PS3 News: Pierce Brosnan: Violent Games, Movies "Have A Strong Effect" - PS3 News

Members Login: Register | Why sign up? | Forgot Password?

Pierce Brosnan: Violent Games, Movies "Have A Strong Effect"

The former James Bond has spoken out against the overuse of graphic violence in video games and movies.

During a recent interview with The Sun, Pierce Brosnan said he doesn't let his two teenage sons play "shoot 'em up style computer games" and believes that US politicians should ban assault weapons. He thinks such media can and does have an impact on people.

Said Brosnan:

"I do think the movies influence, I hate to say it, on our societies. And the games, which deal with killing, which our kids play these days have a strong, twisted effect. We don’t let those games in the house, but the boys do get them because they go to other kids' homes."

Brosnan added that "the kill ratio in movies is overwhelming" although he never took the violence in any of the Bond films too seriously. I don't think any of us did, in truth. But these days, Brosnan says that "what we can do with computer graphics is terrifying." As for the tragic gun massacre in Newtown, Connecticut, which claimed the lives of 26 individuals, mostly children, he said:

"Newtown is a horrendous tragedy, one which could have been avoided. Assault weapons should be banned without question and guns should be monitored. The gun law in America is absolutely crazy and out of control."

While politicians and certain members of the media have been making ridiculous and unfounded claims involving video games, I have to say...Brosnan isn't wrong. If we face up to certain facts, we find he's basically 100% correct. The only question is whether or not anyone will ever do anything about it.

Tags: pierce brosnan, violent video games, violent movies

4/29/2013 9:35:27 PM Ben Dutka

Put this on your webpage or blog:
Email this to a friend
Follow PSX Extreme on Twitter

Share on Twitter Share on Facebook Share on Google Share on MySpace Share on Delicious Share on Digg Share on Google Buzz Share via E-Mail Share via Tumblr Share via Posterous

Comments (70 posts)

Knightzane
Monday, April 29, 2013 @ 10:05:57 PM
Reply

My favorite Bond just upset me. If that was the case half of us in here would be unstable and murderers and car thieves. I doubt anyone who visits this site is a convinct.

Agree with this comment 3 up, 4 down Disagree with this comment

Ben Dutka PSXE [Administrator]
Monday, April 29, 2013 @ 10:08:50 PM

That is not what he's saying. He's just saying that excessive violence CAN have an effect on younger people.

And that is absolutely a fact.

Agree with this comment 9 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Akuma07
Monday, April 29, 2013 @ 10:23:29 PM

So can movies.

Pretty sure that the guy who massacred all those people in the movie theatre did it while acting as the Joker from Batman.

Agree with this comment 3 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

xenris
Monday, April 29, 2013 @ 11:04:13 PM

It can have an effect Knightzane, the thing is that it wont have as strong of an effect on someone who is already stable. But games can have negative effects. I know sometimes after I play a tense match of Tribes, or Dota I might be a little snappy for a bit if the match went terribly. But I would never actually harm anyone, it is a short term anger/aggressiveness(strictly verbal).

However there are some children who this stuff just messes up. But those people are in most cases all already suffering from some underlying issue.

So what he is saying is correct, it CAN key word here, have an effect on a child.

But if parents do there job and explain things, teach good values, and raise a decent human then I'm 100% certain that the kid wont go ape nuts and kill anyone.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Underdog15
Tuesday, April 30, 2013 @ 4:40:21 PM

Yes. Movies and games can have negative long-term effects on children, technically straight through cognitive development of adolescence. (So, in theory, through to age 19-20 for some people. Although, the degree of effect dwindles with age.)

That's why we have ratings, and it's why, technically, it's illegal to sell such content to minors. The problem is with education. People don't seem to realize we have the same systems in place for preventing kids from accessing cigarettes. Almost identical, in fact. The only difference being parents are much more willing to purchase media for their kids than cancer sticks.

Pierce is absolutely right about the effects on kids (and adolescents). But people just don't use the preventative measures that are in place because parents just plain don't get it, for one reason or another.

When I was growing up, my parents restricted me to games of my age rating. (Although I definitely played at friends houses anyways, lol.) But still... i certainly didn't have constant access to it, and I was given time limits, too. So if I was an unstable youth, I wouldn't have even had the opportunity to have the exposure needed to have severe effects on my mind.

Now... that being said, I'm not sure there's any causation to say violent media makes people behave violently in a physical manner. But consistent exposure, especially exclusive exposure, does create a sort of existentialism from reality.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

WorldEndsWithMe
Monday, April 29, 2013 @ 11:18:39 PM
Reply

Actually what we can do with CG now is a very alienating medium. It doesn't have that real look about it. There is nothing as offensive as the zombies eating people in the original Night of the Living Dead movies because the gore was made with physical models and stuff.

a split second of fake blood mist in CG land doesn't even compare.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 3 down Disagree with this comment

556pineapple
Tuesday, April 30, 2013 @ 12:09:51 AM
Reply

Yes, he's right. The excessive violence in games does have a negative effect, and that's why our rating systems exist. I've been playing violent games for a long time, and I turned out fine, but I was kept away from the very gory ones, like Mortal Kombat, or GTA, until I was old enough.

