Has anyone watched this? I just got done watching it, it gets pretty intense at times... I thought I was going to cry.
Printable View
Has anyone watched this? I just got done watching it, it gets pretty intense at times... I thought I was going to cry.
The fat man can suck it for all I care. But no, I haven't seen it.
Wow where did that come from, seriously?
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.
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?
I'm basing it off of interviews with him, things he's said in public and etc.
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.
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.
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 :)
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.
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............
Code://the math
US Govt Stats
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
Canada has 184 firearm murders in 2000. A population of 30,790,000
or 0.5 gun murders per 100, 000 people.
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.
You are a fool.Quote:
I'm a hard-core conservative
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
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.Quote:
In a congested country with all the freedoms and libertys we have there would probably be more violence once you think about it.
Oh, great. Here we go.
Um... so?Quote:
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.
Hey, if you can figure out how to do that, you'll be elected president.Quote:
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
I've never seen it, I'm sure it contains plenty of spin, but what political movie doesn't?
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.Quote:
Originally posted by Silvercord
did charlton hesston really go to coluimbine shortly after the shootings to promote guns and the freedom to own guns?
And before martman gets here:
"u r all pinkos"
There, now he doesn't have to post.
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?
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.
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.Quote:
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.
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
Uh so? What matters at the end of the day is that less people would end up getting killed.Quote:
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.
Ching ching, gun control.Quote:
I wish I had the answer of how to fix this problem
Are you talking about minorites?Quote:
a significate portion of society that are pressing their social agenda do
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.
Wow clyde that made you sound so very intelligent.Quote:
You are a fool.
--------------------------------
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.Quote:
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?
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.
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
That's farking hilarious. I'll definitely have to remember that one.Quote:
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?
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.
> farking
::bangs head on desk::
> I'll definitely have to remember that one.
::bangs head through desk::
Is something wrong, Govt?Quote:
Originally posted by Govtcheez
> farking
::bangs head on desk::
> I'll definitely have to remember that one.
::bangs head through desk::
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?
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.
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?
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.
What about tighter regulation of gun shows?
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.
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?
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.Quote:
Originally posted by Govtcheez
What about tighter regulation of gun shows?
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.
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.
Basically that you don't need a background check to buy a gun at a show.Quote:
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.
> 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::
pelton I basically agree with everythign you said.
The columbine kids bought their tec 9s at a gun show, here's a picture of one:Quote:
What about tighter regulation of gun shows?
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).
Um.... never to the point I'd actually do something about it.Quote:
Originally posted by Silvercord
And honestly, who here HASN'T wanted to kill someone at some point in their lifetime?
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.Quote:
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.
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
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)
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
no you didn't you gave me a site, give me a specific url
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.
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
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.
> 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.
>>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.
Oh and GC sorry for mispelling your name
We'll pretend you're the first ;)Quote:
Originally posted by ZakkWylde969
Oh and GC sorry for mispelling your name
Sure thing GC ;) ;)
First off, that survey you are pulling your "stats" from is worthless. It asked a little over 3000 people this question, and from that they extrapolated to the millions in america. They even included the multiple times people bragged about using their gun, including a women who said she used it defensively 52 times in that year! Take away that 52 alone and the number drop considerably! Read this link: http://www.ncjrs.org/txtfiles/165476.txt Most notable in it was its section on defensive gun uses:
>>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<<Quote:
Private citizens sometimes use
their guns to scare off trespassers and fend off
assaults. Such defensive gun uses (DGUs) are
sometimes invoked as a measure of the public
benefits of private gun ownership. On the basis of
data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics'
National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) data,
one would conclude that defensive uses are rare
indeed, about 108,000 per year. But other surveys
yield far higher estimates of the number of DGUs.
Most notable has been a much publicized estimate of
2.5 million DGUs, based on data from a 1994
telephone survey conducted by Florida State
University professors Gary Kleck and Mark
Gertz.[13] The 2.5 million figure has been picked
up by the press and now appears regularly in
newspaper articles, letters to the editor,
editorials, and even Congressional Research Service
briefs for public policymakers.
The NSPOF survey is quite similar to the Kleck and
Gertz instrument and provides a basis for
replicating their estimate. Each of the respondents
in the NSPOF was asked the question, "Within the
past 12 months, have you yourself used a gun, even
if it was not fired, to protect yourself or someone
else, or for the protection of property at home,
work, or elsewhere?" Answers in the affirmative
were followed with "How many different times did
you use a gun, even if it was not fired, to protect
yourself or property in the past 12 months?"
