Why I shall not be spending money on the new James Bond film

[mehulkamdar]

Trust an actor to be the ultimate hypocrite and slimebag. This SOB Daniel Craig is an anti gun activist. I shall be boycotting the new James Bond film and posting on other forums to urge their members to do the same.

Also, another anti gun actor is due to find himself behind bars soon - Wesley Snipes. Interesting what backgrounds these anti gunners have, isn;t it?

[jonahpach]

Trust an actor to be the ultimate hypocrite and slimebag. This SOB Daniel Craig is an anti gun activist.

Maybe we could sue him for character assasination??

Jonah

[Sujay]

These ********** should be sued for making style statements waving Walthers & Berettas and then projecting themselves as ' anti-gun'. Aren't these the guys who thrive upon the image " I have the solution to all problems as I draw the gun fastest " . This image being their bread and butter

Without the customary gun as an accessory; they are dud anyway.

Actual statement of Daniel Craig :-- “Handguns are used to shoot people and as long as they are around, people will shoot each other. That’s a simple fact.”

Somebody please ask him....So you will not carry your PPK this time ??

[Grumpy]

That`s too strong language Mehul - the guy might be ill-infomed and quite possible hypocritical but he`s entitled to his opinion. There are plenty of thoroughly decent people who are anti-gun, that doesn`t make them `slime bags`.

[mehulkamdar]

Grumpy,

Let me be as clear as I could be on this - anyone who wishes to use his celebrity status to try to take my rights away is a slimebag in my opinion. As far as opinions are concerned, I am happy to take income away from the studio that employs hoim and to organise gun owners not to pay to watch his BS in the same way that this swine is trying to get governments to take my rights away.

I have no intention of toning my language down on this.

[Sujay]

There are plenty of thoroughly decent people who are anti-gun, that doesn`t make them `slime bags`.

John,

That is understandable. But most probably, those very people you mention would not simultaneously align themselves with the romantic gun weilding image.

The statement these guys make depends which camera is on. The movie or the television

Another gem from Craig .....( for the road )... I’ve seen a bullet wound and it was a mess... It scared me. Bullets have a nasty habit of finding their target and that’s what’s scary about them.”

To which Ken Cooper says... Uh, that’s why they work, Danny Boy, and why citizens use handguns to thwart crimes 1.5 million times, by conservative estimates, each year. Indeed, Craig will take millions for playacting a gunslinger, but in real life he’s a hypocritical wuss.

[Grumpy]

I see no indication that he is trying to take your guns away nor that he is using his `celebrity status` to do so. He just said that he sees no reason for gun ownership. He`s entitled to his opinion just as you are to yours - but he isn`t calling gun owners `slimebags`or `swine`.
That you won`t be paying to see the film is your privilige - the James Bond movies have been c**p for some time anyway.

[mehulkamdar]

he isn`t calling gun owners `slimebags`or `swine`.

Let him try... Gun owners in this country are very active and it would have been career suicide for him to do this.

I see no indication that he is trying to take your guns away nor that he is using his `celebrity status` to do so.

Oh, yes? Then why was the statement made in the presence of Hollytwood's most vocal anti gun clowns and reported by the Brady campaign the very next day with a picture of the scumbag beaming frome ar to ear?

He just said that he sees no reason for gun ownership.

And I see no reason why gun owners need to spend money on his films.

He`s entitled to his opinion just as you are to yours

Sure, if you read my earlier response to your post, he wants my guns taken away. I do not want his plans for a Monte Carlo pad subsidised by gun owners.

[Grumpy]

Sujay, I`m happy to concede that he is a hypocrite but he is still entitled to his opinion.
Plenty of pro-gun celebrities use their status to promote their pro-gun views - Charlton Heston and Ted Nugent to name but two. I don`t see the anti-gun people calling them `slimebags ` `swine` or `scoundrels`.
Ken Coopers `estimate` that guns are used to prevent 1.5 million crimes per year is generally reckoned to be wildly over optimistic but however many the figure is there is no doubt that the number of instances in which guns are used during the commission of a crime far exceeds the number which are prevented by the use of guns. You can`t promote the ownership of guns by quoting figures that are, at best, optimistic and which are negated by the numbers in which guns are used in crime.
I have no objection to both you and Mehul being annoyed by Daniel Craigs comments and their particular context - that seems more than reasonable to me and I happen to
sympathise with you - but I do object to the use of offensive name-calling which does nothing to benefit the cause of gun ownership. Such language is unreasonable and non-beneficial to the cause of gun ownership. Reasoned argument wins debates.

[mehulkamdar]

I don`t see the anti-gun people calling them `slimebags ` `swine` or `scoundrels`.

It is clear that you have not heard of Rosie O' Donnell and her public name calling of Charlton Heston, Clint Eastwood and others.

Ken Coopers `estimate` that guns are used to prevent 1.5 million crimes per year is generally reckoned to be wildly over optimistic but however many the figure is there is no doubt that the number of instances in which guns are used during the commission of a crime far exceeds the number which are prevented by the use of guns. You can`t promote the ownership of guns by quoting figures that are, at best, optimistic and which are negated by the numbers in which guns are used in crime.