As for the guns part, that's a very touch subject, but I will say this: I'm a gun owner, but I even have to admit that when our 2nd amendment was written, the idea of an assault rifle wasn't even in people minds. Hell, rifles themselves were an experimental technology. I believe most people who would own an assault rifle would use it responsibly, but we have to consider the practicality of it. Each side has it's own valid arguments, but both sides need to be more open to the other's ideas. I also firmly believe banning assault weapons won't solve the problem entirely, which many people in support of it seem to think. Some people are just broken, and we need to come up with better ways to try to either fix them, or prevent them from harming others.

Agree with this comment 3 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Jawknee
Tuesday, April 30, 2013 @ 12:37:24 AM

You're wrong about what the founders had in mind in regards to small arms. They understood as times change so does technology. They wanted the militia, i.e. any able bodied citizen of the state to be as well armed as their aggressor. Read US v Miller.

Bedsides, "assault weapon" is a canard made up by anti-gun polticians and lawyers. There is no class called "assault weapons". You cannot walk into a gun store and say "give me an assault weapon". They use the term to put the image of Rambo mowing down bad guys with a machine gun in the minds of the uneducated to scare them into thinking we have a class of weapons on the streets that we do not.

Last edited by Jawknee on 4/30/2013 12:44:57 AM

Agree with this comment 6 up, 2 down Disagree with this comment

556pineapple
Tuesday, April 30, 2013 @ 1:21:17 AM

Forgive my misuse of nomenclature. By "assault weapon" or "assault rifle" I am of course referring to both fully-automatic and semi-automatic weapons mostly intended for military use. With regards to the founders intent, it is basic understanding that technology will advance with time, but we experienced a very rapid, very dramatic advancement in technology in the 225 years since our constitution was written. It's true they wrote it in fairly broad terms, and that's exactly why we have our judicial system, so we can interpret the wording based on what we believe their intent to be in the proper context of our society as it stands at any given period. Still, I find it hard to imagine that any of them could have foreseen specifically how small arms would have advanced in those 225 years.

Simply put, what I was trying to say is that we need to uphold our 2nd amendment, but also make sure our understanding of it is as firm and unambiguous as possible.

But like I said above. A ban will not solve the problem outright. There are bigger issues at hand.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Ben Dutka PSXE [Administrator]
Tuesday, April 30, 2013 @ 1:28:55 AM

I'm not going to get involved in a long debate but I'll say this-

There's absolutely no reason whatsoever that a civilian should ever own an assault weapon of any kind, or anything that would be labeled an assault weapon. None.

Agree with this comment 7 up, 5 down Disagree with this comment

Jawknee
Tuesday, April 30, 2013 @ 1:44:44 AM

556, The production and sale of new fully automatic weaponry for civilian use is already banned. Has been since the 1930's then reinforced in the 1960's. You can get a pre ban NFA fully auto gun but you have to jump through massive hoops and pay a large sum to the federal government as well as a very large chuck of change for the said gun. We're talking in the multiple tens of thousands. AR-15's are not select fire. They function exactly the same as the 100 year old 1911 pistol, not to mention they fire a much smaller cartridge.

Ben, well agree to disagree but again, "assault weapon" is a canard. There's absolutely no difference in function and use in an AR-15 and the less scary looking Ruger Mini. They're both semi-automatic, have a detacthable magazine and fire the exact same round. The only difference is one is made of metal, the other mostly wood and has less customiziable parts like grips, stocks and sights. None of which makes the gun more deadly than its less scary looking brother. But politicians label the AR-15 and "assault weapon" and seek to ban it because of the way it looks. Most murders are committed with handguns. You won't see many if any pushing a handgun ban.

Last edited by Jawknee on 4/30/2013 1:46:49 AM

Agree with this comment 5 up, 3 down Disagree with this comment

Rogueagent01
Tuesday, April 30, 2013 @ 2:36:56 AM

I just hope for your sake Ben that you never have to experience an invasion by a foreign military on your soil or even a day if the goverment decides to do whatever it wants, because that is the day you'd regret that comment.

Agree with this comment 5 up, 5 down Disagree with this comment

Ben Dutka PSXE [Administrator]
Tuesday, April 30, 2013 @ 10:09:36 AM

Jawknee, you can argue semantics all you like. There's no reason for a civilian to own anything that can do what assault weapons do, call them what you will. There is no argument that justifies this.

Rogue: If that day comes, the end will come even faster if everyone walks out of their houses with automatic weapons.

Last edited by Ben Dutka PSXE on 4/30/2013 10:10:52 AM

Agree with this comment 7 up, 5 down Disagree with this comment

Jawknee
Tuesday, April 30, 2013 @ 11:09:46 AM

It's not semantics Ben. It's a fact. There is no such thing as an "assault weapon". Assault is an action, not an object. There is no functional difference between a semi-auto rifle made of wood that would not be banned and one made of metal that would. There is no functional difference in 90% of the handguns sold and an AR-15. The Virginia Tech killer killed 32 people with two small caliber handguns and multiple 10 round magazines, more than Newtown. Handguns did more damage that day than the AR-15 in Newtown. If you're going to claim no one should be allowed to have an AR-15 because of Newtown then be consistent and call for a handgun ban as well.

The argument that justifies it is we have the Bill of Rights and your ignorance about firearms doesn't give you the right to ban a made up class of weapons simply because they look different. If an AR-15 is good enough for the police for lawful defense of self and others than its good enough for the common man. After all, our police forces are civilians too.

