Mellow Wells vs. Irked Russell on Terrorists, San Bernardino, Gun Culture, Gun Controls, etc.

Hateful Eight star Kurt Russell and I were having a nice enough interview earlier today, talking not just about Quentin Tarantino‘s soon-to-open film and Russell’s flinty, craggy-voiced performance as a tough-talking bounty hunter named John Ruth, but also, briefly, about a possible film version of Chapman and MacLain Way‘s The Battered Bastards of Baseball. Released in 2014, Battered Bastards was and is a wonderful doc about a scrappy-ass, mid ’70s minor-league Portland baseball team (called the Mavericks) that was owned and managed by Kurt’s dad, character actor Bing Russell. Russell said that Todd Field might direct with Russell possibly playing his dad…or not. Too early to say but here’s hoping.


Kurt Russell as snarly-mouthed John Ruth in Quentin Tarantino’s The Hateful Eight.

Then I segued into a riff about how movies tend to reflect the times and the culture they come from. I was thinking that the Quentin Tarantino brand, which has always included a swaggering, half-smirking, bordering-on-flippant use of violence at times, might not fit or reflect the post-Paris, post-San Bernardino culture now as well as it did the all-is-well Clinton ’90s.

I was thinking in particular of a 12.3 N.Y. Times survey piece I read this morning. Written by N.R. Kleinfeld and called “Fear in the Air, Americans Look Over Their Shoulders,” it basically observed that “a creeping fear of being caught in a mass rampage has unmistakably settled itself firmly in the American consciousness.” And I was wondering how that wink-wink grindhouse blood and brutality that colors the second half (and more precisely the final third) of Tarantino’s film is going to synch with that…or not.

Here’s a reasonably close transcript of our gun-and-culture discussion. I guess it wasn’t so much a discussion as a kind of argument, except it was more about Russell arguing with me than vice versa. I played it cool and made my points in a mild-mannered way. Listen and judge for yourself:

Wells: The Quentin cult, if you will, is, like, 23 years old, starting with Reservoir Dogs…right? Violence as attitude, violence as style, violence as fashion…not dealt with in an earnest, realistic way. The swagger thing.

Russell: Right.

Wells: And I was looking in the N.Y. Times this morning and this guy interviewed several people in the country in the Midwest and West. And with almost everybody out there, he reported, there’s a feeling of anxiety in the culture…when’s the next one?

Russell: So how do you connect the dots?

Wells: I think there’s a feeling about shootings and violence right now…I think it’s different in 2015 than it was in the mid ’90s. But Quentin is still playing the same game more or less.

Russell: Well, Quentin does what he does. He’s painting a picture, writing, telling a story…like a filmmaker. But to mix and match reality with fantasy is something I don’t understand but that’s just me. I think we should understand the difference. To mix today’s politics with, in this case, a tale about, uh, a fictional tale about the Civil War…

Wells: I’m not talking about politics. I’m talking about a ground-level, water-table…a feeling in people’s bones. People are genuinely…between Paris and San Bernardino the idea of sudden violence becoming a normal, day-to-day aspect coming from the gun culture and everything else…it’s a different vibe, you know?

Russell: I don’t understand concepts of conversation [about] the gun culture. We’ve lived with guns since, what, the 7th Century or something? I don’t know.

Wells: Well, I think we all know…guns are a trope. Not a trope but a totem, a metaphor that disenfranchised white guys need…it makes them feel good about themselves.

Russell: You can say what you want. I don’t agree with that. It’s not my thing.

Wells: Well, it’s statistically irrefutable.


Russell as he more or less looked during today’s hotel-room interview.

Russell: If you think gun control is going to change the terrorists’ point of view, I think you’re, like, out of your mind. I think anybody [who says that] is. I think it’s absolutely insane. The problem, the problem that we’re having right now to turn it around…you may think you’ve got me worried about you’re gonna do? Dude, you’re about to find out what I’m gonna do, and that’s gonna worry you a lot more. And that‘s what we need. That will change the concept of gun culture, as you call it, to something [like] reality. Which is, if I’m a hockey team and I’ve got some guy bearing down on me as a goal tender, I’m not concerned about what he’s gonna do — I’m gonna make him concerned about what I’m gonna do…

Wells: I get that.

Russell: To stop him. That‘s when things change. [Tries to steer conversation back to the usual-usual, western genre, what Quentin does, asking the question, themes explored.] So what has that got to do with movies? Nothing! Movies are movies. They’re like a painting, like a song, like a book…he’s doing his Quentin Tarantino world, which I think belongs on film. I don’t think it has anything to do with anything outside of film. The music, the manipulation of the screenplay. So I can’t connect the dots. It really is hard for me to connect the dots.

Wells: Obama’s point was that the guys on the no-fly list, [there] for good reason because of terrorist connections or suspicions…they can get hold of a gun pretty easily.

Russell: They can also make a bomb pretty easily. So what? They can also get knives and stab you. Whaddaya gonna do about that? They can also get cars and run you over. Whaddaya gonna do about that?

Wells: They didn’t kill the people in San Bernardino with cars.

Russell: But they’ve killed others that way, haven’t they? Yeah, yeah. Whaddaya gonna do? Outlaw everything? That isn’t the answer.

Wells: Just put some controls…

Russell: Put some controls? What, so the people, so the people who want to defend themselves can’t?

Wells: No, not so you can’t, just so the idiots can’t get hold of them [so easily], that’s all.

Russell: You really believe they’re not going to? Are you serious about that? What good will that…? Oh my God. You and I just disagree.

Wells: Okay.

Russell: You and I just disagree. I understand that you think you can control the behavior of people that are dead set on taking your way of life away from you. You think you can control that? And there’s only one thing you can do with that. And that’s [to say} ‘No, dude, that’s not gonna happen. That’s just not gonna happen.’

I shook Russell’s hand, thanked him, we both chuckled and that was that. He’s a likable straight-shooter if you steer clear of political matters — we just happened to get into it today. Again, the whole interview and just the guns-and-culture part.

  • Jeff, I admire the way you were pretty upfront with your questions, but I thought you could have argued a little better. When Kurt asks you “They can also make a bomb pretty easily. So what? They can also get knives and stab you. Whaddaya gonna do about that? They can also get cars and run you over. Whaddaya gonna do about that?” The answer to that was pretty simple question. “Guns have killed 400000 people in last 15 years. How many have hand-made bombs and knives ?” The excuse that guys like Russell make is the lamest that they can make. Actually, it’s guys like him who are out of their mind, and not just out my mind, but out of touch with the reality. You could have also asked him, “In which other developed country has he heard of so many guns related deaths ?

    • I didn’t want to argue with him. I didn’t want to get into a right-vs-left duel. I could have said a lot of things.

      • BlueSage

        You took the right approach. Kurt Russell has said similar before and he’s not going to change. I don’t agree with him but I can ignore it, as opposed to someone like James Woods who is so unlikable.

      • Kano’s_Razor

        Well, if avoiding an argument was your ultimate goal you did a downright miserable job at achieving it.

      • Yeah, and like most of the things you said, they would have been stupid.

      • Frank Lovejoy

        And you would have been wrong every time. It’s “statistically irrefutable”.

    • UnclePauly

      “Guns have killed 400000 people in America in last 15 years.”

      Funny, I see what you did there.

    • Kano’s_Razor

      “Guns have killed 400000 people in America in last 15 years. How many have hand-made bombs and knives ?”

      I’m not entirely on Russell’s side in this debate — as always, I think the most common sense stance is roughly equidistant to the two polemic views being expressed here — but I don’t know that you’re being entirely fair to the spirit of his perspective.

      His “point” — insofar as I could glean, anyway — is that people always have, and always will, find a way to kill people in the most convenient, accessible, and distant way possible (and, yes, right now that’s firearms). Removing guns from the culture wouldn’t curb homicide/murder any more than removing cells from the culture would eliminate phone calls.

      Would it decrease the number of “hot-blooded” kills by enough to justify forfeiting (ot at least scaling back ) this freedom? It probably is just going to depend on who you ask — which is why any change needs to be subject to the process of democratization in all of its glory.

      • Nothing like hanging back for a little R&R at the rear. I wonder how things are going up on the front lines.

        “Removing guns from the culture wouldn’t curb homicide/murder any more than removing cells from the culture would eliminate phone calls.”

        I can’t help but unpack this a little. Noting that “curb” and “eliminate” are two different things, I submit that “removing guns” would arguably curb homicide by a great deal. The problem is that “removing guns” is an impossibility. If Wells could clap his hands three times and make every firearm disappear we’d see the homicide rate drop by quite a bit and double-digit casualties even more. And I think a lot of the homicides are less “hot-blooded” crimes of passion than they are nihilistic expressions of sociopathy. Those impulses would still be there, but they’d be a lot less empowered.

        My take on Russell’s “point” (or as you put it, “the spirit of his perspective”) is, as I suggested elsewhere, that it’s probably largely driven by the context provided by Wells. To paraphrase, “So there was this terrorist attack and you’re in a violent Tarantino movie, don’t you think people will shun it because we all know guns are for dumbfuck racist white guys with small dicks and this was all their fault?”

        When confronted with this perspective, it seems more reasonable to argue that it is not a productive analysis of what caused – or could have prevented – this incident. It’s like wanting to argue over speed limits after a drunk driver just killed a family of four going 90 the wrong way. (Cue analogy haters.) Just because someone says “No speed limit is going to stop that from happening” in response to someone who only wants to talk about slower speed limits doesn’t mean they think we shouldn’t even have any. The context helps dictate the rhetoric.

        I’m probably not entirely on Russell’s side myself, but I think the amount of light this exchange shines upon his views is limited. And while I don’t know about your “equidistant” theory, I do believe that there’s no stance so right that it can’t exist in a stupider and more dogmatic form. In fact, often the righter the stance the more likely this is to happen.

        • TheRealBadHatHarry

          Well said.

        • JeffMc2000

          The way it works is simple math. Regulations mean the likelihood of fewer guns sold. Fewer guns sold means fewer manufactured. Fewer manufactured means fewer opportunities for mis-use.

          Other arguments —“They’ll get the guns somehow, etc” speak to eliminating the issue (an impossibility), and not to the concept that reducing the potential for tragedy even slightly, is a positive move. There’s a “We can’t totally solve the problem, so why do anything?” aspect to a lot of the arguments that’s more than a little cynical and nihilistic.

          • Let me clarify that my “removing guns is an impossibility” statement was specifically meant as disagreement with Kano’s comment, not a nihilistic rationale for my own general attitude toward gun policy. I see how it could be perceived that way, especially taken by itself.

            There’s also another angle to the “we can’t totally solve the problem, so why do anything” debate, which is that people (and their media) are really bad at understanding and characterizing the nature of such problems, often by choice, and then disagreements over those characterizations just get shunted into the “you just don’t want to fix it” column. More and more we’re seeing people taking the attitude (with systemic encouragement) that the better the cause the less intellectual and ethical responsibility is required, when it should be the opposite. We’re literally seeing this attitude being championed in the education of upcoming generations. Talk about cynical and nihilistic.

            Simple math may be simple but it still has its limits, constitutional or otherwise. A police state is super simple math. (That’s meant as an extreme example, not as hyperbole for any restrictions.) People pointing out things that need to be weighed against the simple math are often just trying to find a reasonable (and truthful) balance, but they will be wrongly portrayed as wanting to deep six the whole effort. It sells.

            Personally I wonder if your simple math equation of “regulation » fewer sold » fewer manufactured » fewer abused” might be more practical if switched around a little bit. Someone can educate me on why I’m wrong, but I say go after the manufacturing first. I don’t see how the second amendment grants a right to manufacture and sell, and it hits the supply side directly instead of waiting for that kind of systemic effect to propagate from the demand side.

          • PunaPerson

            “The way it works is simple math. Regulations mean the likelihood of fewer guns sold. Fewer guns sold
            means fewer manufactured. Fewer manufactured means fewer opportunities
            for mis-use.”

            For example, Mexico, right?

            One gun store in the whole country, virtually all gun purchases/transfers are illegal.

            What the murder rate, and the murder rate using firearms, in Mexico compared to the United States?

            Okay, what about Brazil?

            • AdviceGuy

              How about you tell me. You’re the one making the argument. Also, please source your findings.

              • PunaPerson

                Homicide rate. United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime:

                Mexico 21.5 (per 100,000)
                Brazil 25.2

                Venezuela 53.7
                USA 3.8

                The first three countries listed have essentially the prohibitions on firearm ownership, sale, transfer, etc. that you argue for.

          • Lao Zoot

            And here, dear people, we see yet another behavior typical of the degenerate leftist: The unwillingness to recognize that human liberty comes at a cost. They presume to assert that they know better than the men who fought for and founded this nation on the principles set forth in the Constitution– that, whatever hazards may accompany liberty, the hazards of giving away natural rights in order to procure a false promise of security are far greater.
            This concludes our tour of the liberal zoo for today. Please refrain from unduly harassing the specimens with distressing facts or references to reality.

        • Noiresque

          I read some statistics about domestic violence in Britain about a decade ago regarding domestic violence. Since personal firearms became more heavily regulated the amount of spousal murders plummeted and the number of domestic batteries increased. The will to perform violence did not necessarily decrease, but the means to kill and seriously injure individuals did.

          It is less about exchanging one evil for another, but about successfully saving individual lives. ultimately, once guns are regulated, fewer murders will occur. Now the focus with regards to domestic violence deals with the personal, such as the White Ribbon campaigns. When it comes to terrorism which is socio-political and the disaffected mentally ill which is a social and public health issue, certainly the history in Britain from Ireland onward is the use of explosives is prevalent. But those deaths, whilst dramatic and (deliberately) terrifying, are more rare and kill fewer people.

          Once guns are regulated, fewer deaths will occur.

          • Crenshaw Pete

            “Once”? So, they aren’t now? Funny, there seem to be plenty of laws around the US doing just that.

            But, don’t you worry, just a few more, and :poof!: problems will be solved! Because laws are magic.

            And, funny how you want more laws to restrict firearm ownership in some form or fashion, and yet those laws would have to be enforced-by people with guns.

            Hypocrisy much?

            • Noiresque

              What is wrong with you?

          • E30fan

            “Once there are massively fewer guns fewer deaths will occur” fixed that for you

            We having hundreds of millions of guns and large geographic areas with meaningful regulations. I don’t think there’s a reasonable path forward for reducing gun totals though. There just isn’t the consensus that would buy that kind of compliance. Restrict open carry, handgun accessibility, safe storage practices, clip size, etc but still recognize that a determined suicide will always have the tools at hand to inflict mass casualties.

            A note of caution should be taken from NY. Restricting/forced registering of semi auto rifles has put a huge number of guns into legal limbo while not removing any at all from circulation. That should be held up as the worst of both possible worlds, and yet, because everyone wants to be tribal left/right about this issue, the horror of that outcome isn’t being rationally discussed.

    • “How many have hand-made bombs and knives?” 9/11 ring a bell? Oklahoma City? Take away the guns and maybe the San Bernardino Muslims would have just used the 15 pipe bombs they had.

      Fun, right? If a serial killer’s MO is to drown people in their own pools, and you ban swimming pools, do you really think he’ll stop killing….or might he simply decide on a new MO?

      Liberalism is truly a mental disorder.

      • Oh.. how convenient. As if every 16 year old kid in America can hijack a plane or make a car-bomb. But you do know what every 16 year old kid in America can do ? No one is saying that arbitrary terror activities will stop happening — and there’s no way to stop that. But b/w 9/11 and today, how many such arbitrary activities have happened ? It is the every day gun suicides and gun violence that is making the most damage — and that’s why such high numbers. But of course you are going to only look at cases like San Bernardino.

        Go and teach lame excuses to someone else. I am much more intelligent than that.

        • FastEddieTX

          A 16 year old can buy a gun? Really? I know for a fact that a 16 year old can get behind the wheel of a car to do damage. But even in Texas, where we are happily pro-gun (outside of Austin), you have to be 18 to buy a gun. A 16 year old can own a gun, but he can’t buy one. For someone touting their own intelligence, you are pretty dumb not to google something like that before posting…

          • You want to get into technicalities to support your lame excuses now. Guns are also available online, where there is no way to accurately check the age of the buyer. Now, you get it ? And anyway, the point is not the age, but how easy it is to get a gun. Of course, since your love for guns won’t allow you to notice, let me also mention that kids even younger than 16 have used guns to kill in US. Because guess what, their parents were gun-nuts.

            • Frank Lovejoy

              Guns are not ‘available online’, all legal gun purchases go through strict background checks. Stop lying, nobody buys your horseshit. Guns are not killing people, left-wing policy is.

              • As I said, age is not the point. Go and spend some time in a third world country where it is illegal to own a gun. In spite of all the poverty and crime, there are still less number of gun-related deaths in those countries than America.

                • AdviceGuy

                  Obviously the gun related deaths are down if they are banned, but what is the death toll per capita? I mean, the point that Kurt Russell was making was that even if you eliminate guns they just use a different method of violence. And are you actually looking up any statistics on these third world countries or are you just regurgitating what someone else has said? I find a lot of people on both sides of the argument throw out stats on other countries and our own that they have no idea if it’s really true. No research done, just regurgitation of a biased news story or friend. Just curious.

                • GirlFromIvy

                  I help a small charity in central Africa. Private gun ownership is illegal in most cases.

                  In the several years I’ve been following their work, the villagers have had their few belongings stolen and their women at risk of kidnap and rape, because they cannot defend themselves against armed attackers.

                  What I’ve heard from actual people there strikes me as a warning about how vulnerable people can be when bad people know they cannot defend themselves.

                • Frank Lovejoy

                  Hi, Joe Hipster. I’ve actually spent quite a bit of time in third-world countries teaching, so you can drop the virtue signalling.

                  Also, it would be ‘fewer’, not ‘less’. Which one of us is supposedly a professional writer?

                  And if you really think you’re safer from gun crime in Sierra Leone or Yemen than you are in Burbank California, you’re deluding yourself.

            • FastEddieTX

              If you want to get into technicalities, in order to buy a gun online, you must send it to a licensed gun shop to pick up. They don’t send it to your door. I am going to go out on a limb here and guess you’ve never owned a gun before…?

              • Ha. What a brilliant guess ! I never owned a gun. Neither will I ever own it. Guns are for people like you who live in their own self-created imaginary world where everyone and anyone, including the government, can turn against you anytime. And of course, then you need to protect yourself. Wow.. how do you even get up in the morning with so much fear ?

                • GirlFromIvy

                  Guns are actually a part of rural culture and most frequently, in my experience, used to protect livestock against predation or for hunting.

                  I’m not afraid of guns any more than I’m afraid of cars. Suggesting that people who own guns are living in fear says more about you than about gun owners.

                • FastEddieTX

                  I don’t have any fear. I own a gun. Any movie fan worth anything knows it is better to have a gun and not need it than to need a gun and not have one.

