TV Schedule

guns and kids

  2. embed code
  3. kDrew_Productions
  4. related topics
I can't believe it's so easy to get guns
kDrew_Productions

24 responses // guns and kids

  • Good points being made on a very current issue!
    gpn
  • WOW
    tgt1970
  • Superb. Fantastic intensity, brilliantly enhanced by the use of camera and the music.
    Outpatient
  • i am going to pick up the phone now and make calls to lawmakers offices.
    where is our president. why is he not speaking out about violence against
    children in our schools. why is the media,cnn, nancy grace, larry king spending so much time on sleezy foley? why is the media not focusing on the families and issue of guns
    in our society. every night i turn on the tv and listen news about shootings and death.
    thankyou for your piece.
    jvanham
  • We have the right to bear arms but not to use them. We could kill someone, but we don't. some people do, and they are dealt with acordingly. the reason we have the right to bear arms is in case someone attacks us.

    People do kill people with guns, but they also kill people with kitchen knives too, you gonna try to outlaw cooking utensils as well? People kill people with their hands, you gonna take those away? Killing people with guns is just one thing out of many that people could be killed with. Why focus on guns? I'd much rather be killed by a gun than a knife or by someones bare hands. But no-one is complaining about them?
    bobevan
  • INTENSE. Love the reverse steadicam, very unique and compelling, this technique pulls you in and demands you listen. Excellent, see why you went right to tv, good on you editors. Pods like this prove my theory of Viral Democracy on CTV. Are you Canadian?
    getreel
  • Mate...When you first started this video I thought this was going to be a funny joke, instead I found it was bad one. If you think that outlawing guns would make this world, all of a sudden a paradise.......Your wrong. ....one: "illeagal guns" would still be on the street, in the hands of criminals and sociopaths. Two: People like the guy that did that horrific act would find other ways to hurt people ie: knife, sword, bat, machette, ax, car...i can go on if you wish?. Basically your "guns" theory is a like putting paint on rust.....just a temporary minor cosmetic solution and the people asking why? are the peolple that understand that there are more deeper social issues involved.
    boverboy68
  • First, thank you to anyone to took the time to watch my little tirade. Extra thanks for the comments both good and bad… I didn’t know Mr. Heston was going to be speaking on Current T.V.
    Charlton, the main issues I have with your analysis of gun violence include the following…

    You wrote:
    “We have the right to bear arms but not to use them.”

    Then why own it?

    You wrote:

    “We could kill someone, but we don't. some people do…”

    Thanks for your validation of my point. But to say that everyone who kills with a weapon is dealt with accordingly… Charlton, we both know that isn’t true. Just call 1-800 yer free.

    Your comments regarding kitchen knives, and hands, and how guns are “just one of the many ways that people could be killed with. Why focus on guns?

    Even the most right wing, gun toting male/female anyone, can see that guns have one purpose… death.

    See.. kitchen knives are used for constructive purposes, like say cutting into my favorite cut of steak, (with apologies to the vegetarians) or buttering my morning bagel with my fair trade coffee (yes I drink fair trade coffee, but eat meat, I’M CRAZY) and hands… well hands are just hands, and I think that’s why “no-one is complaining about them”

    *****
    There are a great many social issues involved, but let’s get rid of the one thing that has no other purpose than the death of something else.

    I have no idea if his guns were legal or not. Does it matter? If he wanted he could have picked one pretty easily. It isn’t cosmetic It’s helping to cut back on one of the biggest societal issues that exists today... gun violence and death.

    There is NO good argument for a private citizen to carry a hand gun. (please don’t say hunting)

    I’m done. Keep up the debate.

    Thanks,

    Allen.
    kDrew_Productions
  • Yea wow. . . great camera technique for that rant. . . Now where have I seen that before. . .

