What Matt Damon doesn't get about the US and guns

[TurtleDude]

Sure he would, he doesn't go through background checks or waiting periods or gun dealers in his movies. If he were to take a position based solely on what's glorified in his movies, then he should be advocating for illegal gun ownership.

He's a turd if he wants to intrude on the constitutional rights of American citizens. and he's a asshole to whine about legal gun ownership when he makes money off of glorifying violent misuse of firearms.

 

[ajn678]

He should have signs all over his property that read as follows

I am a rich self indulgent liberal and I don't believe people have a right to own firearms for self defense. His body guards of course, should be disarmed as well

He should also have to live outside of his rich neighborhood where no crime happens.

 

[spud_meister]

He's a turd if he wants to intrude on the constitutional rights of American citizens. and he's a asshole to whine about legal gun ownership when he makes money off of glorifying violent misuse of firearms.

Agreed, but he's not a hypocrite.

 

[TurtleDude]

Agreed, but he's not a hypocrite.

OK we will accept asshole as agreed upon.

 

[Master PO]

from a guy who promotes movies of violence

 

[Crimefree]

Right. But your argument is he's hypocritical because of the roles he portrays. His roles have nothing to do with legal gun ownership, so he would be just a hypocritical to call for gun laws to remain the same or be relaxed.

Huh!!! You sure you got that right? Either his work is at odds with his beliefs or it is not. Care to show that is is not at odds with his work.

 

[Crimefree]

Damon should stick to acting and making movies and stop talking about topics he doesn't understand.

What Damon does understand is popularity and for some reason he thinks the public favour gun control. The questions firearm owners should be asking is why and what they are going to do about it. It is a no brainer that citizens get the laws they demand. If firearm owners want to lose this fight all they have to do is do nothing.

​

 

[Crimefree]

Wait... Let me try to get my head around this logic. You're using all these numbers and stats to prove that "less guns in a country will not mean less gun deaths?"

Just to try to clarify more you're saying:
A country that has 10 privately owned guns is going to have the same if not more gun deaths than a country that has 1 million privately owned guns.

Right?

That is exactly the purpose of gun control having introduced this idiotic division of deaths. Unfortunately not even firearm owners are sufficiently astute to see the dishonesty. They engage the animators of metal and merchants of death on their own terms hoping to win the argument....

Quite honestly I doubt very much if a single gun control advocate will see the dishonesty of claiming if we remove vehicles we will have less vehicle deaths. None of them have sufficient smarts.

 

[Crimefree]

The purpose of the gun ban was not to stop gun deaths in general, but to stop mass shootings, which it has succeeded in spectacularly.

Since by your own admission the were fewer guns then you must include all mass murders in which there have been many so you claim is disingenuous at best and just plain wrong.

New Zealand provides a useful comparison to Australia.
From 1980 to 1996, Australia's mass murder rate was 0.0042 incidents per
100,000 people and New Zealand's was 0.0050 incidents per 100,000 people.

http://crimeresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Report-on-gun-related-suicides-and-crime-for-the-Australian-Parliament-Rev.pdf

Assault and robbery don't have to involve guns. And both fell after 2006.

But rose immediately after the buyback. Now explain this rise and why it needs 8 years to decrease.

Sexual assault is not equivalent to rape. Sexual assault can be as much as kissing someone without consent.

So a woman raped and strangled with her own stockings is superior to a women standing with a gun and dead rapist at her feet.

And then fell, completely independent of gun laws.

Well that seems to be at odds with the experience of the rape epidemic of Orlando Florida where police trained woman to use guns and an immediate reduction of rape and all crime occurred.

The results?

In 1966 there were 36 rapes in Orlando, triple the 1965 rate. In 1967,
there were 4. Before the training, rape rates had been increasing in
Orlando as nationwide. 5 years after the training, rape was still
below pre-training levels in Orlando, but up 308% in the surrounding
areas, 96% for Florida overall, and 64% nationally.

In 1967, NOT A SINGLE WOMAN HAD FIRED HER WEAPON in self-defense. In
1967, NOT A SINGLE WOMAN HAD TURNED HER GUN ON HER HUSBAND OR BOYFRIEND.