                  Wow…how do you even have enough brain power to turn on a computer?

                  Just another uninformed rube spouting the party line…

                • E30fan

                  Cinemaholic
                  Most people who own guns do so for reasons other than an unjustified fear of crime and terrorism. There is justifiable fear (cash carying businesses), defense of livestock (the only safe way to chase off a predator), rural police response times (forever basically), target practice (a collegiate and Olympic sport), nostalgia (pop’s hand me down), mechanical appreciation (the collector), and the the list goes on.

                  The assault rifle restrictions mostly impede these entirely legitimate uses of guns hence all the pushback. I for one am in favor of clip restrictions and I consider handguns to be man killers in purpose and use (enabling suicides, concealment and tactically upgradeable just as much as any rifle). So my objections shouldn’t be taken as a blanket condemnation of all gun laws. I just think that what everyone is discussing, semi auto riflerestrictions, creates far more problems than it solves.

                • Capt. Harlock

                  Projection can be treated, as can your Hoplophobia. I’ll be charitable and tell you that you are ignorant and grossly misinformed. The alternative is that you are an idiot and a liar.

                • Lao Zoot

                  And here we see, yet again, the tired and worn-out accusation that gun owners are delusional, paranoid, and fearful.
                  I know at least 5 people personally who have successfully safeguarded themselves and their families from robbery, rape, assault, and who knows what else, with handguns. That’s just right off the top of my head. In only one case was a shot fired, and that was a warning shot.
                  Guns are useful tools. Period. If you don’t want to own one, fine. But suck it up, buttercup, because they’re not going anywhere.

            • GirlFromIvy

              That’s not correct. You can order online, but the age and background is checked when you pick it up at the dealer. They do not mail it directly to you.

        • Crenshaw Pete

          You sure don’t act like it! If you were so intelligent, you wouldn’t be advocating for restricting peoples’ natural rights.

    • Right Wired

      Guns are currently keeping 400,000,000 Americans free.

    • ScottM1A

      But on the other hand guns have stopped between 3,000,000 and 30,000,000 violent crimes in those same 15 years means the good outweighs the bad done with guns.

  • SJR

    ‘It’s a movie, dude’ – Russell

    ‘Don’t you think movies should reflect the current times?’ – Wells

    ‘It’s a fucking movie, dude. Fantasy, make believe, real world wackos aren’t going to force me to condemn a fantasy of fantasy violence that has some laughs and fun’ – Russell

    Doesn’t this H8 thing take place during the Civil War and isn’t it a Agatha Cristie setup, why the fuck does it need to speak to the current world miasma of ISIS global terrorism.

    ‘Violence need to be portrayed in a responsible way’ is what I think you’re getting at. The only response I would have is, it’s cinema, it’s art who is anybody to be the arbiter of what is responsible or appropriate.

    I don’t wanna live in a Stalinist world where because of ISIS, I can’t escape into a fantasy or/and I’ll be made to feel bad that i watched a movie where someone gets shot in the face or cut up.

    ISIS isn’t going to make me hate Muslims anymore than they will make me hate violent movies, video games etc. If a movie is making a point about how violence is bad, I already understand that and don’t need to be told but fine. If it doesn’t that’s fine too, it’s not the end times, not because of the movies anyway.

  • I’m glad you guys could jaw for a bit and then shake hands afterward…while I disagree with Russell’s views on guns, Tarantino’s been getting his chops busted about violence and perceived racism in his films for almost 25 years and reporters love to try and connect vile real-world incidents with what he puts on screen, often in a half-assed “I’ll bring up the subject and force YOU to defend yourself while I sit here and smirk” kind of fashion.

    • I wasn’t smirking.

      • Professor Wagstaff

        I didn’t get the impression you were smirking with Russell, but plenty have with Tarantino. This San Francisco reporter is the classic example:
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eL3k5NtBUaI

      • I was talking less about you specifically and more journalists I’ve seen, including the one PW shows below.

    • Jeff

      To be fair, this year Tarantino has put himself right into the middle of real world issues in a big way. If you are going to speak out against racist violence publicly, folks have every right to question your fetish with violence. While I don’t think Tarantino is directly responsible for any violence, he has certainly helped in desensitizing it for a section of the population. I don’t know he plot of Hateful Eight but his last four films have been a bloody celebration of revenge.

      • That’s a fair point and those challenging him specifically on the issue of police is totally valid (and I think QT’s responses on Bill Maher and Chris Hayes were strong). I’m speaking more to the vague “there’s violence an racism in the real world and violence and racism in your films. Make the connection for me while I sit here with my arms folded” questions he’s gotten in the past.

      • LegallySpeaking

        He didn’t speak out against racist violence; he spoke out in support of a bunch of mobs attacking people for daring to defend themselves against black criminals attacking them.

        Michael Brown deserved to die. Trayvon Martin deserved to die. And Laquan MacDonald deserved to die.

        All three viciously attacked people and would have killed them had they not been gunned down in righteous self-defense.

        And your lies won’t work here.

  • TheRealBadHatHarry

    He owned you.

    • otto

      Harry, whether intentional or not, your posts simply brighten my day and bring a smile to my face.

    • DrKennethNoisewaterMD

      Great name. Doesn’t he say that’s some bad hat harry? nitpicking haha

      • TheRealBadHatHarry

        Indeed he does, but that name was (to my great surprise) taken 🙂

  • Mister Quigley Jr.

    Bone Tomahawk is so damn good.

    • NephewOfAnarchy

      It is. I can’t believe this was relegated to VOD. Great character work all round, and the scene where crippled Patrick Wilson entering enemy territory with no idea what to expect (but we do) is one of the most tense things I’ve seen all year.
      I wonder if it’ll show up on Tarantino’s best of the year list that he likes to put out. Seems exactly like his kind of thing.

    • TheRealBadHatHarry

      Really? God, how I wish I could agree. That movie, by the looks of it, was completely up my street, had so many things I dig. But I found it so amateurish I wondered if I wasn’t watching a student film, from the very opening scene even. And that final portion in the cave looked and felt like an R-rated episode of Star Trek. Ugh. So disappointed.

  • Terry McCarty

    Reminiscent of what might have occurred if Robert Downey Jr had discussed his past drug addiction with the UK interviewer during the AVENGERS: AGE OF ULTRON junket.

  • freeek

    What Mr Quigley says. Bone Tomahawk is very good and has rendered The Hateful Eight pretty useless.

  • THX11384EB

    I guess this is what happens to your brain when you’re brought up as a Republican and married to Goldie Hawn for 30 years.

    • Ben Kabak

      You speak and know common sense?

  • ZenMaster_Coltrane

    The point that always gets ignored/lost is that the goal is to reduce the likelihood of mass casualties from a singular event…not prevent anyone from EVER acting out.

    And this self defense argument (in relation to active shooter situations) is beyond ridiculous. After the Oregon shooting, there was a guy going on and on about how he felt great so many ppl he knew conceal carried on campus, yet he claims to not have intervened b/c he didn’t want to be picked off by SWAT. So in practice, this citizen self-defense fantasy crumbles. Body armor and the benefit of the initiative will always trump this Counterstrike-Wesley Snipes-Clint Eastwood hybrid that only exists in the minds of the NRA.

    And the evidence from countries that clamped down following mass shootings (Australia, UK) illustrates the path of legislative effectiveness.

    • York Durden

      That guy worried about SWAT shooting him is wise. Untrained gun-totin’ citizens getting caught in real-world situations is a recipe not for public safety, but chaos. Besides, most anyone paranoid enough to want to get a CWP (without being ex-military or cop) is likely going to be far too fearful in a crisis situation to deploy their weapon effectively. Somebody walks in with an AK-47, and you’re going to yank out your shiny .38 special like in the old west…? Right.

      Wells’s notion of the gun being a totem is quite accurate—disenfranchised through economics or other sociological factors, many men have spent their lives having their minds entrained by protagonists who solve problems with weapons. Of course bad-ass dudes want to wave one around, because guys like Kurt Russell always look so tough, capable, and victorious over their antagonists… in the movies.

      • ZenMaster_Coltrane

        Wise and yet it totally illustrates the absurdity of concealed weapon armament being a solution. The guy was a veteran and he was espousing the virtues of CWPs in preventing mass casualties and yet his real life situation was predictably unaffected by a weapon being on his person.

        • So you’re saying the absurdity of the CWP argument was illustrated because a guy who wasn’t in the same building acted “wise” and didn’t rush into the scene guns blazing like the cowboy these people supposedly are?

          • UnclePauly

            I know I would feel better if some guy came in and started shooting up a place I was in and there was no one to shoot back. I mean, someone might get SHOT if there was someone fighting back!

            I won’t address the fact that psychos don’t go to shoot up places where there is a likelihood of people carrying firearms. That is MEANINGLESS!!!

          • ZenMaster_Coltrane

            Where are all these stories about all these amazing takedowns? There should be an anthology by now.

            • Let me get this straight. I question the logic of the assertion that you made, pointing out that the incident in question is both misrepresented (because the guy wasn’t even on the scene) and would actually work against the most common anti-CWP argument, and rather than defend your reasoning you change the subject to an argument I never made and ask for an “anthology” (vs. the single anecdote that “totally illustrates” your position) when plenty of examples can be easily found in two minutes on google?

              • ZenMaster_Coltrane

                The guy was on scene. So there’s no ‘logic’ to events that happened.

                A noob playing 2 mins of a tactical shooter would have an easier time understanding the fallacy of this defense than you.

                “A guy w/ a gun hears shots and does nothing. Guy then says later that he feels good about ppl having guns, however useless they were in halting the aforementioned shooting.”

                Are you having trouble understanding the difference between a guy with a .357 Magnum and shooters outfitted w/ assault rifles and armored vests?

                Holy Fox News bot.

                • Those were words and sentences, I’ll give you that much.

                  First, the guy was not “on scene,” despite what your own preferred “Fox News bot” sources said. This is a deception intended to make people think he was in a position to shoot back. It hides the fact that he was in a different building a quarter mile across campus from where the shooting happened. He wasn’t even close enough to hear shots (another lie). Someone had to come into the building and tell them about it.

                  Second, his actions failed to demonstrate the most common anti-CWP argument, which is that people with guns will whip them out and play cowboy and make matters worse. The best you get out of this is that it doesn’t prove anything for the other side either. Pretty small victory. So now instead of “CWPs will cause more casualties” you are settling for “CWPs don’t help much when you’re in a different building.” Seems like a bit of a downgrade to me.

                  Third, it doesn’t really matter either way because individual anecdotes prove nothing. They may “illustrate” but even as an illustration this one is a loser, thus the misrepresentation. It’s a toss-up whether people who rely on anecdotal proof are stupid enough to actually believe in what they’re saying or are just dishonest. I can only imagine the cognitive dissonance you must deal with when reading about other incidents. No wonder you avoid knowledge of them.

                  But keep pounding that table and changing the subject to anthologies and armored vests.

                  • ZenMaster_Coltrane

                    Reach brother, reach!

                    Thanks for that witness transcript adaptation. B/c those prove less than nothing.

                    If anything, this firmly establishes the fallacy of your enitre CWP defense.

                    You must realize how ridiculous it is to sit there after any mass shooting and argue that “The CW guy was not within my self-defined 75 ft zone to do anything.” You might add, unless “his back is not turned w/ adequate cover and an unobstructed line of sight to return fire, this case is NA. Next.”

                    I completely understand these lazy defenses b/c the NRA position of pro gun proliferation is almost unbreachable within the halls of Congress. It really doesn’t matter WTF Red State logic you come up with.

                    But my entire point is that CWP is not an effective solution…and when you look at countries that pressed ahead w/ legislation to prohibit weapons aggressively you can see the numbers decline.

                    • I don’t know what’s funnier:
                      – your fallback to a conspiracy theory that this guy may have been lying about where he was
                      – your murdering of logic, and abuse of the terms “firmly establishes,” “fallacy,” “your,” and “CWP defense”
                      – or your hilarious anti-gun argument that people with guns have a duty to use them, and if they aren’t on the scene (because 75 ft. away is no different than being in a building across campus) they are obligated to rush in and save the day.

                      I’m starting to wonder if you’re a right wing troll.

                      You don’t even seem to know what this argument is about. (Hint: it isn’t guns.) It’s evident that you are arguing with a projection of your own imagination, because you apparently can’t conceive that I actually agree with your last paragraph and I think that the opening paragraph of your first post in this thread was spot on.

                    • Crenshaw Pete

                      “But my entire point is that CWP is not an effective solution”

                      And, neither is your OMGGUNZMORELAWZPLEAZE!, but you still cling to it like you’re on the Titanic.

                      Please, go down with the ship.

            • goodvibe61

              You should see the websites that “report” all these uses of guns to prevent violence. What a hoot.

            • PunaPerson

              Here are a mere 10 such stories as noted in the Washington Post (not really a highly biased right-wing gun-nut outlet):

              https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/10/03/do-civilians-with-guns-ever-stop-mass-shootings/

      • Magga
  • otto

    Well, I guess expecting an actor to embrace a nuanced position that requires something other than an all-or-nothing approach to government may have been a stretch.

    • JR

      Are Jeff’s “re-education camps” a nuanced position? There is nothing nuanced about his polemics.

      • The conncept of green reeducation camps is, at heart, a positive, nurturing one because the idea is to bring people out of their caves — to introduce light and truth and facts into the murk of ignorance and rightwing bullshit.

        • That does sound positive. Like a Great Leap Forward.

        • UnclePauly

          I know conservatives who feel the same way about Liberals. But they’re just crazy, right?

        • TheRealBadHatHarry

          God, if only you were half as smart as you think you are, the world would be a magical place.

        • Crenshaw Pete

          Ahh! There’s that proto-fascism we knew was at your core.

          Thank you for your honesty!

      • otto

        The position he advocated was restrictions “just so the idiots can’t get hold of them [so easily], that’s all.”

        That’s the obvious answer, but it may take a few more mass killings until Republicans (and some Democrats) start thinking about something other than their NRA grade.

        • As if Russell rejected out of hand the notion of any and all restrictions. Funny how Wells felt it necessary to add the “so easily” part when typing up the transcript.

          • otto

            Um, yes, he did exactly that.

            Russell followed up with the nonsensical, “ban guns and you won’t stop them” argument, which is laughably incoherent. It reflected an antipodal worldview, not a nuanced one.

            • If you really think this proves Russell would be against any and all restrictions, you might be the one with the “antipodal” worldview. That’s a pretty reductive inference that ignores what he’s pushing back against.

              I’ll grant that this is not a terribly nuanced discussion in general, but Jeff is the one who set the stage. He claims that “we all know” guns exist primarily as a metaphor needed by disenfranchised white guys (“it’s statistically irrefutable!”). He compares the efficacy of a no-fly list with that of gun restrictions. He wants to keep “idiots” from getting guns, which raises the question of who he’s really talking about, especially in light of his previous comments.

              Even people who favor numerous restrictions can agree on the statement “ban guns and you won’t stop them.” I don’t see how it’s laughably incoherent, unless you infer that someone raising this point is stating they are therefore against any restrictions. My inference is that they think the person they are talking to is barking up the wrong tree at this time, not that it’s a tree that needs to be chopped down.

              Then there’s still the question of what a terrorist attack has to do with his movie.

              • Kano’s_Razor

                Yeah — if one is truly interested in “idiots” not being able to do things the rest of us can enjoy then, eh, maybe democracy is not the ideal model of government for said person.

                (I mean, a lot of the time I actually find that sentiment super-relatable and stuff — but to quote a dyslexic John Cougar Mellencamp: “that ain’t- America…”

                • Little sunset terra cotta houses for you and me, baby.

                  Isn’t that why they’re on the no-fly list? Because they’re “idiots”?

                  Unfortunately the constitutionality issues mean that Jeff will probably have to continue to deal with people reclining their seats.

              • otto

                What is incoherent is the response to reasonable gun restrictions, which would make it harder to obtain the weapons that slaughtered 14 people the other day. It’s simple: if the Assault Weapons ban of 1994 were in place, it would have been harder for these people to obtain assault weapons to carry out the massacre. The response — “but if you can’t make it IMPOSSIBLE for them to obtain these weapons,we should have no additional restrictions at all” — doesn’t make sense, even to a reasonably intelligent child.

                The way the world works is, you regulate and criminalize conduct to deter it, to make the conduct less likely, and not because you expect the laws or regulations to be enforced 100 percent of the time. Why have laws that punish murder, insider trading, if there are people who are going to commit them in any event.

                That is what makes the responses to this proposal juvenile. The people making these arguments (e.g., Bad Hat Harry is one) are so obtuse there is no use trying to engage them.

                • I’m gonna go out on a limb and bet that you two probably agree on more than either of you might prefer to admit, even on this issue. It’s just more satisfying to define ourselves by our disagreements, and to stack the rhetoric (and sometimes loosen our logical standards) in order to justify the conclusion that the other side is too obtuse to be worth engaging. I’m just happy this place isn’t an echo chamber.

                  • otto

                    I may have held the worldview of RBHH when I was about 9 or 10 years old. But then I got an education, traveled the world, asked questions, and basically grew up.

                • TheRealBadHatHarry

                  It would be a lot easier to take you seriously if you knew, for example, what an “assault weapon” is. I can’t recall EVER hearing a gun control advocate argue his point without making gross errors of ignorance.

                  There’s also a bit of a straw man you’ve constructed here — show me one, just ONE credible gun rights advocate who says there should be no restrictions at all. You’re pushing a false narrative; NOBODY with any sense, no one who is remotely credible, says there should be no laws or regulations re: firearms. There are, however, throngs of lefties with policy proposals, not one of which would have prevented any of the recent spate of mass shootings. Not one. Only the latest is the whole “if you’re on a no fly list you should’t be able to buy a gun” BS. The two jihadist assholes in San Bernardino weren’t on any list at all, so what the hell does that have to do with it?

                  I haven’t heard one argument from you gun control guys that makes any sense, and I haven’t heard one logical response to anything I’ve brought up. Show me one thing I’ve said that’s obtuse. Your “no use trying to engage” angle sounds a lot more like your end o the argument just can’t withstand logical scrutiny.

                  • otto

                    Jesus Christ, you’re a fucking idiot.

                    Last words wasted: If you had any education, or sense of history, or if you even had the wherewithal to google “assault weapons ban,” you would see that in 1994 Congress indeed defined the term, and regulated/banned their sale and use. But no, you simply wax off, uninhibited by your ignorance, masturbating to the sound of your own typing.

                    The problem with the world is people like you, who are too intellectually lazy to think beyond your cloistered xenophobia. I told you in an earlier post that your posts usually made me smile – but what you failed to appreciate (by your upvote) was that I was laughing AT you, imagining you as the near-obese, marginally employed, angry-at-the-world schlub for whom commenting on Hollywood Elsewhere is a raison d’etre. If only the world were as simple as you imagine.