    Oh yea. . .

    link
    Plisko
  • bobevan
    I don't have a problem with utensils. You can defend yourself against a fork. Stuff like this makes everyone sick. If there were no guns would anyone get shot? A lot of people say the "Bad guys" would get them. Guess what, they're probably correct. Think positive and positive will happen. If you believe you need a gun to protect yourself, you probably will.
    donniker137
  • Rather than address your comments to me in plisko's pod here, I invite you to read them for yourself at his pod. -zen
    zenbeer
  • everybody's a critic... but...

    this was painful to watch and listen to. incoherent imho.

    seems pretty apparent where this came from.
    whoisgringo
  • Several of the constitutional protections we have create the potential to get people killed in some way.

    Doesn't the right to bear arms also include all weapons? Should we make all weapons illegal or just guns? You can kill 3000 people with a box cutter if you know how to fly. It wouldn't take much less time to kill 7 children with one either.

    If you want to talk specifically about things made only to kill we can bring up swords, clubs, brass knuckles, nunchucks, throwing stars, daggers, spears, hunting knives, and basically any other weapon made before gunpowder.
    Plisko
  • Nope, I don't want to outlaw things that are designed to be useful items, but what reason other than death does a handgun have???

    Again, please don't say hunting.

    The right to arm is addressed for an organized group to come together for the protection of their nation, not for a lunatic to own multiple handguns.

    I'm disappointed, you sound like you're trying to "pick a fight", I'm not interested.

    But... to extrapolate what you're saying, you would argue that we should have to right to own and use whatever means necessary to protect the nation... wait... isn't tht what you were aguring against?

    The slope is slippery, be careful what you fight for.

    Please feel free to continue the debate, I'm done.
    kDrew_Productions
  • I'm sorry if I sounded like I want to pick a fight. That wasn't the intention. I think the passion is more towards the subject than you personally.

    The purpose of a handgun is the same as the purpose of a katana or a crossbow. It is to kill people. Killing people, and the use of tools to do it, happened long before guns and it would happen without them.

    I think the right to bear arms is not just for the protection OF the nation. That's what the military is for. It also extends to protecting the citizens FROM the nation if the government goes bad. The declaration of independence states that we all have an obligation to do this if that day comes. The only weapon that the people could possibly have that would protect them from their own government would be guns. Guns of all kinds in plentiful supply. Look what Afghans and Iraqi's can do with them against a powerful government. It is the final estate. The final check and balance in the system the founders set up and I think they had enough experience with guns in that time to know and understand the tradeoff.

    We are comfortable in our lives. We think that our part of the world is a stable place and one psycho in a school is horrifying and unthinkable. But we forget that the world can turn on a dime. Our stability is not guaranteed by the universe. Governmental tyrrany of the past has ripped people's guts out and burned them alive. Our founders lived in those times.

    What you seem to suggest is that we should have less gun violence at the cost of putting ourselves permanently and completely in the hands of the government for protection and well being. I'm glad you trust government and society so much but I am more of a cynic in that area when I look at other governments in the world over the years.

    In this day and age when "Everybody Loves Raymond" but the government seems to be making very tangible strides towards scaring everyone into paranoia, restricting it's citizens rights, being heavy handed at public demonstrations, keeping better tabs on ordinary people, building mysterous, secret prison complexes on US soil, a wall around the boarders and projecting its power in the world like a military empire, I find it depressing that this debate is even happening. . let alone over for you.
    Plisko
  • Plisko, Glad we're not fighting. I love a good debate... on that note

    you wrote...

    "The purpose of a handgun is the same as the purpose of a katana or a crossbow. It is to kill people. Killing people, and the use of tools to do it, happened long before guns and it would happen without them."

    To which I respond.

    Have you ever tried to hide a crossbow in your pants? Is that a katana in your pocket or are you just happy to see me?

    Surely you and everybody, even those who love Raymond, note the obvious difference between a handgun and a long gun, katana, crossbow or battle axe. I'm sorry but the argument, as I see it, doesn't hold up.

    I can’t come up with one good reason to own a hand gun, unless you are going to do harm to another. The argument that you should be allowed to own a hand gun to defend yourself is a very slippery slope.