Negative answers to the first DGU question were
followed by "Have you ever used a gun to defend
yourself or someone else?" (emphasis in original).
Each respondent who answered yes to either of these
DGU questions was asked a sequence of 30 additional
questions concerning the most recent defensive gun
use in which the respondent was involved, including
the respondent's actions with the gun, the location
and other circumstances of the incident, and the
respondent's relationship to the perpetrator.
Forty-five respondents reported a defensive gun use
in 1994 against a person (exhibit 7). Given the
sampling weights, these respondents constitute 1.6
percent of the sample and represent 3.1 million
adults. Almost half of these respondents reported
multiple DGUs during 1994, which provides the basis
for estimating the 1994 DGU incidence at 23
million. This surprising figure is caused in part
by a few respondents reporting large numbers of
defensive gun uses during the year; for example,
one woman reported 52!
Did you not read what I said?? I even said that I know gun shootings take headline news over gun savings! But if they happen 5 times more, than SOMETHING will show up somewhere! Where is a link that shows these people's stories? If so many people are for guns, and it saves so many lives, then obviosly these people will be telling their stories all over the internet and the media. An NRA magazine might show a couple a month, but come on, we are talking about millions a year! Your whole evidence that it helps so many people is from a random poll that asked only 3000 people and that is completely flawed, so stop whipping out that 2 million plus BS as though its a fact. And your whole story about your friend proves a point, a person without a gun would have called animal control for a crocodile, with a gun suddenly shooting the poor confused thing in the head is the solution. Whoohoo, go guns! And even if your friend was saved by his gun from the burglar, guess what? Over 50 people died in America today because some idiots had guns that were easily available. The only way you know that guns saved even 10 peoples lives today is because a 10 year old survey is GUESSING that it MIGHT be true.
Guns are an easy way for people to cause huge amounts of harm to each other, it is staggeringly obvious that handing them out to the general public is a bad idea.
People should be allowed to have nuclear weapons......Quote:
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.
people....
should....
be allowed....
to have....
nuclear weapons....
........
Spoken like a true maniac.
Ok PJ simply because I don't want to debate the merits of a survey with you, I have work to do, lets assume the lowest value for the number of defensive gun uses in the source you provide. Lets assume that it is only 108,000. Even at that low amount that means that guns are used for defense almost 5 times more often then they are used to commit murder. 108,000 / 22,000 = 4.90909...
So my friend should have called animal control at 3am and wait hours for them to arrive while a deadly animal ravages his house, not only does this indanger his life and the life of his family, put also pets and everything else in his house.
Second, so we should take away guns from law abiding people, well then on that day an extra 2 people would have been killed. If you take away guns from law abiding people you simply put them at a disadvantage to criminals who will still have guns. Telling a rapist that he can't have a gun is like telling a terrorist that his car bomb is double parked.
Clyde, the nuclear weapon statement was hyperbole. I don't actually think it would be good for people to have nuclear weapons, but I use it as an example to the point that people are supposed to have the power to keep the government in check. Like how the people of the English colonies did over 200 years ago ;)
I wish I had a nuke :(
you shoot at a guy in your house with a gun?! wtf maybe im just a pacifist canadian but ok scare the guy, wave the gun about but shoot the guy? are you americans that hungry for spilled blood?Quote:
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.
If your friend had killed him i would have wanted to see him locked up for murder. Self defense bull $$$$ the guy didnt expect anyone home and had a knife and you have a shot gun!
I've held a TEC9 at a gun store (I wanted to look at it specifically because columbine happened, otherwise it would not have been very special), so are you sure they were ever illegal? (obviously this was after columbine happened).
Except its a totally bogus argument because in a democratic country that is relatively stable (like the US) it seems virtually impossible that a government so extreme that they would attempt to remove democracy would come to power, furthermore if by some wild chance that did happen, having guns wouldn't matter whatsoever because the armed forces with tanks > civilians with guns.Quote:
but I use it as an example to the point that people are supposed to have the power to keep the government in check
So?Quote:
Even at that low amount that means that guns are used for defense almost 5 times more often then they are used to commit murder. 108,000 / 22,000 = 4.90909
How many avoided muggings, or robberies do think justifies the death of an innocent?
Plus you have no idea how many of those instances were actually dependent on the gun - In many instances the act of merely challenging an intruder causes them to flee the scene.
Guns are just an easy way of KILLING PEOPLE, I just really don't understand how anybody in their right mind can think that they are a good idea.