                    Life is simply too short to try to engage. Done.

                    • TheRealBadHatHarry

                      I knew exactly what you meant, moron. I uprooted you for kicks. You’re the one who still doesn’t know what assault weapons are, since you think one was used in SB.

                      But like you said, life’s too short. You couldn’t answer a simple, politely phrased question. That’s cause you’re a jacksss who doesn’t know how to think. Hee haw, motherfucker.

                • Crenshaw Pete

                  Well, the behavior you’re ranting about is “owning guns”. That’s a natural right of all people. Who are you to determine who can and cannot participate? The real issue here murder, as you mention (obtusely), but you don’t want to talk about motives or impulses to commit murder, you want to argue about the tools.

                  And, you want the laws to be enforced by people with guns, because, apparently, government actors are magically perfect in their decision making and morality. And you pat yourself on the back about how “intelligent” you are. Mind you don’t callouses!

                • E30fan

                  A law that is wilfully disobeyed by a large enough percentage of the population carries tremendous risks and costs. See prohibition.

                • Capt. Harlock

                  22,000 Federal, State and local firearms laws are already on the books. That’s beyond a “reasonable” amount, by any standards.

                  The terrorists in CA already violated multiple gun laws, such as illegal transfer of the rifles, illegal modification of the rifles by removing the CA-mandated “bullet-button,”* bringing guns into a “Gun-Free” zone and using CA-banned 30 round magazines illegally in said rifles.

                  Lets talk about all of the Federal laws broken by them with the pipe bombs and remote IEDs, shall we?

                  *A bullet button is a device that locks the 10 round, CA-legal magazine into the rifle and requires a “tool” to release the magazine. Often designed to use a bullet tip as the “tool.”

        • TheRealBadHatHarry

          Obvious? What about it is obvious? First, define some terms: what are “the idiots?” What does “easily” mean? Then who defines “idiot” for the rest of the country? And who defines “easy?”

          Once you have that settled, then tell me about how you plan to implement this obvious strategy.

          But this is all rhetorical nonsense. There is no actual answer to these questions because there is no actual functional thinking behind these calls for guns control. It’s the perfect liberal self-perpetuation machine. Anyone with a brain knows there is no POLICY solution to gun violence (there is only cultural renewal) outside of totalitarian, fascistic confiscatory measures which could only be taken by a police state after a bloody civil war against American citizens — that’s the only measure government could take that would actually prevent crazy people from shooting others (and even that would not be close to 100% given the black market, etc).

          So unless you’re advocating the fascist overthrow of America in order to enforce gun confiscation, you’re just whistling fucking dixie, because there is no legal way to prevent determined and/or crazy people from doing whatever the fuck they’re going to do. You know this. EVERYONE knows this. No matter what laws you pass, it will happen again, which will result in calls for more laws, until it happens again, which will require even more laws, etc, etc ad nauseam. It’s the ne plus ultra of progressive politics — no workable, realistic solution, just a constant state of crisis to be exploited in the furtherance of state control over the citizenry.

          At least be honest about what you’re advocating.

          • otto

            I think the meaning of in my previous post to you eluded you.

            • TheRealBadHatHarry

              You think so? It’s possible, but I haven’t seen though it yet. Where did I get you wrong?

              Do you mean because you were quoting Jeff? Maybe that’s it, but your final comment seemed to imply agreement.

    • Clarence ‘Sticky’ Merkle

      A “nuanced position”? Like saying that someone who points out that there is a serious problem with jihadist mentality and the proliferation of deadly Islamist extremism is saying that “ALL MUSLIMS ARE TERRORISTS!”?

  • cyanic

    You knew going in Russell has right political leanings. Glad you went there anyway because I’m sure he felt rightfully agitated.

  • Magga

    After 9/11 more and more movies have been about the fetishistic destruction of American cities and landmarks. I don’t think these shootings, which have been a regular occurrence in America since at least the time I started being interested in U.S. politics, will affect cinema much. Or vice versa, since these movies are popular in most cultures, regardless of the level of violence in those places.

    • Wells to Magga; Read the N.Y Times piece I mentioned. The vibe is not business-as usual out there.

      • Magga

        I read it, and I also remember you writing about how grand scale destruction would be reduced after 9/11. I agreed completely then, but now I think nothing will get between the audience and their appetite for destruction.

      • And of course the world only exists as manifested in the NY Times.

        • That’s a rather stupid, bumblefuck thing to say.

          • Is it more bumblefuck stupid than saying that Tarantino is “the guy who introduced violence” as attitude and style?

            The NYT “invited people to respond online about their fear of a mass shooting,” and we should be surprised that the people who responded are the ones struggling with fear over mass shooting?

            • Lao Zoot

              Stop, stop, stop– you’ll cause a liberal meltdown.

        • Michael Gebert

          If you really want to know what’s happening in the heartland, read the New York Times. After you’ve finished the complete novels of Alain Robbe-Grillet.

          • They go together like Pinot and ostrich steak.

          • brenkilco

            Didn’t he write Last Year At Missoula?

        • Lao Zoot

          The NYT’s divorce from reality perfectly reflects the liberal mindset.

      • Capt. Harlock

        No, the “vibe” is that immature crybullies, such as yourself, have been throwing a tantrum on the center stage for long enough. It’s time for you to get a verbal, proverbial “spanking” before you are forced by the adults to go sit in the corner and shut up.

        Your academy-based, Lefty-biased, Hoplophobic daydream of a World-View is so churlishly childish that it’s becoming embarassing to read the words of simpering simpletons, like you.

        Here’s a clue: if someone who makes videos of themselves cutting throats tells you that you are next on the chopping block, you take them at their word!

  • HamOrThyme

    What a dumbfuck.

  • Billyboy

    It still amazes me when someone, specially a filmmaker or actor, say that “movies are movies” and “reality is something else.”

    But when they have a film about the Holocaust or a terrible humanitarian situation in Darfur, then movies are not just “movies” but their own socially responsible deed and commitment to reality.

    There’s a reason why there’s some much violence in mainstream American movies and somehow Russell can’t “connect the dots.”

    Anyway, great mano a mano with Russell, Wells.

  • GhostOfGigli

    France already has super strict gun laws. The weapons used in the incident in France were already banned by laws there.

    • UnclePauly

      Yeah, but at least France TRIED to do something about guns, and doesn’t trying matter?

      • GhostOfGigli

        Sure, I’ll give them a gold star for effort.

        • Earl of Sandwich

          What, no cookie?

      • TheRealBadHatHarry

        Do or do not. There is no try.

      • ScottM1A

        Nope.

      • Earl of Sandwich

        No.

      • The Man With No Name As A Name

        Doing something stupid doesn’t get one points. Doing something stupid that takes away people’s right is even more of a loser proposition.

      • Mnz3

        Obviously the French deserve a trophy…

    • VicLaz3

      As bad the Paris attacks were, France doesn’t have a mass shooting for everyday of the year. So in terms of carnage, sorry, we have them beat even if account for our population.

      • GhostOfGigli

        Jeff is suggesting to Russell that gun control laws could’ve prevented San Berandino with this comment:

        Wells: They didn’t kill the people in San Bernardino with cars.

        A very strict set of gun control laws didn’t prevent the events in Paris where these types of weapons were already outlawed.

        • VicLaz3

          You are wrong, California’s “very strict” gun law has the gaping “bullet button” clause which allowed this guy to buy an AR-15. So we do know that without that loophole, this guy would’ve had a hard time buying an AR-15 legally. And looking at the number of gun deaths in Paris vs the US makes I obvious. Remember, laws are there to make things better, not to make things perfect.

          • GhostOfGigli

            I’m specifically referencing Paris here. These tough gun laws already exist in Paris.

            • VicLaz3

              Yes. And they don’t have 300+ mass shootings a year. Yes, shit happens now and again, but they don’t have an epidemic like we do.

              • Ben Kabak

                The 300+ mass shooting number is complete bullshit and fabricated. All you gun control nuts should be in Chicago protesting daily. But that wouldn’t be PC.

                • VicLaz3

                  Fresh from Breitbart I see. I tell you what, let’s just count the number of gun homicides. Looks even worse for us when compared to France. Point still stands. Point is even stronger.

                  • Crenshaw Pete

                    “Yes. And they don’t have 300+ mass shootings a year.”

                    “let’s just count the number of gun homicides”

                    Ahh, the old Confaltion game. You fail miserably. Pretty much like Jefferey did.

                  • mnofler

                    yes, please go and you’ll see that gun homicides have gone down year over year and is on the right trajectory. why do you hate the fact that people are killing each other less?

                  • McPig

                    And then we have the Swiss…..

                • Brutus974

                  OMG 1,000,000eleventy million mass shootings a year, you guys!

              • Frank Lovejoy

                Neither. Do. We. That ‘mass shooting’ thing was debunked by everyone who looked at it. Some of the ‘mass shootings’ listed involved murder/suicides of two people; many of them were gang crimes; and a number of them NEVER OCCURRED and were MADE UP TO BOOST THE NUMBER.

              • Beauceron

                We don’t have 300 mass shooting either. You can have your own opinion–you are not allowed to make up facts.

                And I know where you’re getting that number from– it has been roasted.

                The Congressional Research Service (the last non-partisan org in DC) did a study. Use their numbers. They are honest.

                • VicLaz3

                  Fact: France does not have anywhere close the amount of gun violence, even considering proportion and extraordinary events like the Paris attacks.

                  Their gun laws WORK. That is my point.

                  • Been there, seen it

                    Tell me how this doesn’t work!
                    http://rense.com/general9/gunlaw.htm
                    Every home has a gun and look at their stats!!

                  • Brutus974

                    There gun violence sure went up this year, didn’t it?

                  • Shawn Clark

                    Are you sure it is their gun laws or is it the way they raise their families there. Chicago Illinois has tougher gun regs than France and have you checked their total deaths by shooting?
                    Fact is that if a person wants to commit a terrorist attack they will do it. The laws will not stop them. Timothy Mcvain (spelling) didn’t use a gun.
                    Look into the average number of deaths in mass murder attempts and compare the number of legally armed citizens on the scene versus the time it took police to respond. I seriously hope that if for some forsaken reason you are some place where there is a mass shooting that someone is there who is armed to protect you and your loved ones.

                    • sleat

                      It would be like trying to count the number of fires in swimming pools, or the mass shootings at police stations or shooting ranges. Even would-be mass-shooters aren’t stupid/mad enough to try to set fire to a swimming pool.

                  • mikrat

                    Then Move there.

                  • Alex III

                    UPDATED: France suffered more casualties (murders
                    and injuries) from mass public shootings in 2015 than the US has
                    suffered during Obama’s entire presidency (UPDATED 532 to 396)

                • Brutus974

                  “You can have your own opinion–you are not allowed to make up facts.”
                  No no no. In today’s age the left *IS* allowed to make up facts.
                  Otherwise, they wouldn’t have anything.

              • Ari

                I’m a little late here but here’s a good article on Eu mass shootings vs American ones (hint: they’re actually more deadly overseas)
                https://mises.org/library/mass-shootings-state-makes-us-less-safe
                And this one is just a good overview of how policies have worked or not worked at curbing violence http://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/costs-consequences-gun-control#full
                You probably won’t read this but hey, I tried

            • DimitriL

              Yeah, and they didn’t get the weapons in Paris. They got them in Brussels, where the gun laws are shit. Just like the guns perpetuating murders in Chicago come from Indiana. Gun control laws don’t work if there’s a big open spigot elsewhere in the system.

              • GhostOfGigli

                So, just to be clear, you are advocating for globally enforced gun control laws, right? How, exactly, is that possible?

                • DimitriL

                  I’m advocating that, if the EU has stringent standards for guns and a member country’s failure to adhere to those standards leads directly to a mass slaughter, you plug that fucking hole with the laws already on the goddamn books.

                  And good lord, there’s not a global law against murder, but pretty much the entire world agrees that it’s wrong and generates individual, sovereign laws to combat a universal problem. You don’t have a master law to address a common issue.

                  • GhostOfGigli

                    So, in your dream system of patchwork laws, how do you deal with the Paris events? Do all the ‘good’ countries go to war with the country that was the source of the weapons?

                    • DimitriL

                      That’s one of the dumbest conflations I’ve ever heard.

                      And patchwork laws are exactly what we have now.

                    • TheTruthBurns

                      So essentially you are advocating for all the bad guys, and just government, to have all the guns. You may want to read a history book one of these days, or even 1984. To think we have “progressed” passed the point of idiot leaders in charge do evil things, I refer you to Obama and Trump.

                    • DimitriL

                      Oh brother. If the government or bad guys want you dead now, you’re dead. Your assault rifle or pop gun isn’t going to save you from an Apache helicopter, or a couple of radical terrorists fully armed and decked in head to toe body armor.

                      This whole fucking John Wayne notion is horseshit. I just read a news report yesterday where a guy saw a carjacking in Texas, pulled out his weapon to stop it, and oops, shot the VICTIM of the carjacking in the head instead. Even if we had Second Amendment Heaven (which we arguably do), most of the people carrying around arms like some kind of Cowboy Johnny just MAKE THINGS FUCKING WORSE.

                      Anyway, I’m tired of everyone here telling me what I’m advocating. I have no problem with common sense ownership of rifles. My dad owned rifles and was a hunter his whole life, rock-solid Reagan Republican, and quit the NRA before he died because, and I quote, “all these fucking assholes care about now is guns.”

                    • > Your assault rifle or pop gun isn’t going to save you from an Apache helicopter, or a couple of radical terrorists fully armed and decked in head to toe body armor.

                      Small arms worked just fine in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Vietnam.

                      And as for Brussels, I think Belgian gun laws are a lot more strict than you’re letting on. Or do you think that fully automatic machine guns and RPGs (both used in the Charlie Hebdo attack) are things you can legally buy in Belgium?

                    • DimitriL

                      Yes, your shotgun in Boise is gonna save you from a drone strike.

                      As for Belgium: well, compared to the US, the gun laws quite strict. But they’re barely enforced (you can openly buy Kalashnikovs outside the train station in Brussels. And the EUs open borders don’t help.

                      If you wanna see how it CAN work, look at England. They broke up a terrorist cell that was arming itself with the few weapons they could get ahold of.

                      Which were flintlock pistols – and so old they couldn’t get them to fire.

                    • > Yes, your shotgun in Boise is gonna save you from a drone strike.

                      The US military has nowhere near enough men and materiel to occupy the whole country to the point where the average citizen (particularly one in Boise) would have to worry about drone strike. Regardless, even in occupied territory, the threat wouldn’t be armed groups of partisans moving around openly and therefore becoming drone strike targets (costing >$1M per Hellfire, mind you). It would be random assassinations of politburo sipping lattes in Starbucks.

                      As for gun control, there is a lot more to it than laws. It’s culture. If you snapped your fingers and instantly disappeared all guns in this country, people would start building sten guns in their garages using parts from Home Depot (they are very simple weapons – look it up). Gun control works in countries like the UK and Japan because the average citizen just doesn’t think or care about guns at all – it’s not part of their culture. There also exist countries where gun control laws are strict, yet gun violence is rampant (Venezuela, Brazil). There are also countries where gun control is very lax and gun violence is minimal (Switzerland).

                    • Obo Agboghidi

                      What people like DimitriL also forget to include in their arguments is how countries with high gun control laws, also have a culture that is more welcoming to police intrusion and warrantless searching.

                      In order for their gun control laws they want to work, they will need to classify a lot of Americans who haven’t committed a violent crime to being criminals.

                    • McPig

                      Britain IS a police state. Their police and government can do thing that would be totally illegal here.

                    • The Man With No Name As A Name

                      Meanwhile another terrorist cell set off bombs in the subway/bus system and killed 56 people just ten years ago.

                    • McPig

                      Wow that certainly explains how the IRA never staged any attacks….

                    • Craig Goodrich

                      “look at England. They broke up a terrorist cell that was arming itself with the few weapons they could get ahold of.

                      Which were flintlock pistols – and so old they couldn’t get them to fire.”

                      Aah, so that explains why London bobbies now carry guns. No, wait.;.

                      Look, by the way, at the statistics for BOTH gun crime and general violent crime in Scotland, where the gun laws are exactly the same as England’s. Compare violent crime in Japan and Taiwan, which have essentially identical gun laws.

                      D’oh! It’s culture, not objects.

                      If all that is too complicated, just remember:

                      Gun laws are obeyed by people who obey laws.

                      People who obey laws are not the problem.

                    • DimitriL

                      If it’s culture, then we’re really shitty people and don’t deserve the responsibility of having guns.

                    • sleat

                      “If it’s culture, then we’re really shitty people and don’t deserve the responsibility of having guns.”

                      That’s right. Only the very shittiest of the shitty people should have the guns. by default. The least shitty people should be prevented from having them, unless they have been appropriately anointed (but not necessarily well trained) and are called “police” or “security”.

                    • DimitriL

                      Oh brother. Toodles.

                    • sleat

                      Yes, England is a shining example of violent crime and murder being tolerated by a society, as long as guns aren’t used to do them. One small step closer to utopia.

                    • DimitriL

                      United Kingdom total murder rate: 1.0 per million
                      United States total murder rate: 3.8 per million

                      So, basically, you’re 75% less likely to be murdered in England from any source than in the US. Sounds closer to Utopia to me.

                    • sleat

                      And New Zealand closer still, since they manage a lower homicide rate than the UK without banning guns. And the skiing is way better.

                    • sleat

                      Is your word for this number (100,000) “million”?

                    • DimitriL

                      Yes, it should’ve been per 100k per UNODC; my source incorrectly listed the per capita basis.

                    • Crenshaw Pete

                      Fuck your “common sense”. Who are you to define it?

                    • DimitriL

                      A guy not getting in the middle of a carjacking and shooting the victim in the head, that’s who I am.

                    • conleec

                      Link?

                    • DimitriL
                    • Let’s consider the possibilities here:

                      1. Yes, some wanna-be Dudley Do-Right bystander really did shoot someone he was trying to help. It’s not impossible.

                      2. It’s yet another in a long string of recent examples of the news media fucking up the facts in their reporting, and this version is more reliable (watch the video). No prizes for guessing which one goes viral among people who don’t really care if it’s true or not.

                      3. The bystander was not a Dudley Do-Right bystander, but another local criminal in a low-income, high crime neighborhood late on a Saturday night, and may have even been connected somehow to the situation or someone involved.

                      What this story proves more than anything else is that the media makes people stupider. And even if it were true, it’s the same logic people use against air bags.

                    • DimitriL

                      The problem here, as was amusingly demonstrated last night on The Daily Show with a police rapid response team, is that all these people with guns think that if there’s a crisis, well, thank God, I’m packing and I’ll be able to do something about it. Except when someone attacks out of the blue, you’re never ready for it, most of these people aren’t remotely tainted on how to react in a crisis (and you can’t be trained enough), AND they make the job of the police far harder.

