top of page

Professional Group

Public·10 members

Gang 2000 Hindi Movie 13

Reissue of the widely viewed 1970 documentary about a free concert given by the Rolling Stones at the Altamont Racetrack in San Francisco, which erupted into violence when fans scuffled with motorcycle-gang members who'd been drafted as security guards. The topic is well-suited to the Maysles brothers, who helped pioneer reality-centered "direct cinema" techniques in their 1968 masterpiece "Salesman" and other documentaries. Here they allow the more sensationalistic aspects of their subject to affect the movie's pace and structure, though, unwittingly demonstrating the impossibility of unadulterated realism in nonfiction film.

gang 2000 hindi movie 13


> What is the distribution spread of distance of mass shooting victims. > I am under the impression that most people who were shot> were closer than the 60 feet you put as the limit of a handgun.I don't have access to full stats. From press coverage, the two distances appearing most deadly to innocents are close range (where handguns are just as effective as "assault" rifles) and long range (sniper rifles).60 feet is not a hard limit. An untrained psycho armed with a cheap handgun may not be able to aim accurately beyond 20 feet. A highly-trained individual armed with an accurate long-barrel large-caliber handgun may hit accurately beyond 180 feet.From a victim's standpoint, there are three deadly dangerous factors in a mass-shooting situation:(1) Close distance to the shooter. If you can run away, do, as quickly as you are able to, while zigzagging. If you have a kid with you, whom you can pick up and carry away, do it: when adrenalin is rushing, you can run with a lot heavier child than you could imagine in a normal state.(2) Not knowing where the shooter is (sniper). Immediately fall to the ground, curl in fetal position, and put palms of your hands behind your neck, to protect vital arteries supplying blood to the brain. Once you identify where the shots are coming from, slowly crawl toward any barrier between you and the shooter you can find.(3) Being knocked off feet, or being stomped by, other running victims. Be among the first to run out of the area, or among the first to reach a concealment. If you are knocked down after all, curl and protect your neck and head, start crawling only when it is safer to do so. > Against an unarmed crowd a guy with a samurai sword will prevail,> so I am not sure what point is that supposed to make.Crowds not armed with firearms usually use improvised weapons, such as bottles, rocks, bricks, chairs, boxes, sticks, baseball bats, knives, machetes etc. Against one, two, or even three such attackers, a trained guy with a samurai sword may prevail. Against six or more, not likely.Gang and crowd attacks don't happen in real life the way they are depicted in most movies. Instead of attacking one by one, gang members attack all at once. Instead of being inept and slowly moving beating targets for the hero, they tend to be young, fast, street-fights-hardened guys.> This raised another point of trying to ensure that guns civilians have> will be less than what the police have. That is a desired state, but is it possible?There are people who still strongly object to the desirability of such state. They consider it a component of "police state". It is already achieved in the US though. Police and other law-enforcement agencies have exclusive access to powerful fully-automatic weapons and highly effective protective gear. Not to mention they are better trained and much more experienced in application of force.> 1. Can a gun-owner protect themselves or deter crime against himself? It happens routinely. Just not in Palo Alto. That's how they do it in Arizona: Web LinkA recall reading about a raping spree in Orlando, FL in late 1980s and early 1990s, which police had hard time containing. The rapidly growing number of tourists and transients visiting the area made patrolling the territory and tracking the people very difficult. It stopped only after concealed gun carrying laws were democratized in the area.In one of the more graphic cases, a young woman was supplied with a gun by her older relative. It happened to be an ancient revolver of a huge caliber. During the rape attempt, she managed to pull the gun out of her purse and shoot it once. The bullet and gunpowder gases took out all the meat between the elbow and the palm of the rapist, who turned out to be a serial killer.Both cases above were tragedies. God keep you and your loved ones from being a participant in such events! However, imagine the chilling impact that such cases had on the criminal community. According to criminals themselves, they are far less afraid of police than they are of armed homeowners, concealed guns, and dogs.As to the mass shootings of innocents, they much more rarely happen in states and counties where obtaining a concealed handgun carry license is not a problem. The mainstream media doesn't publicize that much, yet stupid criminals sometimes try heists or shootings in such areas, only to be comically quickly shot down by good samaritans.