Unfortunately I've only got a few minutes so I can only argue one point:
>>Ok PJ simply because I don't want to debate the merits of a survey with you, I have work to do, lets assume the lowest value for the number of defensive gun uses in the source you provide. Lets assume that it is only 108,000. Even at that low amount that means that guns are used for defense almost 5 times more often then they are used to commit murder. 108,000 / 22,000 = 4.90909...<<
Now you are comparing ANY defensive gun use with only gun murders. The 108,000 includes such glorious things as some guy was looking at me funny in an alley so I pulled out my gun, and I saw a burglar and pulled out my gun when in reality it was just some poor homeless man who crashed out drunk on the guys lawn. Now, to the 22,000 murders, add on accidental deaths, gun crimes that could not have been committed without the gun, AND of course the thousands of injuries that aren't included in the murders because the person wasn't killed just very badly injured. Now you'll see that the numbers are greatly against defensive gun use.
We've already shown that the idea people will kill without guns anyways is flawed. The only proof that they are used defensively on a regular basis is a flawed 10 year old survey. And every day more and more people are getting killed and injured by guns that are easily available and that are so simple to use a 5-year old can kill a grown man! If you know some magical way to know who will and who won't use a gun properly then let us know, but I know that humans are idiots are for every 10 law abiding citizens there's some moron who might use his gun (or leave it out for someone else to use) to the detriment of someone elses life if the circumstances came about. And the fact that you are willing to sacrifice these peoples lives under the unlikely assumption - brought up by the flawed survey - that it might help you someday just staggers my mind!
And unless your friend had plans on petting the crocodile, the thing is NOT dangerous. Jeez, call the cops, they get there in a few minutes with animal control, and just stay upstairs. But no, with a gun its always shoot first ask questions later :rolleyes:
One last thing that is included in the number of people guns save is the STUPID idea that people get in their heads that they are safe since they have a gun. A woman walking down the street at night sees a dark alley, no gun she says no way! Give her a gun and suddenly there that increase chance of "I'm safe, I have my gun!". So she walks down it, sure enough some guy attacks her and she protects herself with her gun. "Thank god my gun saved me!" NO! She was an idiot for walking down that alley to begin with and her gun gave her a false sense of security. But of course it goes into the statistic of a gun saving someones life...
The only thing i have to say about the whole thing is that statistics prove absolutely nothing. Especially gun violence stats, had it been the middle ages it would have been a study on sword violence. (Except no one would have cared back then but that's not my point)
I haven't seen the video, I don't want to see it. I know what happened, so does everyone else who ever watched the news during that time. Does he really do anything in that video besides point out our failing youth and the degredation of society? Cause that's the kind of person he comes off as to me, and from what I've heard about it that's all it is.
I think this thread is getting a little far fetched but a gun is tool. A knife is a tool. A gun is something that can be used for good or bad. Same with a knife. Now you have already talked about how the "robber" uses a knife. Now should we ban knives also now?
If you go to this page you can figure out your chances of dying in different ways (in US):
http://webapp.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10.html
I notice that US's per capita gun toll is higher than most Western nations road toll. Wow!
It seems that nearly ten kids a day are blown away. This must be acceptable to most Americans?!
Thirteen preopled died by "over exertion"! Good reason not to exercise!
People will always kill each other if they have the means to do so. This will never, ever stop. Take away the guns, take away the means, take away the deaths.
In a country of 280 million people? Yes.Quote:
Originally posted by anonytmouse
It seems that nearly ten kids a day are blown away. This must be acceptable to most Americans?!
Just think of it as population control.Quote:
It seems that nearly ten kids a day are blown away. This must be acceptable to most Americans?!
BTW I'm just kidding
Since when is it ever acceptable for innocent people to be killed?Quote:
In a country of 280 million people? Yes.
With those two things said I have come to the conclusion we lose one twenty eight millionth of our population everyday. Now how many kids are born a day? I would have to say just about that. It is another thing that keeps the United States from being overpopulated. We could have a population like China and have things allot worse off. Stop complaning about how bad we have it until you think about things in the large perspective please.
**damn someone beat me to it....**
**Clyde since as you know the earth isnt flat, you should also know people die everyday and if only non innocent people should die the world would soon overpopulate and death would come in masses from epidemics like SARS and such.
LMFAO!!!!Quote:
Originally posted by ZakkWylde969
if only non innocent people should die the world would soon overpopulate and death would come in masses from epidemics like SARS and such.
