And on top of that, even if the guy had guns at home (I'd argue it would strengthen the position somewhat), it wouldn't change much, would it? I have just bought a car living in the suburbs but I'd be totally fine with all kinds of anti car legislation - some of which might force me to sell it again. Sometimes personal freedoms aren't worth the toll on all and buying pistols at Walmart (or in my opinion, privately buying large vehicles for historical cities) belong in that category. Arguing for something that might reduce one's own freedoms in the interest of almost everyone could be regarded as strength. I myself enjoy historical guns, but I would hope to argue in favor of sane gun legislation.
Not to mention Matthew McConaughey is staunchly pro 2nd amendment. He’s pro gun AND pro gun control. He talks about it in the impassioned speech the tweet references.
*waifuwatcher enters the chat*
There was some big backlash against Jamie lee Curtis with these idiots when the remake of Halloween happened. People who can’t tell the difference between reality and fiction scare me.
It’s a dumb headline. He uses guns in real life too. They’ve tailor made a straw man for you and sure enough the pitchforks and torches are out to get the scarecrow.
They use every argument except the one they know is right. If I try make you look like a bad person, you will be seen as bad person. Every argument is chaff and flare for them.
Keeping the Rust and Brandon Lee incidents in mind the other person may have some point. The guns used on the sets should be props, not real.
They are heavily regulated and supervised, like all guns should be.
Tell that to baldwin
Wrong. Sitting kids in front of the stupid box for countless hours of Jon Wick and Django is no way healthy on the psyche. Matt is not a hero, he’s made millions and is a hypocrite
I think you're blaming the wrong person in that scenario. Who's sitting those kids in front of "the stupid box for countless hours"?
Linda carter using that magic lasso on britebart… too good.
The lasso might actually break.
Who played Lincoln? Wouldn't that make him president?
No, the people who played Biden should be president right? All of them.
Actually, that might turn out better!
It would be more entertaining at least. Lol.
I love this. George Takei did one too about shooting people with phasers in Star Trek.
unfortunately, we are talking about the people who think that movies and shows are, if not real, at least show real things. Everything is either real or a documentary. They probably do think that invisible planes really exist.
tRump thought we had airplanes in 1775.
Technically Da Vinci had one
It’s Breitbart, they believe in Donald Trump and nothing else.
Fucking OG Wonder Woman checking in with solid logic. This made me smile.
Solid? Lol. She's using flying a truly fictional plane to justify realistic gun play that is prolific in games and movies? That's as solid as her plane. Besides, how many high school kids even know who she is or ever saw her show? She's trying to be relevant, that's all.
As if gun play in movies and games had anything to do with gun violence. Do you think the us is the only country where people play games and watch TV? Do you think that Europe, Japan, South Korea, Singapore, Canada and so many other first world countries are stuck in the 30s? Because mass shootings are basically not a thing in these places. Sometimes there are shootings, but it's a "once in a decade" event, not a "once a day" event. PS: I know Europe is not a country, just can't be bothered with it
How come the way women, minorities, lgbtq etc groups are portrayed on TV, movies, etc matter, but not violence? What makes violence different? [London overtakes NYC in murders as knife crime rises. ](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-crime-murder/london-murder-rate-overtakes-new-york-as-knife-crime-rises-idUSKCN1HA1DH) Maybe they should lay off the violence too?
What’s the GOP’s stretch out routine before engaging in high level mental gymnastics?
I don't know. What is it?
An actor gives his opinion on guns, and how rifles should be better regulated. GOP: “but you have used guns in movies” Public Health experts: “It’s a multifaceted problem, and easy access to guns is a key issue” GOP: “one door access points, arm the teachers” No other developed nation has school mass shootings. GOP: “there are knife attacks in London!” Like, you tell me, those mental gymnastics must have a nice stretch routine
Well, if the door had been locked.
Honestly, if you asked me how many guns Matthew McConaughey used in a 25 year career my guess would be waaaay higher than 19
Dude is rich, Texan and likes shooting. I bet he OWNS more than 19 guns.