"Rogue: If that day comes, the end will come even faster if everyone walks out of their houses with automatic weapons."

No offense Ben but this just exposes your ignorance on the subject. AR-15's are not automatic. They are semi-automatic. On bullet comes out per trigger pull. Just like every handgun sold. It's not a machine gun that allows you to empty the entire magazine with one trigger pull. Fully automatic guns are already illegal and trying to modify it to make it fully automatic is not only a Felony but an extremely dangerous and difficult task.

Last edited by Jawknee on 4/30/2013 11:23:08 AM

Agree with this comment 6 up, 3 down Disagree with this comment

xenris
Tuesday, April 30, 2013 @ 11:36:51 AM

This might be the only time I actually have agreed with Jawknee :
But what he says is quite sound. I do not live in america so I don't know what the laws are there. But I do think maybe they should make it harder to get guns, and keep tract of who owns them, and do a psychological assessment on anyone who tries to buy one.

Canada has a pretty good system for owning and registering firearms. Funny thing though is most of the crime is done by handguns, which 9 out of 10 times were aquired by the person illegally because of the amount of effort required to get your handgun license. I think its called the restricted license? I don't remember but basically you have to take a test before you can get your gun license, which lets you have bolt action rifles and shotguns I believe, and then you can take another test to get your handgun license thing.

I think america should use something similar. But other than that I agree 100% with what Jawknee is saying.

Agree with this comment 3 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Ben Dutka PSXE [Administrator]
Tuesday, April 30, 2013 @ 11:55:48 AM

Jawknee: I would appreciate you not calling me ignorant. I'm not arguing what a gun is. I don't give one flying fu** what constitutes an automatic or assault weapon.

There's no reason for anyone to own one. Guns don't save lives. They're not designed to save lives. The manifest intent of a gun is to take lives.

Dance around it all you want. Cite anything you wish. I know we can't get rid of guns and I know we have to live with them. That doesn't alter one iota the core intent of a weapon. You want to live in a world where everyone has a gun. That's fine. Please don't insult me because I don't.

Agree with this comment 6 up, 5 down Disagree with this comment

Jawknee
Tuesday, April 30, 2013 @ 12:38:41 PM

"Jawknee: I would appreciate you not calling me ignorant. I'm not arguing what a gun is. I don't give one flying fu** what constitutes an automatic or assault weapon."

Then you have no position is which to argue for a ban. You simply come off as anti-gun and use emotional arguments to justify your dislike for them.

"There's no reason for anyone to own one. Guns don't save lives. They're not designed to save lives. The manifest intent of a gun is to take lives."

Then police and military shouldn't be allowed to have them either. Besides, you're just wrong. The lowest estimation of guns saving lives and stopping crime is around 100,000 per year, could be as high as 2 million other studies have found. So you're wrong.

"Dance around it all you want. Cite anything you wish. I know we can't get rid of guns and I know we have to live with them. That doesn't alter one iota the core intent of a weapon. You want to live in a world where everyone has a gun. That's fine. Please don't insult me because I don't."

Thats just it Ben. I'm trying to deal in facts and rational arguments. You're using emotion and fear. And saying your ignorant on the subject is not meant as an insult. It's a simple fact that if you believe an AR-15 is no different than a machine gun, you lack the necessary knowledge on the subject to make a coherent, rational argument against mine. You rail against the media and the anti-video game mob all the time, demanding they stop meddling in matters they don't understand, yet you're doing the same as they are in regards to guns by basing your dislike of them on irrational and uninformed arguments. And you're unwilling to even accept that there is a difference.

Last edited by Jawknee on 4/30/2013 12:45:19 PM

Agree with this comment 7 up, 4 down Disagree with this comment

Ben Dutka PSXE [Administrator]
Tuesday, April 30, 2013 @ 2:42:21 PM

Whatever Jawknee. Call it emotion and fear if it makes you feel better. I use logic and reason. But there's no point in continuing because you're not interested in listening to other sides of an argument; you're only interested in forcing your own opinions down everyone's throat.

A perfect example of this would be- You have no clue what my stance on gun laws are because I never said anything about it. All I said was I don't like guns, and that the intent of a weapon is to harm. None of that is untrue. I didn't say anything beyond that. Hence, your reaction comes across as- "If you don't like guns, you're an idiot."

...and I'm sorry, but that's beyond egotistical; it's a little disturbing, and paints a picture of gun supporters as overly aggressive and small-minded. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that a stereotype gun lovers are supposed to be trying to combat?

Now, I would also appreciate you not attacking everyone on this site who doesn't happen to share your love of guns. Seems like the only time you show up now is to attempt to browbeat someone into your way of thinking, and your extreme narrow-mindedness on the issue doesn't allow for any actual civil discussion. You just call everyone ignorant and stupid.

You've been guilty of this before but for whatever reason, this gun issue has made you much worse. I know you think you've got it all covered and that nobody with any brains should disagree with you, but that only comes across as confrontational and egotistical. So I'm asking you politely to knock it off.