"I'm sorry I shot him your honour. I was saving the world from overpopulation"
Listen dung for brains,Quote:
**Clyde since as you know the earth isnt flat, you should also know people die everyday and if only non innocent people should die the world would soon overpopulate and death would come in masses from epidemics like SARS and such
1) Just because people do die all the time doesn't mean we should simply sit back and do $$$$ all about it.
2) Last time i checked there was still a maximum human life span.
Yay lets not bother helping starving nations thats population control, let poor people die because they can't afford proper medical care thats population control. Heil $$$$ing Hitler.
There is a large difference in murdering thousands of people and natural deaths. There isn't a maximum human life span. That is based of averages dung for brains. You really need to learn to control your attitude and think things through. Starving nations are starving because they are poor and there are too many of them. I'm not saying that shooting people is good because it isn't. Overpopulation IS a problem just like gun violence. You just look those facts over where I do not. If no one died from accidents and everyone died from this life limit of yours then there would soon be way too many people. China has realized this and has set a limit on the amount of children you can have. Stop being an ignorant ass and think about what you say. You have no legit input on this conversation at all other than 5 year old insults.
Know any 200 year olds?Quote:
There isn't a maximum human life span
You're a moron and i've thought more in a day than you ever will.Quote:
You really need to learn to control your attitude and think things through.
Obviously the solution is to kill them all then, GIVE THE MAN A PRIZE.Quote:
Starving nations are starving because they are poor and there are too many of them
Well done.Quote:
not saying that shooting people is good because it isn't
Overpopulation is a problem because people don't use birth control enough.Quote:
Overpopulation IS a problem just like gun violenc
Listen i'll try and make this as simple as possible so even people with the IQ of a mollusc will understand:Quote:
You just look those facts over where I do not. If no one died from accidents and everyone died from this life limit of yours then there would soon be way too many people
1) The "limit" is a statistical limit the older you get the more likely you are to die, its called aging, perhaps you've heard of it.
2) Accidents only significantly affect end population size if they kill people BEFORE they reproduce otherwise their effect is pretty mute because everyone dies eventually anyway.
3) The populations where people being killed before they reproduce actually has a large population stabilising effect are 3rd world countries, but then part of the reason people in 3rd world countries have so many children is because so many die.
I don't know if you've noticed or not but most 1st world countries do not have tremendous population problems in fact, in some countries we are starting to see population DECLINE.
Right, and? You think we should celibrate every time we hear that a chinese kid has been killed? YAY another step for population control.Quote:
China has realized this and has set a limit on the amount of children you can have
You see, there is a difference between limiting reproduction whether it be by pushing birth control or more drastic measures like China and accepting early death as something thats "ok".
Yea because uhhhhhh i've never like uhhhhh thought about stuff lik this uhhhh before.Quote:
Stop being an ignorant ass and think about what you say
MORON.
You are what's wrong with this $$$$ing world, people who sit back and invent stupid ass reason why they shouldn't care about other people being hurt:
10 people are shot a day? Oh well keeping the population down.
1000 people killed in an earthquake? Oh well keeping population down.
5000 people killed in a building oh well keeping population down.... oh wait a minute those are MY people, the bastards! Everybody we have stop this, how dare they, OMG OMG OMG.
I see you edited your responce of all mistakes so you wouldn't look like a moron while trying to insult me. Let me recap.
>>Know any 200 year olds?
Ever look at the words following my statement?
>>You're a moron and i've thought more in a day then you ever will.
Really? you don't act like you are thinking things through. Your most complex sentence is an insult. Didn't think about that did you?
>>Obviously the solution is to kill them all then, GIVE THE MAN A PRIZE
When did I ever say we should celebrate death? I said it is natural and it happens for a reason. You are really misunderstanding what I say for someone with such a bright look on everything and a huge IQ.
>>Overpopulation is a problem because people don't use birth control enough
And death is the natual way to control overpopulation as I have stated.
>>Right, and? You think we should celibrate every time we hear that a chinese kid has been killed? YAY another step for population control.
Another example of ignorance. I have already said that I don't celebrate murder. I just look at it in how it actually is. Your little ending in the end is just amazing. You go from 10 people in an entire country over the span of 24 hours to 5,000 people in less than an hour in one building. I must say for a super genious that is an amazing example there.
I would have to say that you haven't actually gone through what I have said and really thought about it. Instead you have gotten uptight and emotional over what I have said and made conclusions that are wrong. And drop the stupid insults. They are pointless.
