PDA

View Full Version : Bowling for Columbine



Pages : [1] 2

Silvercord
09-03-2003, 08:39 PM
Has anyone watched this? I just got done watching it, it gets pretty intense at times... I thought I was going to cry.

Thantos
09-03-2003, 08:50 PM
The fat man can suck it for all I care. But no, I haven't seen it.

Silvercord
09-03-2003, 08:52 PM
Wow where did that come from, seriously?

confuted
09-03-2003, 09:17 PM
I know I'll get flamed for this, but I'm a hard-core conservative and at times, a member of the NRA. No, I haven't watched Bowling for Columbine, and I think that if the man who made it hung himself, it would do more for humanity than his movie did.

Silvercord
09-03-2003, 09:19 PM
but how can you say that without having watched the movie...exactly WHAT are you judging him on? How he looks? And what in the hell have you done for humanity that puts you in a position to belittle what he's trying to do?

Thantos
09-03-2003, 09:33 PM
I'm basing it off of interviews with him, things he's said in public and etc.

Silvercord
09-03-2003, 09:45 PM
I don't know what to believe, I'd like to gather all facts before I make a decision. I just don't like it when people seem to pre judge and close off other points of views before an argument can be made...I've been chatting with confuted about this and I'm trying to at least determine the validity of what Moore was saying, if what he says holds up to truth I'm with him, otherwise with you. That's a simple argument.

Perspective
09-03-2003, 09:46 PM
im with silver on this one. I havent seen the movie yet but i plan to. Some of the stats about gun violence in the US are just plain disturbing.

Thantos
09-03-2003, 09:50 PM
Just remember thats stats can be manipulated to reflect whatever the person wants. I have read that he did use misleading stats a lot. Things like comparing different years without saying so, only giving part of the stats, that sort of thing.

But let me be clear on one part. Make up your own mind :)

Brian
09-04-2003, 12:37 AM
Why would you want to be in a weapon organisation? If the National C4 Association came along, I expect you would join that, too. How about the National Nuke Association?

But I'm only killing animals with my gun? Only shooting bits of clay. Well I'm only firing my nukes at a desert, only blowing them up at the bottom of the sea.

novacain
09-04-2003, 12:39 AM
I've seen it.

I've read the criticism and then watched it again.

I think Moore is a loud mouthed idiot but he has a point and not only the one on the top of his head.....

His point is simply

USA and Canada have similar gunlaws and culture.
You would expect them to have similar rates of gun death per 100,000.

Yet the US gun muder rate is over seven times more!

This was Moore's point. It realy does not matter that a stat he used is out by a hundred when the difference i so great. You do the math..

The bit about him using Heston's NRA speeches out of sequence or contex is also not true.

Watch it.

Decide for yourself............



//the math
US Govt Stats (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/weapons.htm)

Here US murders by firearms is around 10,000 in 2000. A population of 281,422,000
or 3.56 gun murders per 100,000.


Canada govt stats (http://www.statcan.ca/english/Pgdb/legal01.htm)

Canada has 184 firearm murders in 2000. A population of 30,790,000
or 0.5 gun murders per 100, 000 people.

Clyde
09-04-2003, 04:05 AM
It is a very well made film (but has elements of spin ), i think Moore makes some good points in both his films and his books but he does come off quite partisan.



I'm a hard-core conservative


You are a fool.

ZakkWylde969
09-04-2003, 05:06 AM
Bowling for Columbine had to be the worst most liberal film I have watched. He didn't get actual facts in there. And Novacain we have a much larger population with more freedoms than Canada. Canada doesn't have many of the over populated city areas where the death and gun rate is very high. With the higher population how can you not expect different results? In a congested country with all the freedoms and libertys we have there would probably be more violence once you think about it. And Moores point was a little swayed like in all his films. I mean this is the guy who at some video awards mentioned the Dixy Chicks and the Pope in the same sentence for anti-Bush speech. Oh and if we did get rid of areas like the Projects and all and turned them into decent places then I bet our gun violence would drop because those areas are the places that bring our stats up that high

nvoigt
09-04-2003, 05:37 AM
In a congested country with all the freedoms and libertys we have there would probably be more violence once you think about it.