Last edited by Ben Dutka PSXE on 4/30/2013 2:46:06 PM

Agree with this comment 3 up, 7 down Disagree with this comment

Jawknee
Tuesday, April 30, 2013 @ 3:10:22 PM

I didn't call anyone an idiot nor did I imply it. You're making baseless accusations and claiming no one should be allowed to own an object you don't understand or have a clue how it works. Yet you accuse me of being narrow minded and call me names. What ever Ben. This pretty typical of you, you make a stand then YOU browbeat them into submission and threaten them with bans when you have clearly lost the argument. Go ahead and ban me. Makes no difference you're still wrong.

Take care.

Agree with this comment 3 up, 2 down Disagree with this comment

Ben Dutka PSXE [Administrator]
Tuesday, April 30, 2013 @ 4:03:37 PM

I never made a "stand." I never made a single statement concerning any of my beliefs, other than that I don't really like guns. I never once said nobody should have a gun. Hence, and I repeat, you have no idea what my stance on any gun-related topic is.

You called me ignorant for not liking guns and for no other reason. You called other people in this thread ignorant. You can turn this on me all you like; I'm not the one calling people names, nor did I insult you in any way. You, on the other hand, can't go a single post without doing exactly that, whether it's direct or indirect.

One of these days, you might open your mind a crack rather than just saying "you're still wrong" and pretending you're superior to everyone. But I'm not holding my breath on that; your attitude is deplorable and childish. Grow up.

Last edited by Ben Dutka PSXE on 4/30/2013 4:04:58 PM

Agree with this comment 3 up, 2 down Disagree with this comment

Underdog15
Tuesday, April 30, 2013 @ 4:43:36 PM

@Xenris
It's true about the handgun thing. I have some professional contacts with the RCMP, and I asked like... where the heck are all these hand guns coming from? Answer? Smuggled from the states, mostly. haha....

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

xenris
Tuesday, April 30, 2013 @ 5:19:21 PM

Ben you said no one should ever own and assault weapon, Jawknee said that such a weapon doesn't really exist because assault is a verb not a classification of weapon. If you had have said no one should own a gun then that would have made your argument different and you wouldnt have been wrong in this case because that is an opinion. Why your opinion that no one should own an assault weapon isn't a real opinion is that no one can own an assault weapon, or at least nothing fully automatic, which is what most people envision as an assault weapon. If someone has one, it was illegally or they have submitted a request to BATFE in which a full background check and criminal record check is done and you can be denied.

Jawknee tried to explain to you that fully automatic weapons the ones that are usually considered assault type weapons are already banned, and that the weapons that they are talking about are semi automatic rifles that use the same bullets as most handguns. To this extent he is correct. He also laid down facts about violence and crime rates, and gun crime statistics etc. His numbers are pretty accurate here.

I just read your post at the bottom, so this is my last post concerning guns. I read the bottom post after I posted this so I apologize.



Last edited by xenris on 4/30/2013 5:24:01 PM

Agree with this comment 2 up, 2 down Disagree with this comment

Ben Dutka PSXE [Administrator]
Tuesday, April 30, 2013 @ 5:47:26 PM

Missing the point entirely, xenris. I never said anyone should or should not own anything. I said there was no reason to.

I said nothing else. Besides the fact that guns are weapons. I fail to see how they aren't, and I really don't care about this anymore. It ends now.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Jawknee
Tuesday, April 30, 2013 @ 9:16:43 PM

"You called me ignorant for not liking guns and for no other reason."

No I didn't. I said it because you passionalty opined on a subject you were uninformed about. Not because of your perceived dislike for firearms. You made several inaccurate statements and I corrected them.

"You can turn this on me all you like; I'm not the one calling people names, nor did I insult you in any way. You, on the other hand, can't go a single post without doing exactly that, whether it's direct or indirect."

Seriously? Your posts attacking me as "narrow minded", "egotistical", "childish"', "small minded" and "extreme" are there for all to see. Yet you accuse me of name calling because I said your showing an ingorance about certain firearms, not because I think you're a stupid person, I know you're not but rather because you passionalty opined on a topic you lacked certain knowledge about, which you then stated you "don't give a flying f**k" about the difference" while calling me narrow minded? Unbelievable.

"One of these days, you might open your mind a crack rather than just saying "you're still wrong" and pretending you're superior to everyone. But I'm not holding my breath on that; your attitude is deplorable and childish. Grow up."

Facts are facts, I laid them out and you accused me of shoving my opinion down your throat. The facts are not my opinion. If you don't like the facts then that's fine, but don't pretend I'm arrogantly opining without having knowledge about what I'm talking about while pretending to be innocent of confrontation. I didn't attack you, I replied to you after you engaged me and instead of refuting my facts with other facts you use projection to shut me down.

But that's fine, this is your site you make the rules, so with that I'm out.



Last edited by Jawknee on 4/30/2013 9:23:45 PM

Agree with this comment 3 up, 3 down Disagree with this comment

PC_Max
Tuesday, April 30, 2013 @ 12:18:47 AM
Reply

I think PB is just saying that there is excessive violence in games and its a matter of prevention. In other words restricting access to certain games to certain age groups. And as he pointed out, they don't have those sort of games in his home, but like the problem most parents have with trying to watch out for their kids, they cannot be there all the time such as when your kids are at their friends house.

And being Canadian I am glad we have gun laws. Unfortunately that does not stop guns being smuggled from the US to Canada, but I can imagine things being a lot worse if we allowed them. Just my opinion and from what I have seen through out the world.