                      Fully armed soldiers who are fully cognizant of a particular threat/battle environment are STILL gunned down all the time, especially in an ambush situation. Again, it’s not just the guns that bother me, it’s the combination of guns and civilian hubris.

                      And the actual FBI statistic is that the people who do take down criminals in process, 4 out of 5 civilians did it unarmed. All this Wild West stuff is just not necessary and makes our dangerous country even more reactionary and hair-trigger.

                      (BTW, thanks for the respectful tone. I have no problem debating someone who disagrees with me, but so often these discussions start as snide and nasty, and it brings out the worst in everyone, including me.)

                    • “And the actual FBI statistic is that the people who do take down criminals in process, 4 out of 5 civilians did it unarmed.”

                      Are you referring to this FBI study, which related 21 incidents ended by unarmed civilians and 5 ended by armed civilians?

                      You may be referring to a different study, but the figure is so close that I suspected this was the one.

                      The scope is obviously very limited, focusing not on “criminals in process” but on active shooters. It only considered 160 incidents over 14 years out of millions of crimes. It would be deeply flawed to extrapolate the 1 out of 5 breakdown to general incidents, but if we did it would represent an enormous number.

                      Even within the limited scope of the study, that’s still 5 incidents that were ended by armed civilians. I haven’t combed through it to see if there is any reference to innocent bystanders being accidentally hit, but as far as I know there weren’t. Seems like a net positive.

                      I’m not really pro-gun. I think if I had one it would make me less safe, but that’s mostly because I’m the sort of guy who can trip on a free throw line. I think you have fair concerns (though I don’t trust the analysis of The Daily Show any more than a Subaru commercial), but I’m more concerned than anything about the increasing level of stupidity in our society. We are losing our ability to analyze in favor of conforming to whatever viewpoint the media-political complex says makes us good people. Even if it doesn’t.

                    • DimitriL

                      I can’t speak to whether that’s the same report – the person leading the rapid response team on The Daily Show was the co-author of a FBI report, so I can only guess it’s one and the same. Anyway, I’m not in a position to analyze the points in any depth, but I agree there’s a lot of complexity to this and you bring up fair points as well.

                      I really agree with your point about stupidity. I know responsible gun owners who are all about safety and care. I also know people that are so stupid and shortsighted that I would leave the state if they got a firearm. It’s hard not to be cynical.

                    • Lao Zoot

                      Has anyone else noticed that DimitriL, as per usual, only focuses on GUN deaths/crime in his vaunted Europa, while totally ignoring all the other violent assaults and murders– ones that could have been prevented had the victims been allowed to defend themselves?

                    • The Man With No Name As A Name

                      Meanwhile, let’s point to five other cases where armed citizen’s foiled carjacking. So, I win the anecdote war.

                      http://www.personaldefenseworld.com/2015/08/5-carjacking-attempts-foiled-by-an-armed-citizen/#5-carjacking-attempts-foiled-by-an-armed-citizen-5

                      Or, let’s note rather well-known cases where police accidentally shoot innocent people.

                      https://the7thpwr.wordpress.com/accidental-police-shootings/

                      So, if one tragic incident means citizen’s cannot have firearms, then all these incidents must mean the police shouldn’t have them either.

                    • DimitriL

                      The United States had a per capita firearm death rate of 3.4/100k citizens last year.

                      The UK had a per capita firearm death rate of .05/100k citizens last year.

                      But that’s okay, you can navel gaze and justify a difference in 31600 lives. You can all have the last word. I’m not interested in continuing a discussion that’s giving gun nuts boners. Whatever. Enjoy your fetish.

                      My dad thought you were all fucking lunatics and he was a devoted Republican lifetime hunter.

                      Boy, he was right.

                    • jscrillathadilla

                      Violent crime much higher in Britain. Can’t get a gun but they’ll bludgeon you to death with a hammer for liking the wrong football club. Your dad is about as ignorant as his dumb ass son.

                    • DimitriL

                      Well, that’s completely up for debate, for, as this libertarian points out, they define violent crime COMPLETELY DIFFERENTLY IN THE UK:

                      http://blog.skepticallibertarian.com/2013/01/12/fact-checking-ben-swann-is-the-uk-really-5-times-more-violent-than-the-us/

                      And oh, please, come insult my dead father to my face, you useless piece of shit. I’ll be happy to send you my address.

                  • The Man With No Name As A Name

                    The terrorists in Paris were also reportedly tossing grenades and some blew themselves up with suicide vests. So, did they sidle into into a store somewhere in Europe (Bob’s Bombs and Discount IEDs) and walk out with a box o’ grenades and snazzy suicides vests tossed in as freebies?

                    Think, people, think! These are TERRORISTS. They are part of a transnational terror network with massive resources. The group that claims responsibility for France has freakin’ tanks and anti-aircraft guns in their weapons collection.

                    It is pointless to argue whether local gun laws are a deterrence to terrorists. It would be funny if it wasn’t so deadly.

                    • DimitriL

                      Deterrence in this case is perhaps not giving them an unlimited goddamn supply.

                      Again, terrorists in Britain are getting caught with flintlock and literal Wild West revolvers. The demand is there for the real stuff, but they can’t get it in. Maybe the IRA taught us there’s not we can do about bombs and military shit, but if you choke off the consumer grade stuff, you’re STILL making it harder for them. Isn’t that the point?

                  • Mike_in_AL

                    And thus with lots of anti-murder laws there is no murder problem!

                    • DimitriL

                      Let’s not have laws at all!

            • conleec

              Hell, tough gun laws already exist in California.

          • TheRealBadHatHarry

            This from a guy who has no actual knowledge of what an AR-15 is. Let me tell you something, the boogeyman’s not real, Oz isn’t over the rainbow, and an AR-15 isn’t anything special, it’s not even a particularly powerful rifle. You don’t know what you’re talking about.

            • VicLaz3

              I miss where I discussed the nuances of an AR-15. I’m not a keyboard ranger who brags but I have fired an AR-15 before. It is deadlier than any handgun. It is a fucking rifle. It has longer range and a higher magazine capacity. He probably doesn’t kill 14 people if he only had a pistol. Come on now.

              • TheRealBadHatHarry

                I own an AR-15, and it is not any more deadly than “a handgun.” Under the same circumstances (i.e.: distance to target, etc) is it more deadly than a .22 handgun? Sure. It’s also more deadly than a .22 rifle. But so is a 9mm Glock. So is a 1911 in .45 acp. All rifles in California are restricted to a 10 round magazine, and the weapons in San Bernardino were bought, legally, in California. There are many semi-auto handguns of similar capacity and higher caliber that would have been easily as deadly, if not more so, given that handguns tend to be more effective in close quarters, as in this case. It’s more likely they chose the rifles they did (in addition to two handguns, by the way) because they are easier to fire, that is, they are LESS deadly than larger caliber rifles. There’s a reason AR-15s are commonly referred to as “women’s guns” around training facilities — they have less kick and less muzzle velocity than larger weapons.

                As to your final point, they apparently illegally altered one of the rifles to take a larger mag (which is not simple, it takes knowledge and smithing ability), but regardless, it’s been amply demonstrated that practiced shooters can change mags in a handgun just as swiftly — there’s no reason to believe the body count would have been smaller if they’d only had handguns. Not to mention, the Aurora shooter (will not mention his name) had an AR-15 that jammed immediately, so he committed his carnage with a garden variety shotgun.

                This focus on the guns themselves is ignorant, misplaced, and ultimately deadly because it puts the focus on the wrong thing.

              • hooksfan

                Are you willing to bet the life of your loved ones or yourself based on that statement, because I sure wouldn’t bet the life of my loved ones or myself based on that chain of thought. A person whose practices can become very proficient with whatever firearm they have be it a shotgun, rifle, semi-automatic or revolver. I’ve seen extremely proficient revolver shooters who would but a person with a semi-auto to shame and be very accurate.

              • ScottM1A

                Are you high? The Virginia Tech shooter just had a couple pistols. Jared Loughner just had a pistol, in fact the vast majority of our mass shooters use pistols and not rifles.

                • The Man With No Name As A Name

                  Terrorists with a bomb factory in the garage rolling out IEDs are probably not going to be deterred by gun laws.

                  • ScottM1A

                    I agree completely. In fact I would go so far as to suggest we eliminate pretty much all the gun laws in the country.

                • Americadies

                  The majority of mass shootings are by hand gun.

                  • ScottM1A

                    Yes and your point?

                    • Americadies

                      Yet the left have their panties in a wad over semi automatics. In addition to that, most shootings have been by gang members.

              • conleec

                He actually probably could have killed MORE, since it’s easier to wield a pistol in confined quarters. Had it been MY mission, I wouldn’t have chosen an AR-15.

              • CavemanNH

                So, ban rifles? Do you know what the mag capacity of a Glock 19 is? It takes, oh, I don’t know, about 2 seconds to dump and load again.

                • VicLaz3

                  Trying to search my comment and find the line where I said ban rifles…

              • jscrillathadilla

                High capacity magazines for rifles already illegal in San Bernardino, my informed friend…

          • Ian S. – MSswim.com
          • Lane Lombardia

            Do you even know what a bullet button is? You should gain competency in the subject if you’re advocating for state initiation of violence and presumption of guilt, which all gun control, as a priori restrictions on a natural right, are.

          • mikrat

            “Remember, laws are there to make things better, not to make things perfect.”

            LMAO – Spoken like a true sheeple.

        • Nor did it stop Chicago and D.C. from having the highest murder rates in the nation during the years guns were banned there.

        • James

          Jeff is an idealist. He thinks that controlling guns prevents uncontrollable people from getting them. So ideally, control the controllable, and allow the uncontrollable the freedom to control.

      • Right Wired

        I bet they wish they had guns when the Nazis were marching across their front lawns.

      • Frank Lovejoy

        We don’t have a “mass shooting every day of the year” either. Gun crime has been steadily declining, as have “mass shootings”. In fact if you take out the Islamic terror attacks they aren’t frequent at all.

      • MadisonConservatarian

        France has had more casualties from mass shootings in just the year 2015 than America has had since Obama entered office.

        Yeah, that’s a fact. http://crimeresearch.org/2015/12/france-suffered-more-casualties-murders-and-injuries-from-mass-public-shootings-in-2015-than-the-us-has-suffered-during-obamas-entire-presidency-508-to-424-2/

      • Brutus974

        God, these mass shootings have suddenly gone up under Obama, haven’t they?

        Or are you suddenly just inflating the numbers?

      • Beauceron

        Neither do we– unless you’re willing to fake the numbers and then lie about it.

        Wait…you just did lie about it.

        • VicLaz3

          I will restate.

          Fact: France does not have anywhere close the amount of gun violence, even considering proportion and extraordinary events like the Paris attacks.

          Their gun laws WORK. That is my point.

          • E30fan

            Yeah but are strict and effective gun laws politically possible in this country? If the conversation is about reducing access to guns then we have to discuss removing a massive amount of firearms from circulation. Just putting red tape in front of rifle sales isn’t going to do anything effective except, as the gun supporters say, make it harder for normal people to get guns. Also, the rifles aren’t the problem. They just photograph really well.

            If you do think a meaningful number of gun owners will be willing to surrender their property then I would suggest you don’t read enough media from opposing viewpoints. I would also suggest that you consider what you are asking the law enforcement community to do, and then maybe volunteer to write their grieving widow letters. Furthermore, this is a very hot liberty first topic, attempting a meaningful and effective gun reduction is absolutely going to radicalize further the very well armed current source of our actual terrorism issue.

            Politics really is about the art of the possible. Keep in mind how much opposition there is to proposed laws when you discussing their effectiveness and likely outcomes. See the drug war for a great example of wishful thinking over riding concerns about the consent of the governed.

            • VicLaz3

              I agree. Our laws cannot practically mirror European gun laws. I was just pointing out the obvious.

      • Lane Lombardia

        Norway’s death rate from mass shootings, per million people is about 21.5 times that of the US. Macedonia’s is 3.9 times the US’. Serbia’s is 3 times the US’. Slovakia’s is 2.1 times the US’. Finland’s is 1.5 times the US’. When you talk about being proportionate, it would help to recall that the US population is 320 million, while France’s is only 64 million.

      • Capt. Harlock

        We don’t have daily “mass shootings” in the US, either, unless you are counting drug/gang-related shootings in the inner cities. Those actually fall into another category.

      • mikrat

        “France doesn’t have a mass shooting for everyday of the year.”

        Neither do we.

    • VicLaz3

      12,000+ shooting deaths, 309 mass shooting deaths. So even if we only consider mass shootings, we have the equivalent of 3 Paris attacks EVERY YEAR.

      • Bob Frapples

        “12,000+ shooting deaths”
        2,000+ from accidental deaths
        ??? were in self-defense
        200 from long rifles
        318+M people, 300M guns
        Percentage of deaths by guns: <0.00003

        • ScottM1A

          And let’s not forget that the vast majority of those.00003 percent of people killed in this country got killed by people who couldn’t legally own a gun as they were felons likely living in a Democrat controlled city with very strict gun laws. Of course that doesn’t fit the narrative.

          • Kackzie Wackzie

            Absolutely! Does he really think even domestic criminals go stand in line and fill out paperwork to get their guns? The Bloods and the Crypts get clearance? He really thinks they get it the “legal” way? Guns will always be available to criminals. Law abiding citizens with guns would definitely bring down the crime rate. Predators prey on the weak. My grandmother had her bag stolen by a young thug. Why didn’t he try to pick the pocket of some 6′ man? Because she was a weak, old lady that he could overpower. I guarantee if they thought you were equal to them in strength and gun power, they’d find someone else to rob who isn’t their equal. It’s why putting signs on your lawn that you have an alarm system IS a deterrent. Kurt Russell was right. Being able to defend yourself is being on the offense. But John, since this is such a big deal, why don’t you simply petition that everyone with a gun learn how to use it? Now, I am for that type of legislation. Like having a driver’s license. In fact, the state can run the mandatory shooting range practice program, and everyone can get a certificate saying they took the course. Better now, Mr. Wells?

        • conleec

          Roughly 30,000 people die in car crashes and another 30,000 from the flu. We’ve almost gotten to 1/3 of a percent or something.

        • Alex III

          n Switzerland 47 out of 100 individuals have their own gun. Switzerland’s gun death rate is 0.5 per 100,000...

          Chicago has the strictest gun laws in the country and the death rate is 46 per 100,000. Explain that???

          It is mandatory to serve in the army in Switzerland and you keep your service weapon.

          • Juanito Ibañez

            Actually; that is not the issue Swiss assault rifle: it’s the Sig 556R chambered for the 7.62x39mm Russian (AK-47) cartridge, while the issue rifle – the Swiss Arms AG’s SG 550 (aka: Stgw 90 and Fass 90) https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b7/Stgw_90.jpg is a 5.6×45mm-chambered rifle and takes the issue GP90 5.6mm round.

            • Alex III

              Oh brother, get a life…

      • LegallySpeaking

        Black people committing crime skews the data.

        If you remove black (unjustified) crime, America is pretty safe. It’s being next to blacks that gets you killed. “Around blacks, never relax.”

        So I agree: disarm all blacks and we’ll be much safer.

        *giggle*

        • Bob Frapples

          The majority of blacks are democrats, so a better way to phrase it is that we should disarm all democrats.

          • LegallySpeaking

            yeah, but it still doesn’t solve the problem of not being able to talk about black evil openly in public.

            We need to be clear: America doesn’t have a crime problem, it has a black problem.

            • Bob Frapples

              I’m not going to go down the route of it’s a “black problem”. I think it’s a “shame” problem. We’re not allowed to shame bad behavior anymore. That’s the society that’s being cultivated. Everything is acceptable.

              • LegallySpeaking

                until you admit it’s a black problem, you will lose every argument you try to have about it.

                take the red pill. open your eyes to race.

            • jscrillathadilla

              To use the words of the fabulous Mr. Wells, “statistically speaking,” you’re correct.

        • VicLaz3

          Wow, 5 likes for that racist remark. bravo!

          • LegallySpeaking

            lol. oh noes! He noticed patterns based on racial differences! True, real, statistically proven patterns! Burn the witch! Off with his head! (/sarcasm)

            you lefties really are predictably programmed.

            and dumb.

            *giggle*

          • Alex III
          • Alex III
        • Of course, then you have to look at what causes the vast majority of the crime amongst blacks, and it’s another form of prohibition: drug prohibition. (Especially because enforcement resources are concentrated in the inner cities, where “putting blacks in prison for victimless crimes” is a growth industry.) So, it’s actually white Republicans and white Democrats who are responsible for the vast majority of violence.

          The obvious answer is to end both gun and drug prohibition, as well as all other forms of “mala prohibita.” However that’s only the obvious answer to intelligent people, who are in shorter supply than the voting majority.

          • LegallySpeaking

            lol. no, the cause of the vast majority of crime amongst blacks is their inability to act like civilized human beings.

            but it’s cute how you still want to blame everyone else but blacks for the evil that the darkies do.

            especially when no one is listening to your lies anymore.

            *giggle*

          • Lao Zoot

            I agree with ending prohibition, but prohibition doesn’t cause all the murders, assaults, rapes, etc. The illegal drug culture may be indirectly responsible for the circumstances under which some of them occur, but…

          • Gravity

            I will never go for legal drug sales. Jake, I bet you live in a neighborhood that WON’T have people cutting you off while driving, ramming their shopping cart up your ankle or dropping a glass bottle of apple juice right next to you in isle 13, with glass going all over your pants and shoes, if drugs are legalized. I will have to deal with that. That is wrong. And I don’t live is a “low rent district” to coin a phrase.

        • Alex III
      • Perry Dace

        Bullshit. There haven’t been that many mass shooting deaths in the last decade in the US.

      • McPig

        Problem is the Stat you cite counts all shootings involving more than two people as “mass shootings” and is a very inaccurate, and intentionally misleading, measure. Try it with the figure being 5+ involved and watch the total plummet. Gun grabbers LIE. It’s the only way they can win the argument.

        • Alex III

          You don’t know what you’re talking about… Look up the CDC study that Obama pushed for that ended up blowing up in his face! You libs really have a problem with facts???

      • VanzCantDanz

        According to Pew, Gun deaths are down by about half over the last 20 years. The so-called “gun epidemic” is a media gun-hype epidemic.

      • mikrat

        What about the 135,000 medical deaths & 35,000 Auto deaths per year – Gun Deaths are barley in the top 10 – And included in your list of 12,000+ is Cop Shootings (murders), Suicides, but that is never taken out of the equation.

        • VicLaz3

          Funny you should mention Auto deaths. Those numbers prompted numerous speed limit laws, and car safety requirements, which in turn have worked. 35,000 auto deaths in a country where virtually every adult ( hundreds of millions) drives is a low number. Thanks for helping me prove my point.