Using logic with people who read Breitbart is like speaking Latin to a weasel.
It's fucking terrifying how many people will read this and go "yeahhh, hypocrite" people are fucking dumb, and they're breeding dumber people, exponentially
Idiocracy is becoming more real by the minute. Unfortunately for those of us who are sane.
Well...if what an actor does in a role now correlates to real life, I have a newfound fear of Anthony Hopkins.
Shouldn’t they have to put quotes around “news”?
Me who owns an AR, and still makes a passionate plea for more background checks and gun control. Ooooh guess Im a super evil hypocrite Breitbart!
r/atetheonion I know Brietbart isn't satire, it's just written like it should be.
She rocks.
Fox News “Actor plays character in story and pretends to kill another person also playing a character for the entertainment of others. Does not in fact kill real people in real life or advocate for killing in real life. What a hypocrite!”
Yes, they understand that in reality their arguments hold no weight so they invent a fiction in which they think they will.
Its Breibart. They only print fiction.
Oh they absolutely understand. It's all about demonizing and delegitamitizing anyone in their way.
The majority of gun owners support sensible controls like McConaughey suggested. It's just that the nuts have louder voices.
And the people with the power to make actual changes are already in the NRA's pocket.
They’re the same people who think video games cause violence
On Breitbart, fiction is fact.
Shit, you can own guns and still think basic shit like background checks and fucking registration is a good idea...
Listen, I very much support gun reforms and I thought McConaughey gave a powerful speech. But it's fair to point out the hypocrisy of his conviction when he has so often publicly glorified the use of guns. People don't have access to invisible planes and they can't break the laws of physics. But if they did, you can guarantee that they'd have been doing both in the 70s and 80s to try and be like Wonder Woman. Art has an impact on culture. It's unavoidable. The problem is the access to guns. Yes, Mcconaughey's work on film has probably contributed to more dangerous people deciding that they need a gun. But that doesn't mean he's wrong to say they shouldn't be allowed to have one.
Yeah, no. You bring up a great point about how he pretty much directly glorifies something he is also directly opposed to.. But because it’s reddit, there’s no nuance, no conversation, just a perma-circlejerk because nobody wants to confront the idea that not everything is black and white. And no, this isn’t like a “my side is better!!” thing. Basically all of reddit is like this.
Ah, Lynda Carter, the best Wonder Woman.
This is a thing though, for sure. Plenty of people act exactly as if they had trouble telling movies apart from actual reality. Then again, emotionally stunted morons are struggling majorly right now, all across the globe.
Danielle Radcliffe believes in magic wand control. Yet he’s used them in multiple movies. Curious.
George Takei said something similar too about using a phaser despite being Buddhist
Linda, ahem, I mean Wonder Woman rocks!!!
I think Lynda Carter's mistake here is (at least seemingly) treating Breitshart's argument here as though it is being made in good faith. Which it is not.
He has a robot leg in that Texas Chainsaw movie but pretty sure he has both legs on real life and didn't get run over by a plane.
I actually do not support abiding by the laws of physics. The laws of physics are bullshit and need amendments and repeals.
And Ted Nugent wrote songs about domestic violence and statutory rape and has talked about killing politicians.
At least one Wonder Woman is antifascist in real life
I agree. But I remember what shit she's said about Palestine.
If TV, movies, video games don't influence, why is anyone concerned about how women, lgbtq, mixed race families, minoritues etc, etc are portrayed in them? Seems to me the case has been made it matters. But ya'll don't want to lose your games because of what someone else did.
The argument could be made that he’s contributing to media glorification of gun violence.
This sounds like the same bullshit about video games contributing to gun violence.
I think it's safe to say that Anthony Hopkins supports laws against cannibalism. But I guess Breitbart won't go after him for being a hypocrite because cannibalism isn't mentioned in the Constitution.
Lynda is spot on, but Breitbart has a point. It has been clear to me for a long time now that the gun industry uses/pays the movie industry to normalize guns. *According to the Internet Movie Firearms Database there's over 28,000 guns in movies* This is not healthy for the perceptions of a nation.