He might not be my fav Bond (that would be Sean Connery) but he possibly speaks for many, especially parents.

Keep Playing!

Agree with this comment 0 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Jawknee
Tuesday, April 30, 2013 @ 12:32:58 AM

"And being Canadian I am glad we have gun laws. Unfortunately that does not stop guns being smuggled from the US to Canada"

Oh please. Canada has a fairly large percentage of legal gun ownership per capita. Did those legal gun owners buy their guns from US gun smugglers? No, they didn't. News flash, guns are not banned in Canada. Just ridiculously restricted like prosecuting a man who fired warning shots at a couple of thugs firebombing his house. I bet Ian Thomason thinks Canada's gun laws need to be loosened.

Agree with this comment 5 up, 4 down Disagree with this comment

Mog
Tuesday, April 30, 2013 @ 4:44:52 AM

Though gun related crimes in Canada are far lower than the US even though guns are not banned. Very interesting when you think about it.
I think guns should never have been given to the public in the first place, what for? Though it is too late to change anything now.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 3 down Disagree with this comment

Underdog15
Tuesday, April 30, 2013 @ 4:46:20 PM

Canada has the second most gun related violence in the first world per capita.

We're far from perfect.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Jawknee
Tuesday, April 30, 2013 @ 12:25:29 AM
Reply

Whatever, don't much care what gun grabbers in America think let alone a washed up actor from the land that stole their citizens ability to protect themselves. Yes, violent media isn't good for kids but a few crazy people do not make a trend. Think about all the copies of CoD that sell each year. The number of game obsessed nuts who go on a rampage can be counted on one hand. Same for guns. 100 million gun owners in America, only a handful of crazies go on rampages. While the rest is inner city gangs shooting each other over turf and drugs. Lets not forget the murder rate is also down by half of what it was 20 years ago according to the FBI.

You can't ban evil. Boston, along with many other examples proves that. Evil will always find the means to wreak its havoc. Taking away a rifle used for sporting events, varmint/small game hunting and home protection because it looks scary won't change a damn thing. Especially since there are thousands of other rifles that function exactly the same as these so called "assault weapons". Those wouldn't be banned. Besides, no one should trust the government to have a monopoly on force. Governments have killed more people than all the rampaging crazies combined. Just ask your own imperialist government Pierce. I'm sure you're a student of British history...or not.

Agree with this comment 6 up, 3 down Disagree with this comment

Rogueagent01
Tuesday, April 30, 2013 @ 1:41:27 AM

I say the same thing constantly about the rampages that have gone on and it always falls on deaf ears. The people that have done these kinds of outrageous crimes over the years consists of a percentage of people so low that the goverments won't tell you because then it becomes a non-issue and then they would lose billions of dollars every year when people realize fighting these situations in the ways we currently do gets pretty much Zero results.

Banning anything has essentially got the world nowhere, bar a few examples such as bio/chemical weapons and things that would technically fall under mass destruction devices. Baning all guns worldwide wouldn't get rid of gun violence as there are already enough guns currently avavilable to allow these crimes to continue indefinitely. And even if we somehow miraculously made all guns disappear these types of people would then use bombs, then if we could make all of those disappear then they would use knives, then cars, and on, and on, and on. Disturbed minds cannot be wiped out, I honestly don't know if we will ever be able to wipe them out even with ridiculously high levels of technology.

Anyone that believes these bans will result in a peaceful world are the type of people that allow propagandists to continue to have work. People don't want to fix the problem which is trying to find the people with these issues and treating them because then it'll take tax payer dollars which for some crazy reason almost every US citizen is against, bar a few sane people.

And even keeping this kinda stuff out of kids hands isn't going to change anything either. I hate to break it to the masses but billions of children have been exposed to everything from violent media to actual weapon usage and the funny thing is almost none of them "go postal" as the old saying goes. Wake up and smell the coffee, we live in what is easily shown as the most peaceful era of all time.

Agree with this comment 3 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Jawknee
Tuesday, April 30, 2013 @ 1:53:29 AM

No kidding. Our politicians and media are very selective in their outrage. Just Google Kermit Gosnell.

People forget guns are an 18th century invention. The semi-auto firearm was first invented in 1892. And with the capabilities of 3D printers these days, polticians will never be able to ban guns. Just not going to happen. Lets also not forget that in many, many cases violence actually increases after gun bans go into affect. The gun crime in the UK is up over 80% on the last decade. Gun bans don't work. They only turn law abiding citizens into easy victims.

Agree with this comment 4 up, 2 down Disagree with this comment

Rogueagent01
Tuesday, April 30, 2013 @ 2:34:18 AM

Just finished reading up on him and have to say H**y S**t! I consider myself pro-choice but that man needs to be exposed to the world, even if it has a negative effect on abortion rights.

That is unfortunately a great example of the media and goverment keeping people in the dark. It is sad that in todays "always on, 24 hour news coverage" that these a*****s claim they either didn't know or didn't think it was worth covering. To call yourself a reporter when you either ignored or didn't do your job is about as shameful as it gets.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Jawknee
Tuesday, April 30, 2013 @ 2:51:27 AM

Our media and polticians are rightly outraged when 20 beautiful little babies and 6 brave adults are gunned down by a mad man...their solution? Go full demogoguge in an attempt to stigmatize people like me who care about ALL of the Bill of Rights and accuse me of hating children and loving mass murder instead of committing the insane.

