Showbiz thing: Does anyone remember that time Rosie O'Donnell went after Tom Selleck on her talk show for his opinions about guns? That was back when she was big-famous (or more correctly, big AND famous) and I always wondered why he didn't ask if she protected her own family with armed guards. It would have been fun to hear the answer, either way.

Anyway ————

I simultaneously enjoy and am discomfited by my agreement with Amy's comments regarding this matter.

So here's a column we can both enjoy.

And here's a column I'd like to see rebutted. We should do it in an organized way, but I'll just pluck some of the low hanging fruit:

Gun control is not a panacea, any more than penicillin was. Some violence will always go on. What gun control is good at is controlling guns.

Tautological and evasive: A security and enforcement regime with the penetration to "control" guns in the manner of Gopnik's dreams will never content itself with things that propel lead pellets: It will want to do more to make the world even better.

As I wrote last week, those who oppose it have made a moral choice: that they would rather have gun massacres of children continue rather than surrender whatever idea of freedom or pleasure they find wrapped up in owning guns or seeing guns owned[.]

Agreed! Those who fear gun control think that in a world where schoolchildren can be terrorized repeatedly by mass stabbings, as in China, things go better when the man on the American street can bring decisive, deadly force to his own defense with his own best judgement.

Jeez— rereading this piece, it's just not that strong, even by it's vague statistical cites.

OK, never mind, we're good. Gopkin is a prim, coddled buffoon.

Enjoy your Sundays, people.

Two mass murders that seem to have been ignored by those on the left and anti-gunners are Fort Hood and the attacks in Oslo and Utøya island Norway.

At Fort Hood you had soldiers that had been trained in combat and to use a firearm. But to be on a military base, for the most part, you have to be disarmed.

Norway has the 11th highest gun ownership in the world. They had a killers go through and set a bomb off in Oslo and then proceded to kill 68 immediately, the 69th died two days later and many more were injured.

I'm guessing it doesn't fit the narrative.

And I wish youse guys would review the December 22, 2012 9:54 PM comment here, because I think some people are way right and others are kinda wrong.

I'm not taking a position here, because I think the horse is already out of the barn, just want to share something...

Today I took my son to see The Hobbit. It was read to me around his age, and I remember it be very charming. The film however is two and a half hours long, and at least 2 of those hours involve one group savagely killing a different group. It's all action, no story, and a few moments of empathy. Beheadings, cannibalism, it seems the bar gets raised with each and every film. Of course none of the Hobbit crew die, even though they have hacked through literally thousands of the enemy.

As an adult I sat there thinking that I had never experienced anything like this as a kid. And the first 8 or 10 trailers they showed before the film were all basically the same type of action films, just with different settings.

Yeah- I thought of that when Tom Cruise (& studio) delayed their release of his new movie in response to Sandy Hook.

I forget the precise wording of how the rescheduling was described, but I'm not sure it matters...

If his film were a depiction of violence for which he could be proud and hope to be rewarded, what difference would real-life events make?

You won't find it on the Paramount website.

Saw that trailer- it looks like a complete POS.

Did you never read the book Eric? None of that should have been a surprise to you.

As I recall from the book;
1. Three trolls were tricked into arguing til the sun came up
2. Gandalf killed the goblin cheif
3. A few might have been killed durring the dwarfs hasty retreat - but it was never mentioned as the story was told from Bilbos perspective
4. A few more might have died from the fire before the party was rescued by the egales
5. Half a dozen spiders were killed
6. One dragon was killed after torching the town
7. The war of five armies

Up until the battle around Loney mountain after Smaugs death there shoudls have only been 11-20 on screen deaths cause by the party, and of that 6 should be spiders, 3 should be by sunlight, one by lightining, and the rest as the party was in flight for their lives.

And didnt I here they were splitting the Hobbit into two movies?

"And didnt I here they were splitting the Hobbit into two movies?"

And they still managed to make Part I butt-numbingly long and completely charmless. I believe I can wait for Part II.

I dont mind length, quite frankly some movies could use another hour to really tell a story, assuming the acctually tell the fucking story.

I was considering seeing The Hobbit, but given Eric description and the way Bilbo seems so self assured in the few trailers I've seen and heard, when in the book he didnt gain his confidence until he got pissed at the dwarfs in Mirkwood I think I'll wait for netflix to decide whether or not to send a box of dead animals to Peter Jackson

I actually enjoyed the film. Saw it the other day. It was a little bit slower than I thought it would be...but nonetheless, not bad.

Yes Bilbo does gain his confidence a little earlier in the film...but this is how you translate book to film, you couldn't have him be a whimpering pansy for 2 and a half hours.

All in all, I think they did a pretty good job with the material they had. Perfect...no. But worth the price of admission to see it once on the big screen, yes.

At what point did the movie end?

Also my point wasnt just about his confidnece, its the extra licence they always seem to take. If there really is a death count in the thousands before they even reach Mirkwood they fucked up the story