The reason the program worked so spectacularly well is that it was
widely known that Orlando women had the means and training to defend
themselves from attackers.

Department of Justice victim studies show that overall, when rape is
attempted, the completion rate is 36%. But when a woman defends herself
with a gun, the completion rate drops to 3%.

http://www.hoboes.com/pub/Firearms/Data/Crime/Florida/Gun%20Ownership%20Stops%20Rape/

This shows that guns have no impact on crime, except of a very specific nature, such as mass shootings, which Australia has seen far, far fewer then the US.

Oh!! My goodness how stupid do you think people are? It is imbecilic to claim that removing firearms will cause a reduction of criminal deaths. You are very correct guns play no part in causing any deaths.

Now, let's get some actual, useful data in this thread:

Already dealt with explain the 8 year delay and the increase which clearly show gun control to be the big fat lie it is.

And that's the point people like you and Damon miss, Australia's gun ban was not to control violent crime, it was to stop mass shootings, and it has been successful.

Now lets deal with this cherry picked lie.

.............. But the only one that reduced both the number and
severity of these attacks was allowing victims to be able to defend
themselves with permitted concealed handguns.

With just two exceptions, all the mass public shootings in the United States
since at least 1950 have taken place in areas where guns are banned. All the
mass public shootings in Europe, including the Norway attack that left 69
people shot to death and 110 wounded, have also taken place where guns are
banned.
http://crimeresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Report-on-gun-related-suicides-and-crime-for-the-Australian-Parliament-Rev.pdf

In 2011, there was a mass shooting in Hectorville. In 2014, one in Hunt, and again in 2014 one in Wedderburn (which was a 4 hour siege of a neighborhood).

Let’s look at the recent Cairns child killings in Australia where someone killed 8 children with a knife. Or the Quaker Hill Nursing home arson in Australia that killed 11 by fire. Or the Lin killings, also in Australia, that killed 5 with a hammer.
https://caffeinatedthoughts.com/2016/06/no-mass-shootings-the-myth-of-australia-gun-control-policy/

The one thing that can be said of all gun control advocates is, you speak with forked tongue

 

[spud_meister]

Huh!!! You sure you got that right? Either his work is at odds with his beliefs or it is not. Care to show that is is not at odds with his work.

Any position he held on gun laws would be at odds with his work, as his work has nothing to do with legal gun possesion.

 

[jet57]

While promoting his latest gun-toting action movie, Matt Damon took time to praise Australia for its gun-restrictive laws and unsuccessful buyback program — while also lamenting that America was not evolved enough to pass gun control measures.

Though it’s a move that has been praised by President Obama, as well as Hillary Clinton on her current campaign trail, the buyback program is simply a glossy way for the Left to deem gun control successful. Once you dig into the facts of the matter, the gun buyback program is actually a near-perfect glimpse of how little gun control actually accomplishes.

It's a shame liberal politicians and activists like Damon don't want to dig into the complicated solutions to complicated issues — things like mental health, radical Islam, etc. — or allow themselves to see the benefits of legal gun ownership.

What Matt Damon doesn't get about the US and guns | Fox News

LA's Gun Buyback Program Is a Massive Success - The Wire

People lined up around the block in Los Angeles on Wednesday, some waiting hours to exchange their unwanted guns for grocery store gift cards as the city tries to get the weapons off the street. By lunchtime, they'd already collected more than the 1,673 guns that were exchanged last year, and the officials running the event had to get more gift cards. One guy showed up with 22 pistols in his trunk.

Matt Damon is making a fantasy spy movie, like James Bond, his character uses guns. And as you can see, gun buybacks are successful. The idea is to curtail proliferation.

 

[jet57]

Round up the gangs and send them to Australia, and you will have comparable numbers here.

If gangs can't get guns we'll have comparable numbers here as well.

 

[TurtleDude]

LA's Gun Buyback Program Is a Massive Success - The Wire

LA's Gun Buyback Program Is a Massive Success

View attachment 67204947



Matt Damon is making a fantasy spy movie, like James Bond, his character uses guns. And as you can see, gun buyback are successful. The idea is to curtail proliferation.

another chapter to the book of gun stupidity written by Jet. people who turn guns in are not mopes who are shooting people. Generally they are widows selling their late husband's weapons, people who inherited guns or in some cases, mopes, who want to get rid of a gun with a body on it. many are stolen. there is no evidence these scams actually decrease crime


Newtown Prompts Gun Buybacks, But Do They Work? : NPR


A Harvard University study dating from the mid-1990s concluded that buybacks were largely ineffective in reducing gun violence because they weren't getting the right kinds of weapons off the street.