One of their own gets caught butchering God only knows how many beautiful babies over the course of decades with a pair of scissors....crickets.

Last edited by Jawknee on 4/30/2013 2:57:39 AM

Agree with this comment 4 up, 2 down Disagree with this comment

Rogueagent01
Tuesday, April 30, 2013 @ 3:14:02 AM

After reading that I would say there should be a lot more people brought up on charges than just the few that worked with him. I mean seriously how can you not inspect any of the clinics for over 15 years? That in and of itself puts me into a complete outrage. This goverment definitely shows how sick it can be with stories like that, and they'll probably just use the excuse(s) "we didn't have the money", "we didn't know", or the go to "we don't have the manpower" all complete bullsh*t statements.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Comic Shaman
Tuesday, April 30, 2013 @ 12:05:15 PM

I'm not interested in most of this conversation with you, Jawk, but I have noticed your tendency to tell others to get their facts right. So here's one you need to re-check yourself: guns are not an 18th century invention. Depending on what you define as a gun, the first ones could be said to have been invented in China in the 10th century. Certainly guns changed the nature of warfare in Europe and elsewhere in the world from about the 14th century on.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Jawknee
Tuesday, April 30, 2013 @ 12:39:23 PM

Of course you're correct Shaman, I simply meant arms as we understand them today.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Comic Shaman
Tuesday, April 30, 2013 @ 12:40:33 PM

Spoken like a gentleman, Jawk.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Jawknee
Tuesday, April 30, 2013 @ 1:08:49 PM

Thanks for the correction. :)

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

frostface
Tuesday, April 30, 2013 @ 2:18:16 PM

" Whatever, don't much care what gun grabbers in America think let alone a washed up actor from the land that stole their citizens ability to protect themselves."

Oh Jawknee, Jawknee, Jawknee, you truly are an idiot of the highest order and yes that's meant as an insult ya muppet. PB's Irish not British and we did just fine protecting ourselves against morons like you who talk crap like you're an authority on it. And I don't give a s**t if a gun is automatic, semi-automatic, pump action, die hard Bruce Lee action-o-matic, if it fires projectiles and has one purpose and one purpose alone to kill or maim, then no amendment that was created centuries ago should be even considered in this day and age. You know how you don't have mass shootings? It's by having less guns, not more. And you won't win any argument with me about this so don't waste your BS rhetoric on me. Because I don't argue with fools.

Agree with this comment 5 up, 5 down Disagree with this comment

Ben Dutka PSXE [Administrator]
Tuesday, April 30, 2013 @ 2:49:47 PM

No more of this. No more flaming, frostface. That was a bad idea. I've reprimanded Jawknee above and that should be enough for everyone.

Agree with this comment 3 up, 5 down Disagree with this comment

Jawknee
Tuesday, April 30, 2013 @ 3:11:02 PM

Frostface, when you have to resort to name calling and petty insults, I've already won the argument.

Agree with this comment 5 up, 3 down Disagree with this comment

Metal Head
Tuesday, April 30, 2013 @ 12:35:37 AM
Reply

I believe some people are born evil and they will harm others no matter what. We should euthanize rapist and murderers since they will do it again. Games and movies are violent, but they are joke compare to real life events. Responsible gun owners aren't the problem, but weapons are acquire by criminals without a problem.

Agree with this comment 3 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Jawknee
Tuesday, April 30, 2013 @ 12:39:16 AM

That's a big part of the problem. Many of these murderers and violent offenders are let out early or given a plea deal. I say if you're caught committing a crime with a gun, automatic 10 to 20 year sentence. No if ands or buts about it. If one murders with a gun, or any other weapon, to the death chamber they should go.

Last edited by Jawknee on 4/30/2013 12:39:55 AM

Agree with this comment 5 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Rogueagent01
Tuesday, April 30, 2013 @ 1:52:25 AM
Reply

And Pierce if you truly want to show you believe what you are saying than give every penny you have made off of your violent films to the people that want to ban these things, yeah I didn't think so, hypocrite.

Its kinda cute how he didn't take the violence in Bond films seriously...Are you F*****G kidding me!?! The bad guy is or was always trying to take over the world through usually very violent means. And then Bond himself uses clandestine actions to stop them. This has to be one of the most insane comments I have ever heard from an actor, and that is saying a whole hell of a lot.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 2 down Disagree with this comment

Snaaaake
Tuesday, April 30, 2013 @ 3:16:36 AM
Reply

Good point Pierce, good point.
But you know, with or without gun law, messed up people still exist.
But one thing is for sure, civilians should only get to own pistols, why the hell would you need a rifle for?
To defend yourself from North Korean invasion?

Agree with this comment 1 up, 3 down Disagree with this comment

Rogueagent01
Tuesday, April 30, 2013 @ 3:38:54 AM

As I said to Ben above, yes aforeign power invading would be a scenario in which you would need access to more than a pistol. For instance what if China was much further along then we knew with their military tech? They have the largest free standing and voluntary army in existence, so if they chose to attack and made it to our soil you would be happy owning more than a peashooter.

I am sure everyone likes to believe that the goverment also could/would never turn on its own people, well say that to the estimated 20 million+ casualties of the former USSR under Stalin. Or if you think that 80 years ago is irrelevant than look at Romania, or look at the Kurds in the late 80s in Iraq.