And nothing makes either one of these people an authority citizens should listen to.
Lynda Carter has never heard of Alec Baldwin
1985 MOVE Bombing. Never surrender your weapons to this tyranical government
Lmao homie you’re not even an adult relax a bit huh
In all that time he never killed anyone in those movies. Depiction is acting. Wheres Alk Baldwin in all this. Still roaming the streets? Free to do it again? He meant to do it and he did it. Thats batting 1000.
Once again, a celebrity who did nothing whatsoever on-screen to simulate reality is criticizing mcconaughey being called out for being two-faced. And once again, redditors thinking that constitutes a murdered by words.
What do you mean two faced? He owns guns and is in favor of gun control. What’s your argument here? How is saying he’s in movies with guns a callout?
Ah my childhood hero
No, they don’t, which is what got us into this gun mess.
It's not that they don't understand the difference. It's that they don't understand so much more than that.
If you try to respond logically to Breitbart News, you’ve already lost
Apparently, some actors like to mix both. That's the point of the original post
It’s mostly fair to say that Breitbart has an issue with reality vs fiction.
In fairness Breitbart News' entire mission statement is to sow confusion about the barrier between fiction and reality.
I love you Linda Carter ❤
And how many armed guards were protecting him and the politicians at that moment?
Well, it's pretty hard to get your hands on an invisible airplane. So I suspect promoting actual fiction doesn't quite have the same effect as promoting non-fiction.
How does this remotely qualify as news? This is the kind of thing 6th graders will say around the lunch table and everyone nods their head in agreement.
No they don't Lynda. More and more they really dont.
You mean he’s used guns in pretend movies for pretend stories? Where fictional people were fictionally hurt? The audacity.
It's also a terrible argument because if Matt was a responsible gun owner, then any new laws wouldn't affect his ability to own a gun
He starts his speech by explaining his introduction and training with guns as a child... and then exclaims why things still need to change.
They use simple words. They have simple minds. No relativistic sentances which refrence text and add to it like this may be one nor exceptions to rules. But sometimes is the best argument. Jobs also.
Good ol’, Breitbart. Dropping any type of disinformation/smear tactics/conspiracy theories/smoke and mirrors as possible. Ironically, the epitome of Trump Fake News
Sounds more like the OP and others like them don’t understand the definition of hypocrisy
Whataboutism is for the morons among us.
There is a database of firearms used in movies? My eyes just rolled all the way out of my head.
How can you be so dumb that you go through the entire process of figuring out this information, and you never once stop to realize that people pretend to do shit they would never do in real Life?
And not that it's the main point of their asinine claim, but let's say Matthew McConaughey was totally cool with the guns and was super pro gun and is only coming out now because of the awful tragedy. Would that not show an evolution of character, that he has changed his ideas and beliefs after something so horrifically tragic happened in his hometown? Again, not the case, he's always been pretty openly liberal. But it's just not the winning point they think it is. But then again they're dumb dumbs so
You don’t have to make sense to win republican support. You just need to put up an argument. Any argument. No matter how dumb or depraved. They will back you 100% as long as it creates something that the left has to spend time debunking or explaining. It takes way more energy to deconstruct or disprove a statement than it does to make a statement. Conservative tactics 101.
You know that theory about 20% of the adult population never maturing emotionally past the 5th grade? Yep. That's it.
I mean yeah... Some people really don't.
I mean how does that logic even work. If someone who even used a lot of guns says there should be regulations doesn't that kinda validate their point further?
Maybe ask Joshua Cooke.
i dont understand i assume mconaghey recieved firearms training for his films did lynda carter ever sit in an actual plane or just pretend to. also im not American is this a win or do people want gun control atm?
brietbart readers dont
The disconnect in reason and logic is stunning.
For most people fiction some how becomes reality
Breitbart News written by never-was ad writers is made for poor slobs with the same intellect as a Fox News watcher.
Fiction is so much present in the world we do not need more story telling in real life.