That's how i post, i type things off in an irate state of mind, then i read it through while i'm still annoyed and miss loads of stuff, then i read again and remove spelling mistakes and other obvious errors.Quote:
see you edited your responce of all mistakes so you wouldn't look like a moron while trying to insult me
Right, but its totally irrelevent, my point was merely that eliminating being killed by pointless accidents would not remove death.Quote:
Ever look at the words following my statement?
Because obviously there is a linear relationship between the complexity of sentences and the amount of time spent considering ideas..... oh wait no no that's wrong again.Quote:
Really? you don't act like you are thinking things through. Your most complex sentence is an insult. Didn't think about that did you?
You suggested it was acceptable that innocent people were dieing on grounds of population control.Quote:
When did I ever say we should celebrate death
And obviously "natural" MUST equal good. Oh wait no, it doesn't.Quote:
And death is the natual way to control overpopulation as I have stated.
We can overide nature, natures solution to overpopulation is an increased death rate our solution is birth control.
Arguing that we should accept premature death on grounds of population control is APAULING.
Yea, but you seem to think it's ok, that we should accept it and not bother trying to stop it.Quote:
Another example of ignorance. I have already said that I don't celebrate murder. I just look at it in how it actually is.
Oh I see of course, of course, 10 people dying a day that doesn't matter, thats REAL population control, whereas 5000 people dying in one hour ONCE thats just wrong man...Quote:
Your little ending in the end is just amazing. You go from 10 people in an entire country over the span of 24 hours to 5,000 people in less than an hour in one building. I must say for a super genious that is an amazing example there.
Why does the time frame or geographical location matter one iota?
Why do you care more about the 5000 killed in a one off attack than the same number of children killed in a year and half? Yea cause that makes perfect sense. Maybe the children deserved it more, maybe there lives aren't as important..... right.
Really thought about it?? You make it sound complicated!? This is not exactly rocket science you know.Quote:
I would have to say that you haven't actually gone through what I have said and really thought about it.
Emotional, i wish more people got emotional, but you see they're just numbers on bits paper or a screen. Why get emotional over numbers. 10 people die a day, oh well a one and a zero, imaginary statistical people, la la la, except there are REAL people behind those numbers with real lives and real families.Quote:
Instead you have gotten uptight and emotional over what I have said and made conclusions that are wrong. And drop the stupid insults. They are pointless
Oh but its population control, we need murder and manslaughter, because otherwise ummm we'll have too many people and then umm we'll all get wiped by SARS!!!!
Just so we're clear here, what exactly do you think?
When i said:
you replied:Quote:
Since when is it ever acceptable for innocent people to be killed?
So Zak, is the premature death of entirely innocent people acceptable or not?Quote:
**Clyde since as you know the earth isnt flat, you should also know people die everyday and if only non innocent people should die the world would soon overpopulate and death would come in masses from epidemics like SARS and such
Should we try and stop it, or not?
Are you going to do a 180, or not?
I think you are going to have to shoot him to get him to change his mind.
I said I don't think mass murder is acceptable. I think death is a real thing and it happens every day and it should just be something we accept.
>>You suggested it was acceptable that innocent people were dieing on grounds of population control.
I suggested it is the natural way of living and that death keeps the human culture from overpopulating. Don't put words in my mouth for me. Do you cry everytime you eat a chicken or any meat? I mean that animal was killed by someone. Death happens. Murder happens. $$$$ happens. Get used to it. Am I saying don't remorse if someone dies? No. I saying death happens for a reason whether you are a believer in god or an atheist.
>>Why does the time frame or geographical location matter one iota?
I'm going to answer to 2 things in this one. I don't just look at statistics as a number. I do realize those numbers came at the cost of someones life. Second since you like to think think about this. Sooner or later EVERYONE dies. Lets go back 200 years since there isn't anyone alive from then. So in 1800 there were allot of people. They eventually all died from whatever. What if those people were ALL massacred (sp?) at once. I think times do matter once you think about it.
How about we practise some population control on your family or relatives? Your taking up valuable space!Quote:
Originally posted by ZakkWylde969
With those two things said I have come to the conclusion we lose one twenty eight millionth of our population everyday. Now how many kids are born a day? I would have to say just about that. It is another thing that keeps the United States from being overpopulated. We could have a population like China and have things allot worse off. Stop complaning about how bad we have it until you think about things in the large perspective please.
What about drought? Evil dictators who refuse to feed their nation? Drought & Evil dictators! Blame the overpopulation!Quote:
Originally posted by ZakkWylde969
Starving nations are starving because they are poor and there are too many of them.
And a couple murders a day are A ok?Quote:
Originally posted by ZakkWylde969
I said I don't think mass murder is acceptable.