People have forgotten that the US was born with the use of terrorism, whether people like to recognise it or not. I doubt the reporters of Great Britian were considering us freedom fighters. And the founding fathers whilst creating the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights knew that goverments can and usually will become too powerful and eventually become corrupt as well. They knew that if the people could not stand up against there own goverment than the goverment would have no reason to listen to its people. You also can look into Eisenhower and his warnings of the Military Industrial Complex to see another reason why you should want access to more than pistols.

People are so eager to give up their rights, and the best part about all of my comments pertaining to weapons is I don't even own a single firearm.

Edit: I forgot that you only said rifle, so by your writing no one would ever be able to hunt either since no one could own a rifle, I'll leave the shotgun as a grey area since you didn't mention it what so ever. Ugh...

Last edited by Rogueagent01 on 4/30/2013 3:44:59 AM

Agree with this comment 1 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Jawknee
Tuesday, April 30, 2013 @ 4:06:01 AM

There are many practical uses for rifles. Hunting, and sporting are just a few. The AR-15 is a fantastic home defense firearm. Not only does it look scary, it's light and easy to use. So is the Ruger Mini but the AR-15 has many customizable parts that make it easy for even petite woman like my wife to use,

Besides, it's called the Bill of Rights, not the Bill of Needs. No one needs a car that goes fast than the maximum posted speed limit, but millions are made and purchased and FAR more people die in car accidents each year than by guns, much due to...speeding. Also I second what Rogueagent said. The right to self defense is a Natural Right (As well as the other 9 in the Bill of Rights) and was recognized by our Founders in the 2nd Second Amendment. They it existed before a Government of men therefore those men do not have the right to take it away. A government that doesn't fear its people is not a Government for and by the people. Its a government for and by the elite class who wish to rule over the rest of us. We're all equals. A polticians who tells me to give up my arms and trust them does not see me as his equal. He sees me as his serf.

Lastly, it's silly logic to want to ban rifles and not handguns. More people are murdered with handguns than rifles each year. FAR more. There were 350+ deaths by rifles last year. Only 2% of those were with the ones these politicians and anti-gunners want to ban. If they were serious about their cause and not just trying to stigmatize gun ownership, they would demand repeal of the 2nd Amendment. But they won't because they know this isn't just a Left/Right, Republican/Democrat issue. It crosses party lines. I can't tell you how many of my Obama loving friends are absolutely sickened by his demagoguery on this issue. Many of them went out and bought their first gun in response.

Last edited by Jawknee on 4/30/2013 4:20:37 AM

Agree with this comment 6 up, 2 down Disagree with this comment

DarthNemesis
Tuesday, April 30, 2013 @ 3:59:35 AM
Reply

then what influenced WW1 and 2? The Holocaust and slavery? Those are the worst acts of violence in world history, but video games were not around for any of them and movies were not that violent during the wars.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Mog
Tuesday, April 30, 2013 @ 4:49:02 AM
Reply

Wow, reading everyone's comments reminds me how messed up the human race is.

Why can't everyone in the world just hold hands and sing?

:(

Agree with this comment 1 up, 4 down Disagree with this comment

Snaaaake
Tuesday, April 30, 2013 @ 5:06:04 AM

WAR HUH!??!
WHAT IS IT GOOD FOR??
ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!!!
Well that's one song for ya :)

On a serious note, it;s not that the human race is messed up.
The human race is like this because it's human nature.

Agree with this comment 4 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Mog
Tuesday, April 30, 2013 @ 7:23:14 AM

That's still no excuse though... wait.. is it?
Feels odd to just dismiss it as "natural", sort of feels like we are just deflecting a problem nobody can be bothered dealing with.
Man I don't know, I'm confused now.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

___________
Tuesday, April 30, 2013 @ 5:41:16 AM
Reply

oh hogwash!
im really getting sick of this influential BS!
ive been watching unspeakable sh*t since i was six and i wouldent, nor ever have hurting a fly!
f*ck, i cried myself to sleep for weeks when i accidentally killed my goldfish by feeding it ajax!

Agree with this comment 2 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

telly
Tuesday, April 30, 2013 @ 12:22:27 PM
Reply

Truly, the former James Bond is right. I appreciate the nuance he brings to his points -- he is not screaming about a causal link between exposure to violent media and sociopathic tendencies. He merely says that yes, violent media exposure to young people, particularly children, has negative effects. There's no question about that. And for those of us who abhore the demonization of video games in some corners of this country and the world need to acknowledge this fact if we are ever going to be taken seriously by reasonable people.

He's right about assault weapons too. Absolutely no civilians should ever own an assault weapon or any gun that comes close to what is defined as an assault weapon.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 4 down Disagree with this comment

Ben Dutka PSXE [Administrator]
Tuesday, April 30, 2013 @ 2:48:00 PM
Reply

There will be no more gun debate in this thread. No more posts on that issue, unless it's to directly address something Pierce Brosnan said, and that's it.

Anybody who decides to ignore this will be treated to a one-week ban. I don't like having this dissension on the site and it's quite unnecessary.