    A concealed weapon with the power of a gun is not the same as a sword, a bow, a baseball bat, or even a sharp eating utensil. The efficiency with which you can kill with a simple revolver is devastating, and makes the other options everyone has put forward as comparable weapons that I should also be fighting to ban pale in comparison.
    kDrew_Productions
  • Couldn't fit it all in that one! Look to the previous post to see the begining of my debate.

    "Have you ever tried to hide a crossbow in your pants? Is that a katana in your pocket or are you just happy to see me?"

    They do make hand crosbows, but it would also be very inconvinient.

    I can’t come up with one good reason to own a hand gun, unless you are going to do harm to another. The argument that you should be allowed to own a hand gun to defend yourself is a very slippery slope." I know a man who hunts for a living. Takeing away guns takes away his job. Although one could argue that he could use a bow. But what's easier to hunt with?

    "A concealed weapon with the power of a gun is not the same as a sword, a bow, a baseball bat, or even a sharp eating utensil."
    I don't agree. I've seen people that can kick and punch with the same force as a 35mph car crash. They don't even need a weapon to have the same amount of power.

    "The efficiency with which you can kill with a simple revolver is devastating..."
    I feel the same about anything that can kill. Killing is devastating no matter how it's done. All one person has to do is trip and hit their head on a rock and it could kill them. I'd say that rocks killing effeciancy just went up.

    "...and makes the other options everyone has put forward as comparable weapons that I should also be fighting to ban pale in comparison."
    Atomic Bomb.
    bobevan
  • i admire your passion and the walking around the room works well. unfortunately, i feel that if someone really wants to kill people, the are going to find a way to do it regardless of security.

    on a lighter note, could u tell me what u think of my video?
    matt_orfalea
  • Too 'ranty' for me.
    Niamh
  • Damn Straight, i get that people kill people quote all the time, it's just an excuse.. It's good to see such a passionite pod. hoope one of yours getss on current, we have to keep working against the gun lobbies!

    Current89
    current89
  • My opinion is that the U.S and its history is soaked in the blood of the innocent and not so innocent. It subjugated the natives with Guns fairly quickly and with its geographic size ended up addicted to the gun to have and hold that territory from then on. The US was made up of the people of the world, most distrusting the other, with that paranoia and its unrestricted free trade guns have thrived and fed the itchy fingers of the entrenched. Look at most countries that have had civil wars and you will find a ban on weapons after the war is finished, not the case though in america because of the "me against everyone not like me" thinking and the desire to expand south and west.
    Some tough decisions by some politicions need to be implemented to ban easy gun ownership, look to your neighbours up north in Canada.
    crossmag
  • i have and will always have a gun till someone rips it from my cold dead hand. maybe if the teacher had a gun...ever ask yourself that.
    freejsmoke420
  • I own a lot of guns and I hunt with those guns, eating the animals that I kill. I kill as humanely as possible with a gun, bow, or spear. Most humans eat animals and those animals have to be killed. That means that we humans possess the tools to do so. You take away guns, people will buy butane powered nail guns to kill other people.

    I think the current situation in Iraq demonstrates that people that want to kill will do so with whatever instruments are available. I understand your point, but you are quite naive in thinking killing will stop if you get rid of guns. I can go buy a nail gun without ANY waiting period or background check, same for hunting knives, bow and arrows, spears, machetes, hatchets, chain saws. . .shall I go on?

    Killing people is wrong, period. Get that point across and you wont have to worry about guns or any other weapon.
    therabidweasel
  • I SUPPORT HUNTING.... and eating the animals you hunt.

    But owning a handgun is a different matter. and being able to purchase semi-automatic weapons is crazy. Not even a nail gun can that kind of damage.


    to freejsmoke420... I am a teacher, arming every teacher in North America is not a good idea, it's crazy.
    kDrew_Productions

Add your response

Login/Registration is required to add a response.