Bowling for Columbine

This is a discussion on Bowling for Columbine within the A Brief History of Cprogramming.com forums, part of the Community Boards category; did charlton hesston really go to coluimbine shortly after the shootings to promote guns and the freedom to own guns?...

  1. #16
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    1,708
    did charlton hesston really go to coluimbine shortly after the shootings to promote guns and the freedom to own guns?

  2. #17
    Mayor of Awesometown Govtcheez's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    MI
    Posts
    8,825
    Originally posted by Silvercord
    did charlton hesston really go to coluimbine shortly after the shootings to promote guns and the freedom to own guns?
    Yes, but it was planned well in advance of the shootings - it's not like he went there because of it.

  3. #18
    Mayor of Awesometown Govtcheez's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    MI
    Posts
    8,825
    And before martman gets here:
    "u r all pinkos"

    There, now he doesn't have to post.

  4. #19
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    1,708
    I think whether it was planned in advance or not ultimately becomes a moot point because ultimately he still went and did a pro gun rally after 12 students and a teacher got shot and killed. Can you imagine the suffering they were going through at that time? A second similar incident happened in Moore's hometown where a six year old girl was shot, and again Hesston showed up doing a gun rally. In Littleton Hesston was told he wasn't wanted there by the mayor, but he showed up anyway...Isn't that kind of sick?

  5. #20
    & the hat of GPL slaying Thantos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Posts
    5,681
    The problem is not guns, but the unwillingness of the people to take personal responsibility for their actions. Instead we have a nation full of "victims" that believe they are owed something by society.

    Would the homicide rate go down if we got rid of every firearm in the US?

    Yea, but only because it wouldn't be as easy.

    Would people find other ways to kill each other?

    Most definately.

    I wish I had the answer of how to fix this problem, but people like Michael Moore aren't helping IMO.

    Note: Not trying to say everyone thinks of themselves as victims but a significate portion of society that are pressing their social agenda do.

  6. #21
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    1,708
    Would the homicide rate go down if we got rid of every firearm in the US?

    Yea, but only because it wouldn't be as easy.
    and that is an invalid reason because? Most fat asses in the United States eat more because it is easy to obtain high calorie food.

    EDIT: aaaaaaaaaaargggggggg, you are actually implying that it would be BAD for the homicide rate to go down...you admit it would go down but it would be bad because it wouldn't be as easy to kill people...I feel like Yossarian

  7. #22
    The Earth is not flat. Clyde's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    1,420
    Would the homicide rate go down if we got rid of every firearm in the US?

    Yea, but only because it wouldn't be as easy.
    Uh so? What matters at the end of the day is that less people would end up getting killed.

    I wish I had the answer of how to fix this problem
    Ching ching, gun control.

    a significate portion of society that are pressing their social agenda do
    Are you talking about minorites?

  8. #23
    Quietly Lurking
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    208
    First, the NRA meeting in Colorado after the Columbine shooting was planned far in advance like Govt said. However the NRA's national meeting is usally a week long event, because of the tradegy they cancelled all but the last day. They couldn't cancel the entire meeting because the NRA bylaws state that they must have an annual convention. So the point that the NRA and Heston went to Colorado is really pointless, the NRA did everything they could.

    Second Thantos I agree with you mostly except one the point that if guns were illegal, the homicide rate would not go down. As evidence look at D.C. it has the strictest guns laws anywhere and has a worse crime and murder rate than most cities of larger size. D.C. has a murder rate of 69 in 100,000; Indianapolis 9 in 100,000.

    States and cities that allow citizens to carry concealed weapons infact have lower crime rates across the board. The 31 states that have "shall issue" laws allowing private citizens to carry concealed weapons have, on average, a 24 percent lower violent crime rate, a 19 percent lower murder rate and a 39 percent lower robbery rate than states that forbid concealed weapons. Also, guns are used for self-defense more than 2 million times a year, three to five times the estimated number of violent crimes committed with guns.

    Also if you look at other countries you find more proof that making it hard for people to get guns doesn't reduce crime. In Israel and Switzerland, for example, a license to possess guns is available on demand to every law-abiding adult, and guns are easily obtainable in both nations. Both countries also allow widespread carrying of concealed firearms, and yet, Switzerland and Israel "have rates of homicide that are low despite rates of home firearm ownership that are at least as high as those in the United States."

    Finnaly, I forget who it was but someone mentioned the National Nuke Association, well you know what, people should be allowed to have Nuclear weapons if they want. Nobody seems to realize why the second ammendment is in the constitution. The Founding Fathers included the Second Amendment to prevent the Government from becoming a state, an organization that has a monopoly of force. The Second Amendment is there so that if the Government fails to represent the people, the people can overthrow the government. The Second Amendment exists so that the people can keep the Government in check.


    You are a fool.
    Wow clyde that made you sound so very intelligent.

    --------------------------------
    A radio interview before a large group of Boy scouts visted an army base.
    FEMALE INTERVIEWER: Don't you admit that this is a terribly dangerous activity to be teaching children?
    GENERAL REINWALD: I don't see how. We will be teaching them proper rifle discipline before they even touch a firearm.
    FEMALE INTERVIEWER: But you're equipping them to become violent killers.
    GENERAL REINWALD: Well, you're equipped to be a prostitute, but you're not one, are you?