          • mikrat

            Well if you think that is a low number – then you also have to admit that 10-12,000 deaths out of 350,000,000 population is also – You also need to admit where the majority of those happen – GUN FREE ZONES.

            Funny how you ignored the Medical Deaths.

          • qneill

            Speed laws passed, go slower, avoid auto death. Check.

            Gun laws passed, leave your weapon in the car, die in a theater. Bzzzt.

            https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/97/Faulty_Comparison

      • Mikey1969

        Gun homicides are half of what they were in the peak year of 1993.

        Nonfatal gun crimes are a quarter of what they were in 1993.

        ALL gun deaths are 2/3 of what they were in 1993(Since suicides didn’t drop as much).

        But hey, keep pushing that distorted perspective.

        http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/10/21/gun-homicides-steady-after-decline-in-90s-suicide-rate-edges-up/

    • VanzCantDanz

      Likewise San Bernardino.

    • jscrillathadilla

      The guns used in San Bernardino were banned in CA! They used high-cap magazines- illegal!!

  • goodvibe61

    This is another convenient way, another form of shorthand, to try criticizing Tarantino’s work via the violence angle. Gee, it’s so violent, and in these violent times that’s an insensitive way to go. C’mon Jeff!

    It’s tired, it’s not treating the art of movies and storytelling with the respect it deserves, and it shortchanges the conversation about so many other aspects of Tarantino’s work. You have the rare opportunity to talk about the many interesting elements of Tarantino’s work with an actor who clearly relishes it, and that’s what gets talked about. It’s as ill conceived as simply countering that the violence works because it reflects the violence of the times.

    OK.

    At least make an honest attempt at discussing your perceived shortcomings with the nature of the narrative. I don’t know, the use of violence within the ethics of redemption that is so often a matter of concern for Tarantino, something, anything that could be worth a conversation! Oh well.

  • goodvibe61

    Everyone remind me again, how exactly did America’s ability to carry and conceal weapons help out regarding this week’s San Bernadino massacre?

    And remind me, after more than a mass shooting per day here in the United States in 2015, how many of those incidents were resolved by citizens carrying around their licensed, concealed weapons? More than one per day, at this point there have been more than 300 incidents of multiple fatalities from gun related shootings here, and how many of those more than 300 were resolved due to citizens outside of law enforcement carrying their own guns?

    • Michael Gebert

      Wow, never heard that argument before except in every post on Facebook for the last week

      • goodvibe61

        Good. And I hope we hear more and more of it going forward.

    • TheRealBadHatHarry

      Stories of legal gun owners fending off criminals happen ALL THE TIME, they just don’t get reported in Slate and Gawker, so you don’t see them. There was a pretty funny one in the last couple of days with an old woman shop owners scaring the crap out of a group of five or six armed morons. This is also fun:

      https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=zh4ISav_aZq4.kScmZTR1RBnI&hl=en

      But to send it back your way, California has the most restrictive gun laws in the country. It’s often held up as a model for what libs want to do on a National level. There are extremely strict laws dealing with moving guns across state lines (basically, you can’t — not INTO CA), federal background checks and 10 day waiting periods even for shotguns and rifles, not just handguns. So remind me again how all these draconian laws prevented San Bernardino?

      • goodvibe61

        It would appear the laws didn’t do enough. Right?

        • TheRealBadHatHarry

          Wrong. Murder has been illegal since the dawn of human civilization, and by your logic, the reason we still have murder is that laws simply haven’t done enough. The problem is in the fevered, utopian imagining that there’s any such thing as a law that can eradicate gun violence while maintaining even the veneer of a free society.

      • ZenMaster_Coltrane

        I can’t help but laugh at this ridiculous reasoning that sees legal gun ownership as the solution to mass shootings when there’s clear evidence of how other countries have successfully responded legislatively to curb their frequency.

        Own, conceal carry, do whatever…but that’s not reducing the frequency of these events.

        • TheRealBadHatHarry

          Clear evidence? Where? Of what? Australia? Britain? Show the actual examples, and remember not to fall for the logical fallacy of comparing unlike kinds.

          What is the actual frequency of mass shootings you’re talking about? Go look up the stats (I’d be fine with leaving obvious cases of terrorism out of your stats, if you wish). What has the trend been over the last 30 years? Correlation isn’t NECESSARILY causation, but it IS correlation — so what have the rates of private gun ownership done over the last 30 years, and what have the rates of gun related violence done? (You must exclude suicides). Go look all that up and get back to me, champ. Maybe you won’t be hee-hawing so much.

          • ZenMaster_Coltrane

            DId you just say that comparing mass shootings between countries is a logical fallacy??? You just blew my mind.

            Buybacks, weapon bans (semis, autos, pump shotgun), 28 day waiting period>>>>”intentional gun deaths fell by half in the decade after the 1996 restrictions were put in place in Australia.”

            Trends can always be argued, but the decline accelerated.

      • Michael Gebert

        Here’s one that happened earlier this year about a mile from me:

        http://my.chicagotribune.com/#section/-1/article/p2p-83337910/

        But remember, guns don’t protect anybody, which is why the president’s Secret Service agents don’t carry them.

        • TheRealBadHatHarry

          Yeah, not a lot of “practice what you preach” with those people, hence Al Gore, Leo DiCaprio, Hillary, and the rest. And their college aged (physically and mentally) fans are always railing against “hypocrisy,” ironically.

          When Hillary and Obama decry their own armed details, then we can talk. Gun control is a dung hill — they stand on their own to screech about everyone else’s.

    • Capt. Harlock

      You obviously have no clue concerning how difficult it is to obtain a concealed carry license in Califonia, do you?

      Question: Why did the IslamoFascist Terrorist couple choose a “Gun-Free Zone” for their terror attack?

  • Michael Gebert

    Or:

  • Ben Kabak

    This makes me love Kurt Russell even more. Glad some high profile actors don’t tow the BS wussy PC line.

  • Steven Gaydos

    NRA wants people on terrorism watch list to have access to guns. Am I going crazy or is this in fact the latest skirmish they’ve won? Ask Kurt Russell his views on that? I think that 99% of Americans would say this IS crazy.

    • Wareagle82

      if someone is on a terrorism watch list, then why are they walking free? If someone is too dangerous to allow onto a plane, then why is that person roaming the rest of society? We’ll make you down as anti-due process.

    • GirlFromIvy

      The watch list includes senators and kids under five.

      The objection is that the watch list is an unreliable mess.

      • Steven Gaydos

        Aha, so instead of doing more thorough checks on the names on the list, let’s make sure that everyone on the list can obtain assault weapons and kill us with no delays. Glad to see the NRA makes sense to someone.

        • GirlFromIvy

          Currently, the FBI is notified if someone on the list buys a gun. They then can take action as they see fit. That is already happening.

          The list is currently maintained for one very, very important purpose. I don’t think it’s a good idea to hurt that purpose – keeping us safe – by “fixing” it to do a different job. If you want a gun list, you need a separate gun list.

          • Steven Gaydos

            Let’s agree to disagree. The idea that we can’t/shouldn’t do everything in our power to insure anyone on a terrorism watch list is unable to obtain weapons for an attack is not an idea I’m ever going to get hip to. The NRA will do everything possible for gun manufacturers to have the profit margins of their dreams. That includes scrambling the brains of citizens and lining the pockets of our many cowardly and crooked politicians. There are many clear and present dangers imho. These include radical Islamic terrorists AND radical right-wing loons AND assorted angry miscreants bent on making the news/inflicting pain. But the biggest danger to America today is a political system that has been taken away from the people and given to the dark money powers via a Supreme ruling called Citizens United. I would rather focus on fixing that travesty before expending energies on insuring terrorism watch list folks can help the weapons manufacturers meet their sales targets.

            • GirlFromIvy

              The problem that I think you don’t see is that this actually isn’t, at all, about the NRA. People upset at this are not upset because the NRA told them to, and they are genuinely, and hugely, upset.

              To them, this is about taking a civil right away from people, without due process of law, using a list that is secret, and that has no process to get people off of.

              If you want to add insult to injury, it’s a list known to have had many people on it by mistake, with prominent examples including senators, pundits, and small children. About 99% of the “hits” on this database are errors. The very large majority of people on it are not US citizens – they’re people who would be coming in from overseas – and those people are not eligible to buy a gun anyway. The ACLU has been trying to get rid of this list for years, because of its secrecy and errors.

              The FBI is ALREADY notified when someone on the list applies to buy a gun and a background check is run. I want to make that point really, really clear.

              This has nothing to do with Citizens United and little to do with the NRA. People in rural areas – reasonable people that I know – are as upset about this as you would be if they decided to abridge the First Amendment based on Nixon’s enemies list. This is largely a grassroots reaction, not something coming from the NRA.

              • Steven Gaydos

                I’d like to meet someone who is upset by people on terrorism watch lists not having easy access to weapons. But I would only meet them in a controlled environment with FBI, local police, a priest, a rabbi, and a Buddhist monk present. If they survive the exorcism ceremony I’d oversee, I MIGHT let them have their weapon. No ammo, though. Seriously, if Fox News and Rush Limbaugh has people programmed into believing this stuff, I hope they don’t have access to butter knives, let alone AK-47s.

                • GirlFromIvy

                  And, again, you’re making it very clear that you don’t understand what you’re talking about and are trying to turn it into a story about scary hicks. That’s not the situation. These people were not told this by Fox News and Rush Limbaugh. They know something about how the watch lists work – which you obviously do not – and they also consider gun owning to be a civil right.

                  First, literally no one is arguing that actual potential terrorists should have access to weapons. None. Nada. Zip. Zero. Not even the NRA, to the best of my knowledge and belief.

                  The first point you need to keep in mind is that, per Homeland Security, well over 90% of the people flagged by the watch lists are in fact flagged in error. A 90+% error rate in denying a civil right is a problem. You may not care about gun ownership, but you are setting a precedent that applies to speech, religion, freedom of assembly, and every other civil right that you probably do care about.

                  The second point is that the FBI already knows when people on the watch list try to get access to guns – understand, this proposed law is about guns, not weapons in general – and at that point the FBI already can make a choice of picking the person up, putting them under surveillance, or otherwise investigating them before they bring them in. This was not requested by the FBI – because it limits their ability to actually catch bad guys getting ready to do bad things, and very often they do that by letting people incriminate themselves.

                  Right now, the list is secret, and whether or not you are on the list is considered to be a state secret. In addition to limiting the FBI’s ability to operate, you are literally asking for terrorists to be able to easily determine if they are on the radar or not, which is not a particularly wise thing to do for what I would hope are fairly obvious reasons. If you don’t understand those reasons, let me know and I’ll spell them out for you.

                  Your entire comment shows how unfamiliar you are with this. The watch list does not have “people” on it, in the sense of identifiable individuals with a set of identifying information – it has names. The reason Ted Kennedy was caught up in the watch list – and the small children, and the pundit, and a variety of Homeland Security employees – is precisely because it’s just a list of names. In Kennedy’s case, one of the people on the list had an alias of T Kennedy. The process for putting names on it has historically been rather arbitrary and has included civil rights protestors when police decided, for one reason or another, that civil rights protests were scary.

                  Because many Middle Eastern names are not native to Roman alphabets, you get a lot of false negatives and false positives in matching – it’s another known problem with the list – it’s basically why you see Al Quaeda spelled several different ways – because it’s originally in a different alphabet. So you are also setting up a list that is going to match an awful lot of people who don’t have anything to do with terrorism, but are going to be overwhelmingly of a specific ethnicity.

                  People are upset about national security potentially being compromised by compromising a tool that is needed for purpose. They are upset about violations of civil rights without due process of law. Those are actual, legitimate concerns, that have nothing to do with Rush (who I do not listen to) or Fox News (which I do not watch.) Realize that objections to this proposed law have come from across the political spectrum, especially from people who are interested in civil liberties.

                  If you would like a more expert discussion of this, former federal prosecutor and First Amendment pundit Ken White, of the Popehat legal blog, has a very very good discussion of this. Assuming that you are actually interested in understanding this argument, and why people believe differently without being scary stereotypes, it’s worth reading. https://popehat.com/2015/12/07/talking-productively-about-guns/

                  • Steven Gaydos

                    Right, Popehat.com so now I know you get your info from reliable sources. Remember what I said about “let’s agree to disagree?” You’re obviously a bright person. Last time they tested my IQ I sprinted over the 100 line. So let’s end with respectfully disagreeing and hope for a better world and a better democracy. I think we can both agree on the goals if not the road. Peace.

                    • Lao Zoot

                      One link at the end of a comment does not denote where she gets her info from. Even if it did, have you heard of these things called “articles” or “blogs”? They’re pretty neat, overall, but one specific thing about them is that, regardless of the overall reliability of the the site on which they appear, or the other contents of the blog/article itself, they can contain these other things known as “facts”. Said “facts” coming from (gasp!) reliable and reputable sources, quite often.
                      Also, don’t try to brag about your (supposed) IQ– it’s not only tasteless, but it carries with it connotations of deep feelings of inadequacy. Not to mention putting a stain of very great doubt as to whether there’s any truth at all to the assertion.

                    • GirlFromIvy

                      ???? Popehat is a well-known and well-respected legal blog that has been listed in the American Bar Association’s notable blog list for the past several years. It has a goofy name that is apparently some kind of inside joke, but I’ve never seen it explained.

                      The main author, Ken White, is a former federal prosecutor who has been consulted as an expert on civil liberties in places like the New York Times, the LA Times, the Daily Beast, and so on. His most frequent topic is the First Amendment but he posts about anything he’s interested in.

                      Read his post – Ken is a really smart, savvy guy without a political axe to grind, he’s a very good lawyer, and his post is germane to the topic. Ken is arguably my favorite blogger.

    • Capt. Harlock

      The No-Fly List is so fraught with errors that it should be scrapped and reformed. Also, it is a clear violation of due process.

      • Steven Gaydos

        Be that as it may, good luck with calling for relaxation of terror watch lists and empowering those on current watch lists in their efforts to obtain weapons they can use to slaughter us. Those without tinfoil hats and/or black helicopters overheard are unlikely to support either concept in the current environment.

  • Gary Springer

    I liked the ice hockey metaphor. I am Canadian, after all.

  • How do you know you’re a clueless liberal? When yo say “just put some controls” when talking about guns in California.

    California has the strictest gun control in the country. 10 day waiting period, full registration, many handguns outright banned by “safety” testing, 10 round magazine limit, assault weapons ban, firearm restraining orders, numerous misdemeanors disqualify people from ownership, no suppressors, etc.

    I’ve only scratched the surface of “some controls.”

  • Verbotene Gedanken

    Snake Plisken strikes again…

  • Christopher Dyer

    Cruz 2016!

  • FastEddieTX

    “He’s a likable straight-shooter if you steer clear of political matters…”
    Not true. He’s a likable straight-shooter. Period. The fact that you don’t agree with his position says more about you than it does about him. You are a myopic, sheltered, ivory-tower reprobate who believes that anyone who doesn’t agree with you is wrong. You took exactly zero seconds to listen to anything he had to say and analyze it. Just automatically denied any validity because he doesn’t agree with you. As if you have ANY kind of authority on this. I doubt you have ever even held a gun…

    • Lao Zoot

      It really shows in their slobbering, slavish devotion to smug, smarmy pricks like Jon Steward, Colbert, et al. They think that insults and lip win factual arguments, and that all they need to do to save the world (other than having government initiate violence against people with whom they disagree) is smirk and sneer at Middle America.

  • Todd Cohen

    We have more gun laws in the USA now than at any time in history. Although actual gun deaths are down, there does seem to be a few more mass shootings than normal. Used to just be a postal worker once ever couple of years. As far as the mass shooting per day story. That’s actually a law manufactured from a redefinition of what a mass shooting is. Getting back to the actual problem. We have a problem of fame in the USA. That’s all it is. If you commit outrageous crime acts in the USA, you can become worldwide famous. That’s not true anywhere else in the world. The mass shooter in Sweden a few years ago? That’s right, you have no clue who that was. But our little nutty prescription fed loons get their images plastered in every rag across the world. So the problem isn’t the lack of gun laws. The problem is the fame given to these losers. They crave it. They want to outdo the last guy. Like getting the highest score. Too much fame in the face 24/7. Anyone read about the impotency problems of guys 15-25? You can’t put sex in the face of a kid from childhood thru adulthood, easy access and think it won’t alter their mind. Same goes for “instant fame”. I’m sad to see so many fools running around thinking a gun law is going to prevent criminals from killing people. I guess you all are a part of another generation that is about as limp as the current teenage guys. Use your brains people. Think things out. Quit taking the words from the latest headlines and running with it so you get your gold star for the day.

  • TheTruthBurns

    Progressives = Regressives

  • Buck Bell

    From the printed portion of the discussion:
    Wells: Well, I think we all know…guns are a trope. Not a trope but a totem, a metaphor that disenfranchised white guys need…it makes them feel good about themselves.
    Russell: You can say what you want. I don’t agree with that. It’s not my thing.
    Wells: Well, it’s statistically irrefutable.

    What is statistically irrefutable? There are no statistics or metrics quoted from the conversation. Bizarre.

    • Capt. Harlock

      Nothing bizarre about a Hoplophobe trying to tie gun-ownership to some kind of inadequecy in the owner. Hoplophobes have been pushing that discredited meme for decades.

  • Dick_Gosinya

    Alpha male beats Beta male about the face & neck. Wells squats when he pees in Russell’s House!

  • Daniel Richard

    The author of this piece of dreck is another libtard with a keyboard. Moron

  • Max Blancke

    You know how people in “flyover country” feel about issues because you read about it in the New York Times. I love that. Also, using the phrase “statistically irrefutable” to back up your opinion was great. I particularly enjoyed how frustrated you were that Mr. Russel wanted to talk about the film, instead of indulging your desire to whine about gun control.

  • Tim Martinez

    They have been doing so much with swords. Beheading, so what, outlaw swords, knives, hammers? Liberals don’t think as long as it is anti-right. Gay rights, cross dressers, that don’t bother.me because it’s your choice. Guns, that’s my choice.

  • LeeatMG

    I’m still curious as to what the author believes is “statistically irrefutable?” It appears to reference his opinion the comment before that:

    “…guns are a trope. Not a trope but a totem, a metaphor that disenfranchised white guys need…it makes them feel good about themselves.”

    If that is what he believes is statistically irrefutable, that is both bigoted and quite revealing of the author’s intent.

    If not, then he owes a lot of people a correction and probably should consider some remedial English courses.

  • Simon

    “it was more about Russell arguing with me than vice versa”
    Nope, you initiated it. You asked that force should be used to take guns from the people. That’s a violent, fascistic move.

    “metaphor that disenfranchised white guys need”
    That’s racist. Being offended by racism against non-whites and not against whites is double standard.