Well, one persons freedom ends where it touches another persons freedom. And killing is pretty much the end of a persons personal freedom. So I guess there is a fine line between enough freedom and too much freedom. It's up to you decide where you draw that line in your country. I like it where it is in Germany with relativly few deaths to firearms.

Govtcheez
09-04-2003, 06:00 AM
Oh, great. Here we go.

Originally posted by ZakkWylde969
I mean this is the guy who at some video awards mentioned the Dixy Chicks and the Pope in the same sentence for anti-Bush speech.

Um... so?


Originally posted by ZakkWylde969
Oh and if we did get rid of areas like the Projects and all and turned them into decent places then I bet our gun violence would drop because those areas are the places that bring our stats up that high

Hey, if you can figure out how to do that, you'll be elected president.

I've never seen it, I'm sure it contains plenty of spin, but what political movie doesn't?

Silvercord
09-04-2003, 06:44 AM
did charlton hesston really go to coluimbine shortly after the shootings to promote guns and the freedom to own guns?

Govtcheez
09-04-2003, 06:45 AM
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.

Govtcheez
09-04-2003, 08:21 AM
And before martman gets here:
"u r all pinkos"

There, now he doesn't have to post.

Silvercord
09-04-2003, 08:32 AM
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?

Thantos
09-04-2003, 08:40 AM
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.

Silvercord
09-04-2003, 08:42 AM
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

Clyde
09-04-2003, 09:50 AM
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?

Dalren
09-04-2003, 10:43 AM
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?

Govtcheez
09-04-2003, 10:47 AM
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.

Dalren
09-04-2003, 10:51 AM
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

joshdick
09-04-2003, 12:31 PM
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.

Govtcheez
09-04-2003, 12:33 PM
> farking

::bangs head on desk::

> I'll definitely have to remember that one.

::bangs head through desk::

joshdick
09-04-2003, 12:37 PM
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?

Govtcheez
09-04-2003, 12:49 PM
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?

Thantos
09-04-2003, 01:09 PM
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.

Govtcheez
09-04-2003, 01:15 PM
As a Marine, though, you've been trained in them and know how to use them effectively and safely, right? Do you think we should have mandatory safety classes for people using the guns?

Thantos
09-04-2003, 01:17 PM
I would not be opposed to mandatory safety training.

It still would not address the underlaying social problems and of course it would be hard to do with all the people that illegally own weapons.

Govtcheez
09-04-2003, 01:25 PM
What about tighter regulation of gun shows?

PJYelton
09-04-2003, 01:40 PM
I really don't buy that argument that people will just find other ways to kill people, for two major reasons. First off a gun is an EXTREMELY easy way to kill somebody. It is very easy for someone in the heat of the moment to just kill somebody without thought with a gun, while another method requires more deliberation and planning which allows the person to change his mind and come to his senses. True, if someone truly wanted to kill someone and had thought it through, then yes he can do it with or without a gun, although without the gun it would be MUCH HARDER. How many people are killed with spur of the moment decisions with guns? Do you honestly think that a convenience store owner is just as likely to get killed if his agressor has a knife instead of a gun? A kid gets beat up by a bully. What are the odds of the bully dying if this kid owns a gun? What about if he doesn't?

Also, guns can be MASS killing weapons. There is no way the Columbine kids could have killed so many people without guns. Ditto for a deranged employee who goes back into the office that fired him. With a gun, many die, without, maybe one or two. Ever heard of a drive-by knifing? Me neither.

So the argument that people will just find other ways to kill each other is totally invalid here.

Thantos
09-04-2003, 01:48 PM
PJYelton - WHY are they killing each other? The energy that people are putting into stopping guns should be better served answering that question.

Govtcheez - Can you explain your question a little more. Honestly I don't know much about gun shows, but if people that shouldn't be able to buy a weapon are able to at the shows, then yea I would think that needs to be corrected.

Just to clarify I'm not against reasonable gun control laws. But to say "guns are bad" is just ignorant.

But to what benifit would these laws have on the criminals that don't care to begin with?

confuted
09-04-2003, 01:49 PM
Originally posted by Govtcheez
What about tighter regulation of gun shows?