"The upshot of that study was that gun buybacks were listed in the category of what doesn't work," Woodward says.

 

[jet57]

Buybacks get guns off the streets: that's the point.

 

[TurtleDude]

If gangs can't get guns we'll have comparable numbers here as well.

If gangs couldn't get drugs, we wouldn't have near the gang problems.

 

[TurtleDude]

View attachment 67204948

Buybacks get guns off the streets: that's the point.

Not ones that are generally being used to cause problems. thats why they are worthless and in some cases worse than worthless-they allow mopes to get rid of evidence in a murder case easily

 

[rhinefire]

100% of left wing liberal movie people make their money from violent gun movies from De Niro, John Voit, Penn, Damon, now add all the TV series shown every night. Guns sell at the box office, even Star Wars has many killed violently. It is what it is.

 

[bubbabgone]

100% of left wing liberal movie people make their money from violent gun movies from De Niro, John Voit, Penn, Damon, now add all the TV series shown every night. Guns sell at the box office, even Star Wars has many killed violently. It is what it is.

John Voight is pretty Conservative but I get your point.

 

[humbolt]

Matt Damon makes money selling portrayals of gratuitous violence, in large part. Yes, guns are involved. Yes, it's fictional, for the most part. However, it's generally accepted that if you'd like to see less of something, don't glorify it at the box office. Therein lies his hypocrisy.

 

[Fearandloathing]

While promoting his latest gun-toting action movie, Matt Damon took time to praise Australia for its gun-restrictive laws and unsuccessful buyback program — while also lamenting that America was not evolved enough to pass gun control measures.

Though it’s a move that has been praised by President Obama, as well as Hillary Clinton on her current campaign trail, the buyback program is simply a glossy way for the Left to deem gun control successful. Once you dig into the facts of the matter, the gun buyback program is actually a near-perfect glimpse of how little gun control actually accomplishes.

It's a shame liberal politicians and activists like Damon don't want to dig into the complicated solutions to complicated issues — things like mental health, radical Islam, etc. — or allow themselves to see the benefits of legal gun ownership.

What Matt Damon doesn't get about the US and guns | Fox News

Is this about Matt Damon or the buy back program? If the latter you need to site to support your claims it isn't working.

 

[MickeyW]

Is this about Matt Damon or the buy back program? If the latter you need to site to support your claims it isn't working.

That was done on another thread a week or two ago......Buy back programs only work when an entity knows what you own. All the more reason over the years to buy guns and ammo, w/o any one really knowing about it.

I submit that there are thousands of guns in private ownership in Australia, that haven't been declared...or found. Smart people, don't allow the government knowledge or access to their stash!

 

[MickeyW]

Not ones that are generally being used to cause problems. thats why they are worthless and in some cases worse than worthless-they allow mopes to get rid of evidence in a murder case easily

Fully Agree!

 

[Crimefree]

If gangs can't get guns we'll have comparable numbers here as well.

In what utopian stupor can gangs not get guns?

 

[Crimefree]

LA's Gun Buyback Program Is a Massive Success - The Wire



Matt Damon is making a fantasy spy movie, like James Bond, his character uses guns. And as you can see, gun buybacks are successful. The idea is to curtail proliferation.

Define successful?

All it did was get a few sock draw firearms some had they had no use for. These guns would not have been used in crime and that is a fact you cannot deny. The only success I see here is gun control fooling the public again because firearm organisations and owners will not be countering the propaganda this stunt was designed to get published.

Gun buybacks are publicity stunts that serve no useful purpose at all.

Exactly what does proliferation do? Why does it need to be curtailed?

 

[Fletch]

Any position he held on gun laws would be at odds with his work, as his work has nothing to do with legal gun possesion.

But if he wants to ban guns, he could start by banning guns from his movies. Then he and Leonardo can jet off together on their private plane to push for new climate change initiatives.