Last edited by Ben Dutka PSXE on 4/30/2013 2:48:16 PM

Agree with this comment 2 up, 4 down Disagree with this comment

PSN French
Tuesday, April 30, 2013 @ 5:33:37 PM
Reply

-- Edited by Admin

Last edited by Ben Dutka PSXE on 4/30/2013 5:43:28 PM

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Ben Dutka PSXE [Administrator]
Tuesday, April 30, 2013 @ 5:43:41 PM

I could've sworn I was clear.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Underdog15
Wednesday, May 01, 2013 @ 12:47:38 AM

Ya... but... look who it was. Underline has passed the torch.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

PSN French
Wednesday, May 01, 2013 @ 4:50:41 AM

I take the "pass the torch" comment as a compliment, because I will always stand against collectivism. Also, even those that disagree with me in the real world admit that if the SHTF they are coming to find me. Those that refuse to stand up for themselves will be relying on those they persecute.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Underdog15
Wednesday, May 01, 2013 @ 7:52:37 AM

Dafuq?

Agree with this comment 0 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

PSN French
Wednesday, May 01, 2013 @ 8:20:15 AM

Stand up, walk out of your room. Go find your mom in the house and ask her where the front door is located. Follow her instructions on finding the door and open it. What is on the other side of this door is what the human race refers to as the "real world"... Hope I clarified that for you.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Underdog15
Wednesday, May 01, 2013 @ 11:19:36 PM

Nothing you have ever said has ever clarified anything for anyone.

Sorry.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

tes37
Tuesday, April 30, 2013 @ 7:40:11 PM
Reply

Pierce Brosnan should remain silent on this issue and instead look into different matters.

I'm more concerned with things like, why are we sending fat people to do infomercials in impoverished countries to raise money for starving children? Something just isn't right about it.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Underdog15
Wednesday, May 01, 2013 @ 12:50:11 AM

I apologize for the religious nature of this video as this should be a non-partisan and religion free site (for the sake of avoiding arguments), but it's hilarious and basically says exactly what you just did, tes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q9fvlEFRT8o

Hope no one minds! I mean only to point out the humour that agrees with what Tes just said.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

PSN French
Wednesday, May 01, 2013 @ 4:43:30 AM
Reply

Don't post political commentary if you don't like dissent. I guess I shouldn't disturb those that sleep.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Underdog15
Wednesday, May 01, 2013 @ 7:53:10 AM

Watch out for polio bro. It'll getcha.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

PSN French
Wednesday, May 01, 2013 @ 8:15:35 AM

Deep commentary. You must have been publicly educated. And it's called viral or aseptic meningitis now, not polio. But I guess your insults proved me wrong!!

Last edited by PSN French on 5/1/2013 8:23:35 AM

Agree with this comment 0 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Underdog15
Wednesday, May 01, 2013 @ 11:26:13 PM

lol no it isn't. It's called "poliomyelitis".

Aseptic meningitis is meningitis. Swelling of the meninges. The "Aseptic" part simply means that bacteria is not the cause of the infection.

Poliomyelitis is an infection of the spinal chord caused directly by the aptly named, "polioviris". It is not a viral infection of the meninges... like... at all.

And the type of education I have is irrelevant, but yes, I have some public education as well as some private. What's it to you?

Last edited by Underdog15 on 5/1/2013 11:26:58 PM

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Kryten1029a
Wednesday, May 01, 2013 @ 5:01:32 PM
Reply

Am I the only one who gets a little impatient when non-Americans feel the need to comment on American politics and policy? He's entitled to his opinion (even if I disagree) but what exactly is he adding to the debate?

Agree with this comment 2 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Rogueagent01
Wednesday, May 01, 2013 @ 7:47:31 PM
Reply

"Newtown is a horrendous tragedy, one which could have been avoided. Assault weapons should be banned without question and guns should be monitored. The gun law in America is absolutely crazy and out of control."

No one would disagree that it was a tremendous tragedy. And I read his interview three times over to see if he said anything what so ever in there that would make sence of his comment "one that could have been avoided", however there wasn't. Everyone looks like a genius when you have hindsight on your side. I also question his logic when he said gunlaws in America are out of control, has he visited parts of Africa or even the South Pacific? You want to see gun laws(or lack there of) that are out of control, start there. Do our firearm laws need to be reviewed? Sure they do! But not by people like this who can't even use the proper terminology when talking about them. There is a massive difference between a weapon and a firearm, one which most people simply do not want to understand, instead the masses like to lump them together which is unfortunate.

And in his defense he is an American citizen, so yeah he has the right to voice his opinion. But I agree 100% with you, what exactly is he adding to the debate? Simple answer after reading the interview is absolutely nothing.

Edit: This was in response to your comment Kryten1029a, however the reply button didn't stick for some reason.

Last edited by Rogueagent01 on 5/1/2013 7:50:34 PM

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Crabba
Wednesday, May 01, 2013 @ 9:23:32 PM
Reply

100% agree with what Brosnan is saying, and that's coming from someone who grew up playing video games and watching brutal action & horrow movies far worse than what you typically see today, and I turned out just fine. Problem is, for kids growing up who already have some kind of mental disorder or other serious problems, that's when it can cause problems...

Agree with this comment 0 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Leave a Comment

Please login or register to leave a comment.

Our Poll

Got the Wii U?
Yep, had mine since day one.
Yeah; I just recently picked it up.
No, but I might get one soon...
No, and I don't ever want one.

Previous Poll Results