  9. #24
    Mayor of Awesometown Govtcheez's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    MI
    Posts
    8,825
    Originally posted by Dalren
    --------------------------------
    A radio interview before a large group of Boy scouts visted an army base.
    FEMALE INTERVIEWER: Don't you admit that this is a terribly dangerous activity to be teaching children?
    GENERAL REINWALD: I don't see how. We will be teaching them proper rifle discipline before they even touch a firearm.
    FEMALE INTERVIEWER: But you're equipping them to become violent killers.
    GENERAL REINWALD: Well, you're equipped to be a prostitute, but you're not one, are you?
    Cute as that is, it's a lie.

    http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/npr-reinwald.htm

    And as for most of the statistics you state, I will only say correlation does not equal causality. There is no indication whatsoever that permits to carry lower the violent crime rate at all.

  10. #25
    Quietly Lurking
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    208
    Thanks for the info on the interview, I didn't know if it was real which is why I only included it as a sig, but its still a good point. Also I know that just becuase that correlation does not prove causality, but it does show that guns are not necessarily the problem

  11. #26
    Senior Member joshdick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Phildelphia, PA
    Posts
    1,146
    Originally posted by Dalren
    --------------------------------
    A radio interview before a large group of Boy scouts visted an army base.
    FEMALE INTERVIEWER: Don't you admit that this is a terribly dangerous activity to be teaching children?
    GENERAL REINWALD: I don't see how. We will be teaching them proper rifle discipline before they even touch a firearm.
    FEMALE INTERVIEWER: But you're equipping them to become violent killers.
    GENERAL REINWALD: Well, you're equipped to be a prostitute, but you're not one, are you?
    That's farking hilarious. I'll definitely have to remember that one.

    As for the issue of gun control, I'm still very split on this issue. Both sides come well equipped with their own set of statistics and other "facts". As for my personal beliefs, I think that people should take more responsibility for themselves. If a person is dead set on killing someone, they'll do so with or without a firearm. If someone decides that they'll never kill anyone, giving them many firearms won't change that. However, I do wonder about gun accidents and crimes of passion. Even in those cases though, there is still someone personally responsible.

    I find it harm to blame the innanimate objects that are guns. I don't think all guns should be owned by the general public. If you need a machine gun to hunt, you obviously need to refine your skills. But, there's certainly no good argument against a hunting rifle. This leaves handguns and the issue of personal protection. One side of this debate says that people are sooooooo much more likely to shoot a family member or themselves than an intruder in their homes. The other side says that guns are far more often used in self defense than in crimes. I once again return to my firm belief in personal responsibility. Gun owners must be well trained in the storage, cleaning, and acceptal use of their firearms. I wonder if mandated training courses are the only way to ensure this. Our government could try to pass a law requiring guns be locked up properly, but such a law could not be properly enforced due to protection from unreasonable searches. We require all drivers to possess a considerable amount of knowledge and be properly licensed. Perhaps operating a gun should hold the same requirements as automobiles. Just a thought. Let me know what you think.
    FAQ

    "The computer programmer is a creator of universes for which he alone is responsible. Universes of virtually unlimited complexity can be created in the form of computer programs." -- Joseph Weizenbaum.

    "If you cannot grok the overall structure of a program while taking a shower, you are not ready to code it." -- Richard Pattis.

  12. #27
    Mayor of Awesometown Govtcheez's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    MI
    Posts
    8,825
    > farking

    ::bangs head on desk::

    > I'll definitely have to remember that one.

    ::bangs head through desk::

  13. #28
    Senior Member joshdick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Phildelphia, PA
    Posts
    1,146
    Originally posted by Govtcheez
    > farking

    ::bangs head on desk::

    > I'll definitely have to remember that one.

    ::bangs head through desk::
    Is something wrong, Govt?
    FAQ

    "The computer programmer is a creator of universes for which he alone is responsible. Universes of virtually unlimited complexity can be created in the form of computer programs." -- Joseph Weizenbaum.

    "If you cannot grok the overall structure of a program while taking a shower, you are not ready to code it." -- Richard Pattis.

  14. #29
    Mayor of Awesometown Govtcheez's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    MI
    Posts
    8,825
    Yeah, I've got a hole in my desk now and splinters in my forehead.

    The first one is just my personal distaste for using "farking". And as for the second one, I already showed that it wasn't true, so what's the point of remembering it?

  15. #30
    & the hat of GPL slaying Thantos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Posts
    5,681
    I'm not trying to imply that the homicide rate going down would be a bad thing. The more important thing is that people would find way to kill each other even if guns didn't exist. Basically you remove guns and yes deaths will go down UNTIL another people start using a different weapon to kill each other.

    The underlaying problem is not guns but the willingness of people to use them on each other. Are computers bad because some people use them to steal other's identies? Are cars bad because some people run each other over with them?

    As a Marine I am quite aware of the purpose of firearms. But it is still just a machine. It can not take any action without someone exerting their will onto it.

Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Popular pages Recent additions subscribe to a feed

Similar Threads

  1. Need help with a bowling program...
    By fuze in forum C++ Programming
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 01-11-2008, 03:06 AM
  2. bowling games in c
    By zarith in forum C Programming
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 10-09-2007, 06:41 AM
  3. Help required! Bowling Assignment.
    By Pacino in forum C Programming
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 12-08-2005, 11:55 AM
  4. A Different Bowling Program
    By Mike56p in forum C Programming
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 12-08-2005, 08:47 AM
  5. Need Help with a Bowling Score Program
    By oobootsy1 in forum C++ Programming
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 11-01-2005, 09:04 AM

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21