    “it’s statistically irrefutable”
    Wrong. There is no correlation between gun ownership and murders.
    And there is no correlation between stricter gun control and less crimes (quite the contrary actually).

    “just so the idiots can’t get hold of them”
    Good luck implementing that …

    That’s the magical thinking of leftists, let’s give all the powers to the government and everything will be fine. Damned fascists.

  • Right Wired

    This just in: Smug, liberal Hollywood reporter is smug and liberal.

    No film at 11, because it’s been seen a trillion times.

  • hooksfan

    Wells, not only were you owned by Kurt Russell you were put over a barrel. The no-fly/terror watch list the one that the ACLU has gone to court over because of the errors it has. They’ve been fighting this one in the legal system for over five years. Has the person on the terror watch/no fly list been charged or convicted of a crime? If not your going against a right guarantee to them by the U.S. Constitution. The same Constitution you guys use for your First Amendment right.

    • Wareagle82

      I keep wondering about those lists: someone is deemed to dangerous to get on a plane, but apparently not too dangerous to mingle in polite society. And this is from our “leaders” as an example of doing something.

  • Frank Lovejoy

    “It’s statistically irrefutable” … said with that smug left-wing sniff, and of course followed by zero statistics.

    The ‘gun culture’ keeps people like you as pets, sir. You exist because we allow it. Bear that in mind.

  • MadisonConservatarian

    Wow. He held his temper with you pretty damned good. I’d have slapped you for this exchange:

    “Wells: Well, I think we all know…guns are a trope.
    Not a trope but a totem, a metaphor that disenfranchised white guys
    need…it makes them feel good about themselves.

    Russell: You can say what you want. I don’t agree with that. It’s not my thing.

    Wells: Well, it’s statistically irrefutable.”

    You have statistics to prove the claim that “guns are a totem that disenfranchised white guys need to feel good about themselves”?

    Perhaps you could tell that to the Kurds fighting ISIS in the Middle East. Perhaps you could tell that to the Cameroonians who just finished killing 100 members of Boko Haram and freeing nearly 900 of their slaves. Perhaps you could tell that to Ukrainians still fighting off Russian aggression.

    You are a clueless prig and Russell handed you your ass.

    • Jeanette Koenig

      Well said.

      • Rush_Fan

        DITTO!

    • John C Wright

      Hear, hear.

    • TIM MCCLELLAN

      D@mn straight. You’re a fcking idiot, Wells. Another liberal know-nothing. I would bet you’re a yellow coward too, not able to protect your own life yourself
      but expecting a police officer to risk his to save you. Naturally, though, most often you’ll be dead or robbed before he can get there you moron.

      • James Brooks

        Lets say they get their way with all this.. What next, lets paint a quick picture for him. Homosexuals – massacred, anyone else that doesn’t submit to Islam – massacred. Liberal Arts – out the window. Splineless pussies like Wells – mohammaed’s new goat. Stand up for your self and grow a pair. You couldnt fight your way out of a paper bag therefore you become someones bitch.

        • GFRF

          LOL

      • mendskyz

        You mean the kind of guy that would hide behind his boyfriend if anything dangerous should spring up around him? hahaha

    • Patrick Caraway

      Haha this should be a lesson to all young reporters, stick to questions and issues you have an answer for or at least have a halfway intelligent argument. This reporter had neither.

      • Juanito Ibañez

        FYI: Jeffrey Wells, is known as ‘Film Criticism’s Greatest Troll’

    • CavemanNH

      Great point. And how about the murder capital’s of the US? Detroit, Baltimore, Chicago, DC. Lot’s of white guys doing all those killings with gun?. What a douche!

    • Alex III

      Gun owners are some of the coolest, most responsible, generous and informed people I know! Hence why they have guns??? Wells is an idiot and I thought it was great when I read somewhere else something like… “He’s not welcome into the fertility of men!” So true! So sick of these liberal pussies!

    • Iminurbase

      Actually there was no Russian aggression, it’s the propaganda of the west that tells you that. The ukraine thing was fomented by George (nazi collaborator) sorros and the state dept in conjunction with exxon mobile pouring 5billion dollars into that little stunt. Then they put a goldman sachs puppet in to get them on the hook for a debt they will never be able to pay off.

      • MadisonConservatarian

        The massacred of MH317 say hello.

        • Iminurbase

          The was also a gov’t scheme as well… but keep watching cnn, nbc, abc, cbs, msnbc, obamavision for your information.

          infowars.com

          • MadisonConservatarian

            Oh lovely…like Charlie Sheen, an Alex Jones cultist.

      • jscrillathadilla

        Yeah, the Ukraine thing is 100% Obama imperialism.

        • Iminurbase

          No, it was George Sorros, the state dept and major corporations as well as the central banks that wanted to get their hooks into ukraine and gut it for all it’s resources.

          They initiated the whole plan when ukraine decided not to enter the euro, they had to act so they can destablize and cannibalize that region.

          infowars.com

          • BMB

            Nice source. Joking obviously

    • LeeSK

      YES!!! This reporter was just spoiling for a fight.

    • GowithGod

      Spot on!

    • BMB

      Anyone who says” statistically irrefutable” is very much full of shit.

      • SteamingpileofObama

        Just as any idiot that says “common sense” has no clue what that is, or “social justice” is just a silly term for communism.

      • xtphreak

        Statistics show that 87% of all statistics are made up.

        • mendskyz

          Figures lie and liars figure.

        • alfie0077

          Numbers do not lie..
          However,,, Liars can number.
          Liars can pick up two not related items that match, then say that they are related. This is the most common stat lie.

        • alfie0077

          Here is the most common fallacy now being promoted:
          Global warming: Let us solve the ‘problem’ Here is the ONLY
          solution.

          Science requires release of data for other Scientists to duplicate
          and validate. Science needs no ‘consensus’.

          “Art’ requires no stinking validation. “Art’ just requires a bunch of fools following one after the other in a daisy chain of failure and failed follow the herd theories.

          Who is promoting ‘global warming’? Why are they promoting ‘global
          warming’? What is causing ‘global warming’? We must get to the root
          cause!

          Answers:

          The Vatican oppressors and their ilk are promoting the ‘global warming’.

          YES, we must assume that the Vatican oppressors are correct!

          If there is ‘global warming’ as is stated by all the ‘undeveloped’
          (CATHOLIC AND MUSLIM_) countries, then what is the reason they are stating there is ‘global warming’ when they do not have the
          scientific knowledge to prove these claims?

          ‘poor countries’ must obtain ‘taxes’ which is to be paid for by YOU!. Then the money can be sent ‘down south’, and will be used to buy corn grown in the USA!. The corn will be used to make more Catholics, which then will be sent up North to invade the USA.

          Now, it is time to get to the root cause, and the ONLY means of
          correcting ‘ global warming’. This is to make fewer CATHOLICS! Birth
          control is the ONLY means of doing any meaningful control of ‘global
          warming’!

          Poopie, get out the education, have ALL the CATHOLICS do birth
          control! Hey, Muslims are reproducing their own version of brain ded so all the Muslims must practice birth control also!

          Why is the border not secured???? Every nation that is a nation
          has secure borders, EVEN MEXICO!

          ZIKA will be a pandemic if the borders are not secured. WHO is
          willing to secure the borders?? Certainly it is NOT Hitlery, who
          likes the illegal alien Catholic invaders more than AMERICANS.

          Vote for ANY Catholic and you vote for a traitor.IF THERE IS MAN
          MADE ‘GLOBAL WARMING’ ONLY BIRTH CONTROL WILL WORK!

          POOPIE, GET TO WORK! FORGET THE TAXES DO BIRTH CONTROL, SAVE THE WORLD!

          Vote for ANY CATHOLIC and you vote for an ignorant traitor that
          will keep the borders open.

          Vote for ANY CATHOLIC and you vote for a person that wants lots
          and lots of Catholics in the USA.

          Vote for ANY CATHOLIC and you vote for someone who wants to
          destroy the Constitution of the USA.

          Vote for ANY CATHOLIC and you vote to destroy the USA.

          there is not one successful Catholic nation on earth. Find one if you can.

          Hitlery is in bed with the Catholics, and has been for 40 years.
          Hitler was a Catholic and look at what he did for Germany.

          The USA has been run by the Catholics since 1956.
          Are you happy with the destruction of the Constitution?

          Are you happy with the open borders and the 60 million illegal
          alien Catholic invaders that get freeeeeeeee health care? YOU are
          paying the health care for those 60 million illegal alien Catholic invaders.
          Are you happy with the prisons that have a full third of all inmates being
          illegal alien Catholic invaders?
          YOU are paying for their upkeep!
          Vote for ANY Catholic and you
          will be Catholic!
          There is not one successful Catholic nation on earth.

          Voter for ANY Catholic and you vote for failure forever.

          A third of all politicians are Catholic traitors. Half call themselves r, half d.

          • Joseph Broz

            All you need to say is that you hate Catholics. So do Muslims.

        • Juanito Ibañez

          “Definition of Statistics: The science of producing unreliable facts from reliable figures.”
          —Evan Esar

          and:

          “Like dreams, statistics are a form of wish fulfillment.”
          —Jean Baudrillard

    • Dave Het

      Someone who says they would physically attack someone for speaking their mind should be the furthest person from a gun.

      • MadisonConservaliberaltarian

        Someone who is unable of comprehending hyperbole should be the furthest person from a comments section of a website.

        • Dave Het

          If the interviewer or Kurt Russell had said he would slap the other person for not agreeing with him, I guarantee you he would get criticism for that.

          The point is that even if it’s hyperbole, non-violent people don’t talk like that, and it’s especially ironic for someone to do that defending gun rights for psychos.

          “You don’t think psychos should have guns?! I’d slap you for saying that!” … _psycho_!

          • MadisonConservaliberaltarian

            “”You don’t think psychos should have guns?! I’d slap you for saying that!””

            And now you employ straw men to make your pathetic point. He didn’t say “Psychos shouldn’t have guns.” He said “Guns are totems that disenfranchised white guys need to feel good about themselves” and that such a claim was “statistically irrefutable”. Anyone that stupid and full of such pretentious garbage deserves a slap across the face for being so arrogant and condescending towards others. If you were in front of me and used a straw man in such a way to misrepresent what I said, I’d slap you, too. Only basement-dwelling dips**ts like you and the original blogger are so vapid as to lack the understanding that when you say incendiary things to people, you better expect a reaction. You don’t understand that simple social construct because you hide behind a keyboard.

    • Strawboss

      Excellent comment!

  • Brutus974

    Ban guns!
    It’s work so well with drugs!
    Ban ALL the things!

    • nrinc

      It worked really well in Paris, didn’t it? One of the tightest gun control cities in the world, and what-only a 130 or so dead? No big whoop. Then San Bernardino happens and the Left goes right back into the argument. I don’t even believe they believe it. They just hate the 2nd amendment and the idea of regular folks defending themselves rather than relying on the State’s official police forces. They’re top-down elitist snobs in their view of everything.

      • Brutus974

        Some of them believe it. Others are just in it to annoy Republican gun owners.

  • Beauceron

    “Well, I think we all know…guns are a trope. Not a trope but a totem, a
    metaphor that disenfranchised white guys need…it makes them feel good
    about themselves.”

    My god…what a moron. And…guns of course cannot be tropes. Words are tropes. But then he calls them totems — which they aren’t either, as totems are generally spirit beings or sacred objects. Then he claims they’re a metaphor– which they are not because a metaphor is, by definition, a figure of speech that ties two unrelated things together.

    This is a deeply stupid man trying to pretend he’s smart by throwing out words he does not understand.

    In any case, speaking as a disaffected white guy, guns are merely tools.

  • Wareagle82

    well, of course, the anti-gun author is the cool, reasonable type while the double-barreled Russell is on the verge of lunacy. How else can you advance a stereotype? One guy believes in autonomy, while Wells is pissed off that those goobers in fly-over land just won’t listen to him.

  • ScottM1A

    Mr Wells I find it amazing that so many liberals can’t quite seem to remember the concept of due process now that they have found a new use for the No Fly/ Terrorist Watch list. You cannot remove a persons civil rights as guaranteed by the constitution without taking them to court and finding them guilty of a crime.
    I won’t even mention how stricter gun control laws will impact the minority community much more than fat old white guys who can afford lawyers. Maybe that’s the point though as gun control laws have been used by racists since the first one got implemented in the late 1700’s to disarm slaves. You’re just scared of a different shade of brown person now than Democrats were back then.

  • nrinc

    Wow. The ultra rare sensible celeb. and the typically moronic progressive journalist who just knows gun control must work despite all evidence to the contrary. Complete with the white liberal’s smug assertion that only redneck whites want or need guns; right, why would blacks in DC or Latinos in East L.A. need a way to defend themselves or their families?Something new for a change.

  • DK

    Kurt Russell for President!

  • nrinc

    Maybe you could take some time to explain too the incomprehensible “irrefutable fact” that its disenfranchised white guys and no one else who buys guns? That’s not a “fact” at all, never mind a irrefutable one but just more of your blather. Pretty rich to complain Russell was somehow not a “straight-shooter” or someone who needs to be steered clear of just because he dared to disagree with your erroneous presumptions.

    • Mark81150

      agreed, his after the interview remarks about Kurt were insulting.. Kurt is always a straight shooter…
      .
      way to paint him as unhinged after loosing the argument.. this author is a damned child, pouting because he got beat like a rented mule..

  • Mark81150

    “Wells: Well, I think we all know…guns are a trope. Not a trope but a totem, a metaphor that disenfranchised white guys need…it makes them feel good about themselves.”
    —————————————
    uh no,….. That is a progressive’s fantasy about why people own guns.. not reality.
    .
    are you aware that 52% of all homicides by gun are committed by black men?.. The FBI has the numbers.. so please.. do explain how it’s a compensation thing for white men again.. makes you look infinitely clueless..
    .—
    FBI… “percent of all murders for which the UCR Program received supplemental data. … Of the offenders for whom race was known, 52.4 percent were black”..

    https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded/expanded-homicide-data
    .
    Almost all in urban blue democrat machine run cesspools, where guns are virtually banned already.. yet strangely, criminals break the law…. huh,…. funny how that works right? By YOUR logic, black men NEED these guns to feel better about themselves right?… that they completely ruin your narrative about white people being responsible for violence cause “gun culture”… while you ignore the infinitely worse problem of urban hip hop thug culture..They ignore your gun control now.. do you really think they will suddenly stop shooting up their neighborhoods and victimizing decent black families with just ONE more law?
    .
    You cannot be this blatantly dishonest and expect that it’ll sell…. because it’s not.
    .
    The liberal desire.. NEED to blame gun violence on white citizens they already hate for not buying into the leftist narrative.. it makes them feel good about themselves.”
    .
    and gasp,.. enjoying sport shooting, hunting and home defense.. Keep your petty fantasies to yourself.. you are merely being insulting.. I grew up around guns.. they are a tool, nothing else… the problem is the criminal mind, for which you have no answer except to smear decent people who disagree with catty little remarks…

  • ‘the all-is-well Clinton ’90s”

    Are you on crack?? Clinton deployed military to more foreign nations than in our entire history up to that point!

    Did you forget Mogadishu??

    How ’bout the USS Cole??

    Then there’s Khobar Towers barracks??

    Gosh, what about February 26, 1993, bombing of the World Trade Center??

    And the bombing of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania??

    You are either incredibly ignorant of history or you’re intentionally sticking your head in the sands of delusion.

  • Mark81150

    For the record.. I hate Tarantino’s films.. haven’t watched one since From Dusk to Dawn.. and I didn’t much like that either.. I have pretty much tuned out from most pop culture,.. so my views on weapons under the 2nd are not influenced by movies.. more by growing up around them,.. and using them during the cold war,. I like the AR-15.. a civilian non automatic version of the M-16 I was issued… so I’m comfortable, and very familiar with it… a natural choice for me as a home defense weapon.. along with a 12 gauge, hollow point deer slugs.. and a hand gun, 45 ACP.. because, again,.. military weapons, as well as civilian.. and I’m at ease with them.
    .
    as are millions of other vets… anyone with vets in their family in semi-rural America know’s about guns..
    .
    but they are tools.. nothing more… just as knives are tools.. and cars..
    .
    The entire argument you make, is that guns are BAD.. BAD BAD…. and people must be kept away from them like a child with matches..
    .
    a particularly craven view you have of your fellow citizens… even most working class.. and a LOT of well off liberals support the 2nd.. this will not end well for the democrats in 2016.. count on it.

  • Ron Good

    Mr/ Russell was being both likable and straight-shooting with you, Mr. Wells, and directly about political matters.

    I can’t say the same for you when you attempt to back up the amateurish psychologizing of “guns are…a metaphor that disenfranchised white guys need [to] feel good about themselves”.

    …and then immediately after claim some “statistically irrefutable” support for that.

    I call you on it. Post the “statistically irrefutable” source for the general case “disfranchised white guys need the metaphor of guns to feel good about themselves.”

    I say you can’t produce it. I think you just invented that claim of support hoping it would pass. It doesn’t.

  • bobbyboy3

    Wells, are you really this stupid? Please tell me it was just an act on your part.

  • Earl of Sandwich

    “””I guess it wasn’t so much a discussion as a kind of argument””

    I would characterize it more as a “journalist pathetically begging a celebrity to confirm and validate his own personal culture-narrative”, and being clearly refused…. because it was flat out *stupid*

    This in particular =

    “” a metaphor that disenfranchised white guys need…it makes them feel good about themselves.

    Russell: You can say what you want. I don’t agree with that. It’s not my thing.

    Wells: Well, it’s statistically irrefutable.””
    Never mind that silly claims about mass-psychology have little to do with statistics, nor was any ‘refutable’ argument even made.

    I’m surprised anyone would want this published. It makes the interviewer look like a sad, pathetic person, desperate to have their subject simply go, “yes. yes. yes. i agree”….rather than actually tell the person “what they actually think”, which is the real purpose of an interview.

  • The Man With No Name As A Name

    Wells: Obama’s point was that the guys on the no-fly list, [there] for good reason because of terrorist connections or suspicions…they can get hold of a gun pretty easily.

    The late Sen. Edward Kennedy was famously on a no-fly list. The senior writer of The Weekly Standard and Fox News contributor Stephen Hayes was on a terror watch list. My old boss was the medical director for a program with more than four million members — and he somehow got on a no fly list.

    But wait, who wasn’t on the list? For starters the two shooters in California and the two guys who blew op the Boston Marathon.

    Even lefty outlets like the Huffington Post realize that getting placed by unnamed people on a secret list for unknown reason with NO MECHANISM TO GET OFF IT is kind of problematic.

    Let’s not compound this by taking away people’s Constitutional freedoms based on being on the sooper-sekret list.