> 2. In a mass shooter situation or standoff can the police maintain a superior advantage.In a mass shooter at a close range situation, police is usually not present in the beginning, when most victims are killed or wounded. Arming either all or select adult civilians, such as school teachers, can be more effective in preventing such events.Even when police officers are numerous, densely stationed, well-trained, and heroic, like at the Gilroy festival, they still can't prevent the close proximity mass shooting deaths.It is not a coincidence that the Gilroy shooter, or the evil people advising him, chose such festival as the scene of killings. He or they were less afraid of police than of occasional member of public carrying a concealed gun or knife at an event without weapons screening.I highly doubt that a shooter, or a criminal in general, could be attracted to commit a comparable act at the Renaissance Faire, also near Gilroy, as such event attract many people armed with, and trained in use of, replicas of medieval weapons. > Deciding someone is a menace and taking their guns or gun away,> seems like it might be problematic, and even violating due process.I believe that this shall only be done through a due process, by a court. Otherwise a black market of undeclared guns will expand, involving even law-abiding citizens afraid that their declared guns will be taken away by a gun-unfriendly administration at some point, for instance based on their seemingly innocent posts on Internet.> Then there is the simple solution of removing all guns from the public. How would that work?Simple? Historically, taking all guns away from the public was often followed either by fall of the empire, or by stiff suppression of political opposition, sometimes even genocide against the people from whom the guns were taken.A country with armed population is unconquerable in practice. A country with unarmed population can easily fall to a regime that in a short time morphs from populist to fascist. Some facts for you to ponder on:In Switzerland, keeping a fully automatic machine gun at home is not just a right of an able-bodied citizen, but an obligation. Moreover, the obligation includes regular training in use of the gun. Have you heard about mass shootings in Switzerland? Or about any country, including Nazi Germany at the apex of its power, conquering Switzerland?The entity confiscating the guns may be not a fascist regime, but a much more democratic government that precedes it: Web Link Taking the guns away from the public opens up an easy opportunity for secret police to quietly apprehend political opponents in their homes, which paves the way for a later fascist regime.It seems to me that the US follows the UK's road to total gun prohibition: Web Link Consider though that UK ceased to be a worldwide empire in a short 7 years after the "the Home Secretary ruled that self-defence was no longer a suitable reason for applying for a firearm certificate and directed police to refuse such applications".I don't think the above is a causation. Yet it could be a significant correlative indicator. When country leadership no longer considers the Constitution or Common Law as binding, and there are no citizens left to oppose such position, it may well indicate that the country is no longer what it used to be: an Empire fully supported by its free citizens.

The standoff that closes the first act is emblematic of Dominosuse of melodramatic convention. The scene marks Domino's acceptance intoEd Mosbeys (Mickey Rourke) team of bounty hunters. In a raid on an L.A. gangshideout, the team finds itself severely outgunned. As the antagonists faceone another in a standoff, Scott provides a flashback to a scene of Domino asa child, while her voice-over intones "that night, my coin was tossed.Heads you live, tails you die." The film returns to the standoff as thegang opens fire, killing all of the bounty hunters. Moments later, Dominosvoice-over continues "... My destiny was life ..."over images ofthe massacre playing in reverse. Once more the standoff begins, but this timeDomino diffuses the situation by offering the gang leader a lap dance! Theresolution of the standoff is identified within the film as the product ofdumb luck, and the lap dance is self-consciously implausible. If any filmmerits the epithet of "two-hour trailer for an action movie," itwould be Domino. Where Man on Fire blunts the situations by focusing oncharacter and removing the hostage, Domino multiplies and fragments them tothe point of incoherence. Both films, though, are firmly within the actiongenre, and they each innovate by citing and diverging from situationaldramaturgy.

  • About

    Welcome to the group! You can connect with other members, ge...

    bottom of page