Chicago University Law Professor Jack Lott has conducted several studies that even the anti gunners are unable to dispute. It is his crime figures that are used by the NRA, GoA, JPFO and other pro gun groups in the USA.

do object to the use of offensive name-calling which does nothing to benefit the cause of gun ownership. Such language is unreasonable and non-beneficial to the cause of gun ownership.

There is a saying that makes great sense, "If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck..."

Reasoned argument wins debates.

That's what Charlton Heston and Clint Eastwood, among two people who wanted to take a soft approach, tried when they agreed to talk to Rosie O'Donnell.

[Sujay]

John,

My apologies for the name calling ; have modified my post.

1) Do you really believe that hypocrites are entitled to their opinion ? Because the problem here, (I repeat ) is he is making money and will continue to make money by acting a gunslinger !!! How do you explain that ?

2) Charton Heston and other celebreties did use their status to promote gun rights. They ,as far as I know, did not simultaneously benefit from any anti gun association.

3) I cannot cite particular references now, but a lot of antis have done worse than name calling to people advocating gun rights. I have seen documentaries besides coming across their vitriolic stuff on net.

3) Let us settle at 0.5 million as the actual figure instead of 1.5 million of Ken Cooper. It is also agreed that that criminals are more prolific in use of guns. But we do not ask for their gun rights ! Another way of saying is that only 1% of the legal gun owners in US generally misuse their guns and the other 99% don't. Should those 99% be accountable for the illegal gun owners and criminals ?

Besides, a relation does exist between lawful firearm possession and violent crime ;irrespective of how much Cooper has been off the mark. To take the case of Australia , (a strikingly similar situation with Britain )where firearms have been practically banned after a lunatic opened fire on 35 people in Port Arthur; the implementation of the ban costed the Govt $500 Million.

Twelve months after the law was implemented in 1997, there has been a 44 percent increase in armed robberies, an 8.6 percent increase in aggravated assaults, and a 3.2 percent increase in homicides. That same year in the state of Victoria, there was a 300 percent increase in homicides committed with firearms. The following year, robberies increased almost 60 percent in South Australia. By 1999, assaults had increased in New South Wales by almost 20 percent.

Two years after the ban, there have been further increases in crime: armed robberies by 73 percent; unarmed robberies by 28 percent; kidnappings by 38 percent; assaults by 17 percent; manslaughter by 29 percent, according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics.

And consider the fact that over the previous 25-year period, Australia had shown a steady decrease both in homicide with firearms and armed robbery – until the ban. And also consider that the majority of the robberies were directed at the homes of elderly citizens.

Didn't this happen only because scores of people were left defenceless by taking their guns away ?

[Grumpy]

Yes, and if it swears like a fishwife ?
It`s easy to find a tame academic to support any argument. When I said that the figure of 1.5 million was `wildly optimistic` I could have said what is agreed by most criminalogists which is that the figure is utter rubbish. That figure means that guns are being used to prevent crime once every 21 seconds in the US...............
You`re an intelligent, educated and erudite man Mehul. You have the ability to conduct a scathing and reasoned argument and could tear Daniel Craigs ramblings apart without resorting to name calling- so why bother ? Even if some anti-gun campaigners use name calling it doesn`t mean that you have to stoop to their level.
Sujay why quote figures at me ? I`m not - believe it or not - anti-gun. I`m anti-name calling on this or any other arena. I own guns and make my living from guns so you could say that I have a vested interest in gun ownership. I also believe in freedom of speech. Just because one doesn`t agree with another persons` opinion doesn`t mean that they aren`t entitled to that opinion. They might be ignorant, offensive or just plain wrong - and I am - WE are - entitled to say so.
My point is solely concerned with using a public arena to call people names.

[mehulkamdar]

There's a fat lot of good that the genteel concerns that British gun owners showed for the anti gunners' sensibilities did for gun rights in the UK. Neither did this work in the US under the gentlemen and women who headed the NRA back then like Charlton Heston and Tanya Metaxas. All that happened in Charlton Heston's time was that the shrill anti gunners managed to push through the Brady restrictions, the so called "Assault Weapon Ban" and other pieces of severely anti legal gun ownership legislation. It took a street-fighter like Wayne Lapierre to take the fight to the anti gunners and defeat anti gun candidates in both the Democrat and Republican parties to restore these rights. One can sit back and debate ethics from dawn to dusk. In the end, it is only a combative stand that wins. If something is complete bullshit, there is no point in trying to sit back and pretend that it is caviar.

[Grumpy]

Yeah, so show me when Wayne La Pierre started calling people names.
There`s nothing at all wrong with a competive stand but plenty wrong with resorting to name calling. All that achieves is annoying people so that they don`t even bother to read the content, just the rudeness.
Mehul, you like to quote generalities so how about this one: "All gun owners are belligerent and rude". It is obviously BS BUT it`s the impression you risk by abusing people. There`s little point in rallying the cause of gun ownership by `preaching to the converted` - it`s the anti-gun campaigners that need to be shown the error of their ways and you aren`t going to do that by calling them names.

[Sakobav]

On a lighter note waht gun is James Bond packing in this reincarnation?

Cheers

NG