  • Rocky

    The cowards are going to get us all killed. Being on a ‘No fly list’ is not a crime or conviction of anything that would remove one’s rights. In fact, if it was a real ‘No Fly List’ everyone on it would be in jail. Same with a ‘Watch List’, it’s not a real legal anything. It’s just a list that someone’s name was put on by some bureaucrat for some unknown reason. Next, all registered gun owners will be put on the ‘Watch List’, then evil will have won.

    • Lao Zoot

      It’s funny how they shriek in horror that Trump is un-American, while advocating taking away basic rights without due process.
      I have no sympathy for whatever happens to them. Want to wipe your @$$ with the Constitution? Fine. Let’s throw it out completely. Not doing us much good at this point anyway. To the camps with you! 😉

  • jjmucr

    Jeffrey Wells is should be purged from the gene pool.

  • shinynewtoken

    Do yourself a favor – don’t quote Obama to anyone who can think for themselves.

  • L.K.

    The percentage of deaths by guns PALES to the deaths by so many other means…like drunk drivers to mention just one. We are a country that has many ways to kill..guns are just one. Laws to punish those of us that are law abiding will NOT stop criminals ..they will find ways to kill if that is their decision. They will get them illegally. Has the war on drugs stopped drug deaths by gangs, overdose, etc? Those who choose to wreck havoc in others lives will continue despite controls. We need to be able to protect ourselves.

  • Snake Plissken

    If I’m ever in a situation like San Bernardino, I would rather have a gun then not.

  • “I’m gonna make him concerned about what I’m gonna do to stop him. That’s when things change.” – Kurt Russell
    Why are reactionaries so ignorant of history. If “what I’m gonna do to stop him” changed anything, why do we still have to do it century after century? How long until you realize it isn’t about ‘the other guy’ trying to stop you, it’s about changing his way of thinking, not his thoughts. That is, as history has shown, only a momentary solution. When you become your enemy to ‘stop’ your enemy, you become the enemy and create more enemies. Then you leave those enemies to fight your children, and on, and on and……

  • LegallySpeaking

    Mellow Wells sounds like a fag’s name.

    Which, being a fluff Hollywood “reporter” fits you quite well.

    Carry on with your lies about guns, little faggot. We’ll all just be laughing at you.

    *giggle*

  • MikePB

    “Statistically irrefutable?” Statistic this: According to Pew Research (not known as an advocate of the 2nd Amendment), the nation’s gun homicide rate is down 49% since its peak in 1993, yet the public is unaware. In fact, 56% of Americans believe gun crime is higher than 20 years ago; only 12% think it is lower. Why? How can that possibly be true unless public opinion is manipulated?

    Reference link: http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/05/07/gun-homicide-rate-down-49-since-1993-peak-public-unaware/2/

    Now try this: While the left calls for more restrictions on the Second Amendment, the rate of federal weapons convictions dropped nearly 35% from 2005 (9,206) to 2015 (6,002).

    Reference link – Syracuse University’s Transactional Records Clearing House: http://trac.syr.edu/tracreports/crim/409/

    Want a project to reduce risk and make society safer? Glad you asked. Since the federal government has enlarged its presence in the health sector, it is time to look at the staggering number of lethal medical mistakes. The estimate of unintended deaths in U.S. hospitals runs from 210,000 – 440,000 per year. In other words, these are folks who go into the hospital for routine procedures, not life-saving surgery, and who do not leave the hospital alive.

    Reference link — Journal of Patient Safety: http://patientsafetyamerica.com/wp-content/uploads/A_New_Evidence_based_Estimate_of_Patient_Harms.2.pdf

    The life-as-a-risk-list goes on. DEA reports, “In 2013, more than 46,000 people in the US died from drug overdose & more than half of those were caused by prescription drug painkillers and heroin.” Lest someone think the bulk of those deaths are from heroin, the DEA states that for more than a decade (since 2002), prescription drug deaths outpace cocaine & heroin deaths combined. (Whatever happened to the government’s “War on Drugs?”)

    Reference link: http://www.dea.gov/divisions/hq/2015/hq110415.shtml

    To sum up, if you want to target significant public health risks, go after that which is “statistically irrefutable” – such as drug overdoses due to prescription painkillers and lethal medical mistakes in hospitals. The combined estimate of deaths due to lethal medical mistakes and overdosing on prescription drugs is as high as one-half million/year — 16 times greater than the combined deaths due to homicide and suicide by firearms (30,000).

  • James Brooks

    We will always be there to defend the dumb asses in the world also! Read the art of war and other timeless classics from real philosophers and you will see that there will always be a class of weak pompous nay sayers that believe we can all just hug it out and it will be okay. That type of submissiveness is exactly an invitation into slavery. I will not ever submit to someone else making decisions for me. Including you I can and will continue to vote to defend our freedoms to the death! “Note to Self:” What a spineless generation of slugs, I will leave this one to my 5 year in future years! Best,

  • Go Faster

    Kurt made him his bitch. What a fucking retard trying to lure him into saying some stupid shit. Kurt’s smarter than that. Then to ask questions about gun control when Tarantino’s movies are some of the most violent and gruesome movies ever. Yet Tarantino hates cops and guns.
    Fuck both of those idiots.

  • that_was_random كافر

    The title should be “Libtard reporter gets OWNED by Kurt Russell on gun control”

  • Tyrone Slothrop

    It’s not Tarantino who’s lost touch with reality. It’s Jeffrey Wells.

  • Fred, just Fred

    I hope they cleaned that carpet before Russell smacked you down on it.

  • John C Wright

    My respect for Kurt Russel just went up several notches. Note the pathetic, self serving way Wells introduces the topic by pretending he is the reasonable guy instead of the delusional nutbag. Good grief.

    I am surprised Mr. Wells did not propose the solution might be to outlaw terrorism, or, better yet, outlaw violence altogether. The degree of sheer unreality involved in Mr. Wells thinking passing laws to disarm the law abiding victims will make the bloodthirsty fanatical attackers go away is appalling.

    And the ease with which Mr. Wells, upon reading some nonsense in a loony Leftist newspaper and absorbs it unquestioned and unremarked into his own minds is likewise appalling.

  • Been there, seen it

    Every home owns a gun and at the he crime rate on this US home town!!
    http://rense.com/general9/gunlaw.htm

  • BeJebus

    it’s certainly true (and statistically proven beyond all doubt) that the size of a man’s penis is inversely proportional to his passion for guns.

  • Wesley Clay

    You ARE an idiot. A criminal bent on your destruction will find a way. Controls won’t even slow him or her down.

  • Americadies

    Wells proves again he is an idiot.

  • ArchAn6el89

    LOL. I love the hypocrisy. Not Russell’s and Tarantino’s but yours.. If one of those “disenfranchised” white guys, clinging to their “metaphor” would say the same kind of thing about you, you’d go ape****. Throwing all of your feces at him.. “Misogynist!”. “Racist”. “Istoist”.. And here you are being as bigoted and numb minded as any klansman. You expected him to chime in, agree with you.. But guess what? Mr. Russell isn’t afraid to tell you what you don’t want to hear, because I and 75% of the country will still go to see his movies.. You and your pinhead friends are so over. Welcome to the new boss. Your poster child, Mr. Obama, is babbling like King Lear in Act 5.. Babbling about climate change and gun control and confirming what we have known for 7 years.. He’s irrelevant and a dam fool.

  • JoeSmith06811

    Jeffrey what “irrefutable statistics” prove guns are a totem for disenfranchised whites?

    What an absurd non-falsifiable claim. Maybe weak men who can’t put together an argument use “irrefutable statistics” as their own totem.

  • bob k. mando

    Wells: Well, I think we all know…guns are a trope.
    Not a trope but a totem, a metaphor that disenfranchised white guys
    need…it makes them feel good about themselves.

    almost correct.

    “Well, I think we all know … guns are a trope. Not a trope but a totem, a metaphor that power grabbing liberal Democrats need … it makes them feel good about themselves.”

    remember, SJWs always project … and they always lie.

  • Susan Johnson Brackett

    If gun control worked, Paris wouldn’t have happened, San Bernadino wouldn’t have happened, and Chicago would be a safe place to live. But as it is, those California, Chicago and France have very strickt gun laws, and OH shocker, the terrorists and criminals don’t obey them. You want to know the places with the least gun violence? Arizona, Montana, Switzerland, places with the most relaxed gun laws. I’m sorry that liberals can’t see reason with their heads up their rear ends, but that is just the way it is.

  • Lane Lombardia

    The assertion that people on the no fly list are there for good reason is wrong, and worse, asserts a guilty until proven innocent mindset where due process is merely optional. There’s an 8 year old boy on the no fly list who has been on since he was 2. How can that be for a “good reason”?!? Wells demonstrates a faith in the state and a failure of critical thinking that politicians love.

  • jackburns

    The drumbeat of sensible responses doesn’t sink in with progs. Did highly restricted access to guns help in Paris? Did it control access in California? Will even a gun ban help in the next catastrophe? No, it won’t. When will meddling liberals finally internalize the fact that the Founding Fathers were not dithering narcissistic fools like their pantheon of heroes. Good on you Kurt.

  • PatrickHenryFan

    Congratulations Mellow, Mr. Russell just took a potato peeler to your liberal cliche sound-byte-over-logic template. Now try your routine on Robert Davi.

  • bookish1

    Kurt Russell made a lot of sense here.

  • brewdogg_2001@yahoo.com

    The “reporter” is a blithering idiot.

  • macsnafu

    Mellow Wells may be, but he’s still arrogant in his unwarranted assumptions. Russell comes off better than I thought he would.

  • Kurt Russell is a likeable straight shooter, period. I like him even more now that he’s shown he’s deeply knowledgeable about politics. Fuck this pretentious know-nothing Jeffrey Wells. The gun culture is what decentralizes self-defense. Without the gun culture, America would be in a world of hurt.

    Kurt Russell gets it exactly right in this interview.

    Those who wish to get educated about guns, gun rights, and the Second Amendment should watch two documentaries: “In Search of the Second Amendment” and “Innocents Betrayed,” both of which are free on YouTube, and easy to find if you cut and paste their titles into the search field. You won’t regret it, even if you hold the opposing view, because at least you’ll know what the legitimate positions defending gun rights are.

    …People like Jeffrey Wells aren’t even at that level.

  • Patrick Caraway

    Haha Russell made you look like a complete idiot. You might want to stick to questions that don’t make you look like a moron.

  • Bill Gilbow

    I love the liberals that think taking guns away make them safer. Just dumb. I do not own a gun, yet. THe current state of my government makes me want to own an arsenal however. We are being lied to every damn day. We need better leaders and less “pussies” leading this country.

  • Eugene Morgan

    “I played it cool and made my points…”

    You are totally deluded and out of your mind.

  • PrinceofWhitebread

    I, too, was wondering what the “statistically irrefutable” evidence was about white guns need guns to feel good about themselves. Speaking of statistics, was wondering what conclusions Wells draws about the fact young black men are murdered 8x more often by young black men than any other group. No doubt it will be a fascinating discussion about the motives of young black men that will mirror Well’s own prejudices about that group.

  • Curtis Raven

    You were a dick.

  • CowDog Smythe

    “Disenfranchised White Guys” …pfft … More like Self-Loathing, Effeminate, White, Liberal Reporter(s)

  • Chic Magnet Bailey

    Ovomit blaming guns for the murders in California isn’t any different than blaming rape victims! BTW, Islam does blame women who are raped and stones them; Barry’s connection with Islam therefore explains his being such an idiot.

  • Bob Harris

    SO tired of this unthinking Liberal position that says “Yeah, the criminals are ALREADY disobeying our WAY over the top Gun Laws, so lets write some New Laws ,,,,surely then the Criminals will comply”.
    Folks its ALL a smokescreen, no large group of people have EVERY member that dense …..calling for Gun Control under the guise of “crime reduction: is a Liberal LIE, and they ALL know it.
    Gun Control is actually PEOPLE Control, and the people the Liberals want controlled is ANYONE, including the Law Abiding, that does not agree with them on EVERYTHING
    IOW, what liberals want is subjugation of Conservatives, by Law.
    They CANNOT win on facts, they know it, so they basically just want to wipe the opposition out.
    Keep your guns. Don’t let ANYONE take them away, under ANY pretext, circumstance, or Law.
    Use them if you have to. Defend your Rights and Liberty.

  • Perry Dace

    Go Kurt! Makes me want to watch BTiLC again.
    Statistically irrefutable, my ass. Entertainment hack != statistician

  • The OGS

    Actually, he’s a likeable straight-shooter even if you DON’T steer clear of political matters!
    Guys, a gun can no more kill someone, than a pen can write a book…

  • Deserttrek

    what a freaking putz! an inanimate object is the cause of anything and that real bad guys will just say no. the Boston Marathon bombers used BOMBS not firearms to kill and maim ………….. if firearms are bad the ALL security needs to be eliminated including ALL secret service protection FIRST , then we can discuss the faalcy of “gun control”

  • brunostrange

    I don’t think stronger control laws would have any effect on terrorist attacks in the country, but anyone who refers to them as “the terrorists” is a f••king idiot.

  • Lao Zoot

    “Disenfranchised white guys”, eh? Typical leftist snobbery, looking down your nose at people you imagine to be insecure bigots.
    And no, people on the “No Fly” list aren’t necessarily terrorists or suspected of being associated with them. There are children on it, for God’s sake. And that is typical also — of the inept, corrupt, and unconstitutional security state that was rushed in post-9/11.

    Nobody wants to hear about mass violence from a guy who has been responsible for a great deal of it (double-tap drone strikes, anyone?) worldwide, who wants to import thousands of rightfully angry religious zealots from countries our gov’t and its bastard child Military-Industrial complex has spent a decade bombing and destabilizing. Nor do we care to hear from his condescending sycophants.

  • keokio7

    you ask the questions so you direct where the conversation goes. You’re the one trying to impose your beliefs of gun control to Kurt and he replied. Mellow vs Irked? You’re not the better person, no matter how hard you try. Next time just ask the questions instead of trying to impose your beliefs on someone else, and its a stupid one at that. As far as gun control goes, if you believe a person who is willing to run into a public building and commit multiple 1st degree murders will obey gun control laws you’re a fuckin dimwit and yah thats a word you idiot.

  • Alex III

    Wells, at least try to be a man???

  • Pingback: Kurt Russell Says Gun Control Won't Deter Terrorists - LiberalVoiceLiberalVoice — Your source for everything about liberals and progressives! — News and tweets about everything liberals and progressives()

  • Filthy Harry

    Gun control isn’t THE answer, it’s AN answer that can help. Look, door locks don’t deter robbery but you lock your front door don’t you? Cops don’t deter crime, let’s get rid of the cops. Firepeople don’t prevent fires, let’s get rid of the fire dept.

    See how silly it is? No one is talking about taking away all guns or preventing all gun relates crimes. We’re talking about sensible regulations that make as much sense as locking your doors.

  • Non of your business

    Russel is right and you’re an idiot.

  • the_hdt

    Mexico has very strict gun laws. If only we could get to their level of safety for our citizens…..oh wait.

  • hereIstand

    This Wells guy isn’t actually a reporter, is he? “I read something in the NY Times and this guy talked to lots of people out there and almost everybody out there is feeling anxiety….” After reading/listening to this, I’m not surprised I’ve never heard of him. Kurt Russel out classed and out reasoned Wells from word one.

  • Iminurbase

    Jefferey Wells; leftist commi aka useful idiot vs Kurt Russell Thinking non-brainwashed American = The tyrannical intolerant liberal Jeff got owned.

    Stalin took the guns,
    Mao took the guns,
    Hitler took the guns,
    bama’s going to take the guns,
    guess what came after the tyrants took the guns; only the criminals and gov’t had guns, the law abiding citizens ended up in mass graves.

  • Patterico

    You’re an idiot. Russell set you straight.

  • JP

    I know you, Wells. You’ll sit in a leather recliner with a cigar and read these responses — overwhelmingly calling you an idiot. And you’ll think you’re above them all. When in reality, your approach to the interview, and the “facts” you stated with irresponsible conviction, show that you are an oblivious pretentious ass. If I were a celebrity, I’d steer clear of you, since you try and blindside actors with hack journalistic tactics.

  • VMSmithe

    If only we could get politicians to outlaw murder…cause laws stop bad people from doing bad things.

  • jscrillathadilla

    Wow, Mr. Wells, you got owned by the obviously more intelligent, informed, and rational Kurt Russell.

    The anti-gun crusade is shrouded in ignorance and useful idiots like yourself only get more rational Americans on the side of gun rights and The Constitution. I only hope you’re too dull to learn from your mistakes and keep up your “lobbying” efforts.

    Our civil rights need all the help they can get during these crazy times so please keep converting the undecided with more displays like this.

  • Kage McGuire

    LMAO, disenfranchised white guy thing. You should have seen the line of black guys buying AR-15’s the day after Obama was elected and every time Obama says he needs to take executive action. The desire to defend oneself or one’s family is not a racial divide is a racial united thing. The conceal carry classes contain people of all races and all walks of life. Yet the media and POTUS wants to divide the country racially every chance they get. Mr. Russell is correct! The Bad and Evil guys will find a way to hurt you. The statistics do not reflect the people killed, injured or terrorized in other countries with other tools of intimidation and destruction or even in this country. They also do not reflect the times lives are saved due to a person’s individual ability to defend themselves with a firearm or other weapon. That includes defending against aggression before it evolves into a Police Reportable Event. People don’t want the problems the Police brings if it can be avoided. Look at the home and business owners who have been killed by the Police on their own property. It’s the individuals right and responsibility to defend themselves, their family and property the best way they can.

  • uncleb

    “Wells: Well, I think we all know…guns are a trope.
    Not a trope but a totem, a metaphor that disenfranchised white guys
    need…it makes them feel good about themselves.”
    If this is really the position of all anti-gun liberals, which is how Wells offers it up, then that is pretty scary. Racist and scary.
    Further, the automatic AK47s used in Paris (and purchased in Belgium) were illegal in both places… that worked real well to stop that violence.
    Wells is a child with only the most rudimentary ability to understand complex relationships and causal effect.

  • hiyo

    So KR said “wait till they get a load of me” isn’t that what the bad guys are saying

  • Black Bart

    Wells is your typical sanctimonious, self righteous elitist twit . Nothing more.

  • George Garvin

    A Hollyweird journalist tosses around leftist dogma and tries to pass off racist remarks as fact and Mr. Russell counters with reason and logic. Looks like some two-bit writer got his proverbial butt knocked in the dirt…

  • fl6stringer

    Constantly spinning, even when they’re dead wrong. Kurt Russell is dead nutz on this one, A sane needle in the nutty hollywood haystack,

  • Pingback: Those Who Think Gun Control Will Stop Terrorists Won’t Like What this Hollywood Actor Had to Say | FortySix News()

  • John

    How we get to all of this rhetoric based on not allowing suspected terrorists identified on the No Fly List amazes me. We shouldn’t allow a suspected terrorist to fly with a hockey stick let alone a gun, get real guys. You both are the epitome of the extreme left and right and hamper the implementation and management of deterring human violence and atrocities that are challenging our country.