If you take a look at the statistics, only a VERY VERY small portion of the guns used in crimes were purchased at gun shows. Most came from other avenues. So the Brady Bill and the Gun Show "loophole"... are fallicious and based on incorrect information. I swear that the legistlation was designed to mislead people.

PJYelton
09-04-2003, 02:07 PM
First off, part of your argument was that people will kill each other anyways and I was just showing why that was a bad argument.

I know that its the people doing the killing, not the guns. Why do people do it? Heat of passion, depression, being ........ed, need money, want to make a statement, or maybe they are just outright insane. And you know what? If we could find a way to solve these problems then I would have no problems with guns. If we had a way to know who might snap and who might not, ditto. But I'm also realistic and know that these problems will always be there, and that there isn't a way to know beforehand in most cases who would kill and who would not. A person needs to be ........ed for a total of one second to kill with a gun. If he doesn't have a gun, then that person will almost certainly not kill. Period.

To me guns just aren't needed and certainly are not worth the numbers who are killed with them. I don't buy that they are necessary for self-defense. How many times do you hear about people getting killed either by accident or by an act of passion with a gun? Every day! Now how many times do you hear about a gun saving somebody? Never. Seriously, where are these stories? Show me some. If they are even remotely near the amount gun activisists say they are, then there should be tens of thousands of stories. I agree that a gun death is more headline news than a story where nobody got hurt because a gun saved them, but still there should be plenty of stories to give as evidence since afterall they happen 3-5 times more often than a killing according to the stat you gave.

joshdick
09-04-2003, 02:25 PM
Govt, I'm not sure why you dislike the word "fark". I think it's less offensive and more humorous than it's expletive counterpart.

As for that fictitous interview, I want to remember the argument and the joke. I'm not going to try to pass it off as a real interview.

Govtcheez
09-04-2003, 02:32 PM
Originally posted by Thantos
Govtcheez - Can you explain your question a little more. Honestly I don't know much about gun shows, but if people that shouldn't be able to buy a weapon are able to at the shows, then yea I would think that needs to be corrected. Basically that you don't need a background check to buy a gun at a show.

> more humorous

That part - it's not funny IMO. But that's just my opinion.

> I'm not going to try to pass it off as a real interview.

OK, as long as you're not going to do that.

::goes to fix desk::

Silvercord
09-04-2003, 03:15 PM
pelton I basically agree with everythign you said.



What about tighter regulation of gun shows?


The columbine kids bought their tec 9s at a gun show, here's a picture of one:

http://www.impactsites2000.com/site3/images2/tec9ls.jpg

And honestly, who here HASN'T wanted to kill someone at some point in their lifetime? Guns just make it super easy, I imagine it'd be pretty difficult to knife someone to death (being up front and personal and actually having to TRY).

Govtcheez
09-04-2003, 03:47 PM
Originally posted by Silvercord
And honestly, who here HASN'T wanted to kill someone at some point in their lifetime? Um.... never to the point I'd actually do something about it.

Dalren
09-04-2003, 05:53 PM
Originally posted by PJYelton
To me guns just aren't needed and certainly are not worth the numbers who are killed with them. I don't buy that they are necessary for self-defense. How many times do you hear about people getting killed either by accident or by an act of passion with a gun? Every day! Now how many times do you hear about a gun saving somebody? Never. Seriously, where are these stories? Show me some.

This is the stupidst thing I have ever heard, ok maybe not, but close. Just because the media doesn't report something doesn't mean it doesn't occur. Remember last summer there were all those stories about children being abducted, everyone seemed to think this was some record setting year for child abductions. Infact the number of child abductions was down last year, and has been on a downward trend for the last few years. A few years ago there was a hype on people getting attacked by sharks, judging by the media covereage you would have thought that shark attacks had incresed dramaticaly, again in reality the number of shark attacks for the summer was around the average from the last ten years. The volume or lack thereof, of stories on a topic does not reflect on how often they occur. If you want some stories of people using guns to defend themselves, pick up an NRA magazine, they usually have several stories of people defending themselves with their legaly owned firearms.

Incase you wanted a statistic 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.

And since you wanted a story of people using guns to defend themselves I will give you two. I have a friend who lives in tampa, one night he heard a noise coming from his basement. When he got down there he found a crocodile had broken a hole in a door and gotten into his house, he shot it in the head, problem solved. Second story, the same person had recently caught someone embezling from his buissnes. A few nights later he heard a noise from downstairs. He slowly went downstairs and saw a guy with a knife, luckily my friend had grabed his shotgun before going downstairs, he got two shots off and the guy fled out the front door he had forced open. When the guy was arrested it turned out to be a friend of the man who had been caught embezelling and there was little question as to what he was planning to do inside the house.

Silvercord, the Tec 9s used in the colombine shooting were illegal to begin with so Im not sure how they got them.

Also, All commercial arms dealers at gun shows must run background checks, and the only people exempt from them are the small number of non-commercial sellers. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, at most 2 percent of guns used by criminals are purchased at gun shows, and most of those were purchased legally by people who passed background checks.

Edit2: all stats are from the Cato institute http://www.cato.org/ccs/2nd-amendment.html, http://www.cato.org/legalissues/gun-control.html unless stated otherwise

Silvercord
09-04-2003, 05:58 PM
I'm pretty sure that statistically guns are used more for murder than self defense. If that's true, which it is, then you've pretty much made a total ass of yourself, and you owe an apology to Pelton (with whom I agree)

Dalren
09-04-2003, 06:02 PM
You misunderstood my point, what I was calling stupid was the idea that if you hear alot about it on the media, then it must be happening alot. That point is stupid, and I won't apoligize for it, I apologize if you thought I was calling him or his beliefs stupid, but I did mention a stat that shows guns are used 3 times more often for self defense then violent crimes

Silvercord
09-04-2003, 06:03 PM
no you didn't you gave me a site, give me a specific url

Silvercord
09-04-2003, 06:08 PM
plus, the basic facts remain the same, guns make it easier to kill people, and easier to kill lots of people. I'd like you to find a statistic that argues against that point.

Dalren
09-04-2003, 06:28 PM
Guns may be used for defensive purposes as many as 2 million to 3.6 million times a year

This statistic is from the 1994 National Survey of Private Ownership of Firearms in the United States, conducted for the Police Foundation under the sponsorship of the National Institute of Justice and discussed in Phillip J. Cook and Jens Ludwig's "You Got Me: How Many Defensive Gun Uses Per Year?" Paper presented at the meeting of the American Society of Criminology, Chicago, November 20, 1996

Again in 1994 there were approximately 1.3 million gun crimes. A few more than 22,000 people were murdered with firearms

This statistic is from the National Crime Victimization Survey information, which counts as a gun crime any crime in which the criminal had a firearm, even if the firearm was not used by the criminal. Since criminal gun possession is included, the number should not be taken as a count of total crimes of actual gun misuse, so this statistic actually overestimates the number of gun crimes in the United States

ZakkWylde969
09-04-2003, 06:34 PM
This subject has gotten over my head and I don't understand allot of it but I'll try to give some input.

>>plus, the basic facts remain the same, guns make it easier to kill people, and easier to kill lots of people. I'd like you to find a statistic that argues against that point.


I think the main use for guns was intended for hunting and protection not murder. We had a discussion like this a while back where things eventually get taken advantage and used for things other than intended purpose.

Ok and in respoce to Cheeze who I think said something back on page one (Yeah I'm a little far behind). The best way I can think of to rid areas of the bronx and all is to stiffen education. In Georgia did you know that you only have to be 16 to drop out of school? That allows many FRESHMAN to drop out. If we made people stay in through at least high school I think that would drop crime rate some and we would have better things going on in general. We should also enforce The Projects and all with more police officers. Its a dangerous area I know. So instead of sending a couple cars out why not send 50? Or more? If we enforced those areas like we should crime would drop. Things like that may not be possible or realistic but if we could do that our crime rate would drop.

Govtcheez
09-04-2003, 06:43 PM
> Things like that may not be possible or realistic

And that's the problem. It's a nice thought, it really is, but it's really unrealistic.

XSquared
09-04-2003, 06:43 PM
>>In Georgia did you know that you only have to be 16 to drop out of school? That allows many FRESHMAN to drop out.
Same here in Ontario.