  • Pingback: Kurt Russell: It's Insane to Think Gun Control Will Stop Terrorists()

  • Pingback: Kurt Russell: It’s Insane to Think Gun Control Will Stop Terrorists - Anti-Media+()

  • Lighten up Francis

    Seriously, WTF is wrong with the gun freaks in this country. No one is talking about taking your guns away or stopping law abiding and stable citizens (and I agree, the vast majority of gun owners meet that criteria) from getting guns. We’re talking about steps we can take to make it hard for potential a-hole terrorists or other assorted mentally ill freaks from getting guns. Why on earth is that even controversial? Do you all hate America that much? Also, Kurt Russell is a flipping tool. Tango & Cash. Enough said.

  • Pingback: Kurt Russell: It’s Insane to Think Gun Control Will Stop Terrorists()

  • Moordie

    You sir, are totally delusional. Completely totally disconnected from any reality. I will say that you did do a GREAT job at one thing. You made Mr. Russel a lot more fans. Congrats. Now go find a hipster’s beard to stroke.

  • BMB

    How far up your ass does your head have to be to think you did anything but prove Mr Russel is significantly more intelligent then you?

  • Tom Smith

    who is this wells dude

  • Jerry Blaine

    The fact that you’re a f-ing moron also. Because criminals really care about gun laws. Lol that’s so funny what a moronic way of processing logical reasoning. The San Bernardino shooters had someone else buy their guns so your stupid ass gun control laws would not have worked.

    • carolinagirl

      Obama’s and Crooked Hillary’s desire for more gun control laws will assure that most gun owners will be criminals or terrorists!

      TRUMP. 2016!

      America First!

  • Marty

    What happened to the journalistic ideal of the objective reporter who faithfully records what people say, rather than using their position to try and wring out the answers they want to hear?

  • So envious of Goldie for holding onto this gem, but advocates (insurance companies, SJW’s and doogooders), backed by new and improved rules governing mental illness, which includes “anxiety” btw,..tells us 1 out of 4 are sick in the head…will eventually put the second amendment to sleep. Whatever you do, don’t fall for the “It’s OK to admit you’re sick in the head” ploy, the bean counters are watching.

  • djmc993150

    “statistically irrefutable” that “guns are a totem for disenfranchised white guys”?

    Go ahead and back that up, what statistics. You claim its irrefutable, so source?

  • Pingback: Kurt Russell Drops Massive Truth Bomb About Gun Control | America's Bad Side()

  • Ned Domingo Carlos Pina

    Totem? trope? metaphor? NYT? Survey? Fear? Love Kurt cause he made 1 of only 2 points u need in this argument. Until they answer it don’t move on. If u outlaw(or regulate, or make harder to get, or whatever) guns only outlaws will have guns.
    The other is i have a right to my life and if someone is busting thru my door the cops will take more than the 10 seconds it will take for this guy to kill me.

  • Terrence M. Shea

    I am impressed with Mr Russell. His logic and frankness showed up the interviewer, shot down all his suppositions. Nice. Hats off!

  • Terrence M. Shea

    And for the record, O would also be a bit irked by someone who only parrots others and the party line with no real research done of his own, and no understanding of human nature

  • howardbeens

    Wow, my grandmother, my mom, and at least one in 20 females that I know are disenfranchised white guys? Really? Got news for you dude, if you ever are in the presence of a low level gang banger in LA that thinks you’ve got something he/she wants kiss your ass goodbye quick as the bunny you are or you’ll be dead before you can think about how you wish you were a disenfranchised white guy. And that would be best case scenario for you, if you are ever in the presence of hard core Islamists you’ll be one of the ones they kill slow for fun. Dumbass.

  • Robert

    Another liberal bleeding heart ! Lets take your pen away and see how you like it !! God Blessed America and the 2nd Amendment !!

  • gary schroeder

    tell that to a diamondback
    sunning themselves contently
    then disturbed by outsiders
    trying to end my Bill of Rights
    tension drama and the American Republic votes for Trump 2016

  • J.Howard Metzger

    The All is well Clinton ’90s?
    Have you forgotten it was Clinton who bombed Iraq and then counseled the Bush Administration that Saddam has got to go?
    Have you forgotten Kosovo? Clinton’s bombing again!
    If any of you believe that the ’90s were all well were either ON the side of the Clinton Administration or too young to remember anything but your momma’s left breast.

  • jerryJ

    WELLs, is ANOTHER COLLEGE EDUCATED IDIOT “JOURNALIST” Who probably couldnt find his A$$ with both hands in his back pocket and a G.P.S.

  • Glenn Saulsbury

    Damn Liberal media what do you expect? They have no clue about anything.

  • John Wilson

    The strategy of a strong offence being a strong defence may work well in sports and of course, to brutal effect in wars. But let’s stop playing games with guns….they are the ultimate tool of command over human lives and must be controlled. Of course gun control works. Here in Australia 20 years ago one of the most spectacular and sickening massacres took place at the hands of an automatic gun wielding madman. The government of the day took swift action by banning such weapons and implementing a buy-back program for their surrender. Mountains of firearms were handed in through police stations around the country. It was a very sobering time for Australia whose history of settlement, somewhat similar to the USA meant that guns were a way of life in the new frontier. Since the event of 20 years ago and the subsequent “remedy”, the number of gun-fueled massacres in Australia?…zero! I am not trying to boast that Australia is a perfect country far from it, but in one respect we have left the wild west days far behind us.

  • Chas Ross

    we have a lot of dumb ass fks in our country, tell um how it is mr. russell. i am with you on this,

  • Mikey1969

    Just for the record….
    Gun violence is DROPPING in this country. Drastically.
    It peaked in about 1993, and Pew has been tracking it. Here are their numbers:
    Deaths by firearm per 100,000 people:
    1993: 15.2
    2014: 10.5
    Suicides:
    1993: 7.3
    2014: 6.7
    Homicides:
    1993: 7.0
    2014: 3.4(That’s less than HALF)

    Nonfatal violent crime victimization(Crime committed using a gun where nobody was shot) per 100,000 people:
    1193: 725.3
    2014: 174.8(That’s less than 25%)
    http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/10/21/gun-homicides-steady-after-decline-in-90s-suicide-rate-edges-up/

    ALL are lower, even the suicide rate by firearm, although it is only slightly lower. LOWER. Take away the hand wringing and the fear-mongering, and you have the truth, a HUGE decline in violent firearms crimes.

    Now, if you REALLY want to make this about Quentin Tarantino, I think it’s worth noting that Reservoir Dogs came out in 1992, and gun violence immediately started to DECLINE. Sounds to me like a certain director should get credit for gun violence dropping from a certain reporter who seems determined to lay the blame for gun violence at that director’s feet.

    And two more things:

    The ‘no fly’ list is an abomination. Thousands of people have ended up on there with no suspicious activity, and then can’t get off the list, even when providing proof that they aren’t terrorists, and aren’t connected to terrorists. 12 years or so ago, the Left was all against it, I know, because I was against it and constantly got accused of being a “Liberal”, when in fact I am an Independent. Now, suddenly the Left LOVES the no fly list, since they can blame it for gun violence.

    Secondly, criminals ares still gonna criminal. Makes guns illegal, the criminals will literally still have guns. Same goes for terrorists. You think terrorists have ever cancelled an attack because one of them couldn’t buy a gun at the gun store?

    So, in summary: Gun violence is down, gun deaths are down. A list isn’t going to stop criminals or terrorists. And the decline seems to follow Quentin Tarantino’s film career. Spooky…

  • carolinagirl

    Crooked Hillary and Obama blame the Orlando massacre on GUNS!

    They blamed the deaths of four Americans in Benghazi on a VIDEO!

    TRUMP. 2016!

    America First!

  • PumpPump Bam

    Listen, if you are on an FBI watch list… i think you should not be able to buy Assault Rifles. That is a sound idea and reasonable.

    Can you kill people with a car, maybe not as many and as easy.
    Can you kill someone with a knife, for sure but not as many or as easy.
    Can you make a bomb, yes but its not that easy.

    Assault rifles just makes it easier for them to commit mass murders and why not stop people on FBI watch list from buying them. Who in their right mind would want people suspected by the FBI for something to buy big @$$ guns?

    People want the government to do something as long as its what they want and everyone has a different opinion.

    I cant walk around with a big @$$ knife here as they are banned, they have to be under 6inches. I cant even own a pellet gun, brass knuckles, mace or a taser. So how is it there are nut jobs out there allowed to buy and walk around with Assault rifles if they are on the FBI watch list, makes no sense.

    • mendskyz

      It is actually a VERY STUPID idea. And here is why, true story

      How about the guy that is put on the list because his name happens to match the name of another person who is the intended target? I had a friend in Canada that would not fly because his name was on a list and every time he tried to fly he was pulled out of line, sent to an interrogation room and grilled for 2 – 3 hours. There are 1000’s of names on that list and the Government doesn’t have to tell you why you are on the list. It WILL be abused by overzealous “do gooders” to achieve their desired outcome which will be to limit guns to only those with the financial resources to take the US government to court to have their name removed from some random list. THAT is the reason they want to use this list because there is no control on how you get on the list or how you can get off the list

  • Michael La Londe

    You are a scared sheep pansy liberal aren’t you, you are taking terrorist events and trying to turn it into a gun control thing. Liberals (especially Obama) just can’t seem to bring themselves to say the words Islamic terrorist, or radical Islamist, is that because this administration has so many ties to radicals such as Bill Ayers and Rev. Wright. They use buzz words like “common sense” gun laws, but we all know that the end game is a gun ban. Most of the laws that are being recommended by the liberals already exist, that is how misinformed they are. Hillary actually said that anyone under investigation by the FBI should not be allowed to buy guns, how about running for president. One of the biggest modern day gun runners was Eric Holder in his fast and furious scheme, they also did the same thing in Benghazi, those were American supplied guns that killed our people there. Mr. Wells, you really need to stay home in your basement if you are that scared of life, maybe you can hide out with the rest of the special snowflakes in your safe place.

  • ForeverBama

    The headline should read ” Idealist Wells vs Realistic Russell “. That’s why Wells is a loser reporter.

  • thaddeusbuttmunchmd

    Is he still with Goldie Hawn?? I hope SHE doesn’t pack heat, Too.

    • Gnowark

      So you feel it is the steel, aluminum, titanium (guns, planes, rockets) that is evil, and the whacko who does the killing (of anyone but your small circle of friends) is innocent? I’ll bet you’ll scream and whine if someone takes your parking spot, however! I hope she’s smart enough to be responsible for herself.

  • 8157816

    Kurt, a man to be respected not only for his work. Also his common sense values approach.

  • disqus_lPXETc1pqC

    The answer to gun control is for all who own handguns to carry them where ever they go. If just one or two of the people in the club had a gun, they would have been able to fight back. We have guns to defend ourselves with so lets stop the excuses and arm ourselves. I carry and those around me are fine with it.

    • Gnowark

      As I would be comfortable with a licensed citizen carrying around me, but the “owners/managers/CEOs” want to prevent litigation (AKA $$), so they disallow CCW in THEIR spheres of influence, to the detriment of OUR safety

  • Lou Jean Adams

    OMG!! “a metaphor that disenfranchised white guys
    need…it makes them feel good about themselves”.
    You really are clueless.. I’m a woman, and I own several weapons,, and yes, I have a CDW permit.. have had one for several years. Not only have I taken the classes, I am married to a Vietnam Vet who has given me extensive training and practice with our weapons.. and I dont have a weapon to make me feel good about myself.. no one knows I have it because I do not carry it on a holster on my side, I’m not some strutting peacock trying to look like a badass, it’s in my bag, but close at hand and available if needed,, I carry it to make me feel SAFE at all times.
    I have done quiet a bit of traveling around the country, and a lot of it by myself, and it darn sure makes me feel safer to know I have my Glock available if I should need it, and I dont have to depend on some little container of pepper juice or screaming loud enough for others to hear me,, and lets face it, there has been more than one story written about people, yes multiples of them, just standing by and ignoring a crime simply because they didn’t want to get involved.. It takes the cops time to get there, if you get the chance to call them, and you can’t depend on other people,, so, to lower crime rates, you want to take my weapon, leaving me in a situation where I’m completely helpless, because the bad guy is the only one who has one?
    NOT FREAKING LIKELY!!

  • Jenna Maria Dominguez

    Russell is a likeable straight-shooter even when you steer straight at political matters.
    He’s a Man and a REAL American, not a metrosexual, communist poop-hole poker like so many of the Queer and Whore Filth that infest Hollywood and America.

  • Harley Texas

    Well, Mr. Wells, did the voice of reason get through that thick wall of illogical thinking? I hope so but somehow I doubt it. Logic is a brain function that is out of order in liberals and progressives.

  • GFRF

    Gun control elitists aren’t very smart.
    The world is showing them the truth, and they refuse to see.
    They live in a utopian lalaland!!

    • mendskyz

      Actually the Gun Control Elitist are VERY smart, it is their minions that lack the intelligence and common since to understand their argument falls apart under facts and scrutiny

  • Dawn – Naturally Texan

    I enjoyed hearing Mr. Russell’s sane, wise and intelligent words and I hope you listen and let it sink in. Then ask yourself why our government is always promising us more control and safety and not delivering it except against law abiding citizens that now get strip searched to fly and put on unconstitutional and arbitrary No Fly lists without a charge of any crime, without a hearing or trial or a chance to prove our innocence and no recourse for removal even when it’s proven to be a mistake (similar names for one Senator who finally got removed but only with help from powerful people and months of fighting).

    Why you turn an interview over an incredible film into sound bytes so you can paint Mr. Russell as a gun culture machismo who needs a gun to be a man… a ridiculous cliche that you media shills created and continue to inflate as fodder for gun control.. which our increasingly fascist government must see realized before we use the 2nd Amendment as intended. 1 in 100 Americans now in prison and over half are nonviolent offenses the state created to fill quotas in private run prisons and get their kick backs.

    And nowhere but here in the paraphrased media frenzy over his anti gun control comments did I see a quote from his beautiful statements on Tarantino’s art and genius which I presume is why he agreed to the interview to begin with (to promote his movie) and you used as bait to jump an actor known for his smart but unpopular views on gun control.

    Shame on you.

  • Dave Het

    “you may think you’ve got me worried about you’re gonna do? Dude, you’re about to find out what I’m gonna do”

    America has the greatest military in the world and the Orlando shooter wasn’t worried about what we were gonna do; what he have been worried if every person in that club had a gun?

    Yah, he would have found some way to kill people no matter what (knife, bomb, whatever), but we let a guy on the terrorist watch list legally buy an easily-concealable foldable rifle 12 days before walking into a club and murdering dozens of people with it in the space of several minutes. That’s something America can share responsibility for.

    Should we feel sorry for the rest of the people on the terrorist watch list who would not be able to buy a gun if they were not allowed? I certainly don’t sympathize with them.

    • mendskyz

      How about the guy that is put on the list because his name happens to match the name of another person who is the intended target? I had a friend in Canada that would not fly because his name was on a list and every time he tried to fly he was pulled out of line, sent to an interrogation room and grilled for 2 – 3 hours. There are 1000’s of names on that list and the Government doesn’t have to tell you why you are on the list. It WILL be abused by overzealous “do gooders” to achieve their desired outcome which will be to limit guns to only those with the financial resources to take the US government to court to have their name removed from some random list. THAT is the reason they want to use this list because there is no control on how you get on the list or how you can get off the list.

  • World Eater

    Russell pulls the usual “argument” here and as usual “wins” by trying to silence the interlocutor. He’s not interested to answers to “whaddya gonna do?”. Like most actors, their “ideas” are better left unsaid.

  • Ken Derickson

    This is the trouble with Hollywood and Democrats (they are bedfellows after all, just look at the Forbes list of the top 20 donors to Clinton’s campaign) they are idealistic (which is not a bad trait if applied properly, which they do not all to often), and are living in a world that is not real. Kurt has it right. I am 73 years old and have lived and worked abroad for many years, most recently (2004-2014) in Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait and UAE, and have seen a lot of changes in my life time. These idealists think that the Federal Government can solve all the problems of the people. Obviously, they have not worked for the Federal Government like I have. The Federal Government is a very inefficient and a socialist organization that treats one and all the same (the 20-30 percent that do most of the work, the 50-60 percent that do just the minimum requirements, and the remaining that do very little and create many problems for those that are productive). I know from personal experience, since I was one of those in the 20-30 percent category. The Federal Government also is insidious and pecks away at issues bit by bit to deceive people of their true intent. It like what we in the consulting business call “Scope Creep”. They ask for a small change here and a small change that seem insignificant at first, but when all is said and done they have you doing a lot of extra work and you do not get paid for it. The same is true with gun-control. The Federal Government does not want us to have guns, because we may use them to overthrow the government, much as our Founding Fathers did with the corrupt British government that was controlling the lives of the colonists, taxing them excessively, confiscating their arms, and intimidating or threatening their lives if they spoke out against the government. This is where we are today under the Obama Administration (which I hate to admit I supported and voted for him). The Obama Administration and the leadership of the Democratic Party (including Mr. Durbin for my home state) are trying to eliminate or render useless the Republican Party and have a one-party system. They are using intimidation tactics against conservative (Republicans basically) activitist groups and companies that donate to these activist groups. Finally, Kurt is also right about the fact that gun-control does not work against the majority of the people who commit the crimes–criminals, not the average person. Due to the inefficiency I mentioned earlier, and political agendas, the government is ill-equipped to take the guns out of the hands of the criminals and so things will only get worse.

    So Mellow Wells, you can continue to live in your dream world, but do not try to impose your naivete on others and put at risk for you impossible dream. We are humans not saints or gods.

  • AR15

    Blacks are the number cause of dead blacks,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,NOT GUNsssssssss

    STOP fucking blaming everything on guns and whites!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • AR15

    eliminates al sharpton and jessie jackoffson
    and Life of interrace will be fine

  • Zandy’s Bride

    I am an old woman that lives alone on the shores of the beautiful Lake of The Ozarks, I’m twenty miles of twisted, hard hilly terrain from the closest town.

    Do you know what the response time is here from the Sheriffs Department?

    Thirty minutes if you’re very lucky.
    It’s a big county and our 4-5 Deputes do the best they can but they are spread out all over and their response time is limited due to no fault of their own.

    I own two guns, one 9mm semi-automatic registered and a 1913 Stevens 16 gauge shotgun I inherited.
    They are locked and loaded at all times and within easy reach.

    I am prepared to protect myself and my home and would not hesitate to do so.

    That’s the kind of self reliance Mellow (snickers) Jeffery Wells doesn’t understand . . . because he never had to.