View Full Version : A Bowling for Columbine Review
Monkeypunch
08-14-03, 01:15 AM
Michael Moore's film Bowling for Columbine is an extremely powerful editorial on the culture of fear and violence we as Americans live in. I literally had to laugh at some of this to keep from crying. This film transcends the usual Liberal vs. Conservative arguments and asks us all to just be human beings, show compassion for one another. The film targets politicians of all parties, presidents, (both Bush and Clinton equally get criticized), and war-mongers of all stripes, and says things that need saying. I think this is an important film that too many will write off as "Liberal," but I think it's more "Humanitarian." I recommend that everyone watch it with an open mind, even the right-wing Bush-ites, and really think about what it says.
Henry The Kid
08-14-03, 01:39 AM
Although I don't agree with the message in the film, I have a huge guilty pleasure of Michael Moore movies. They always entertain, even though he has yet to fight for a cause I agree with.
Although Kong supports gun control, and many other "liberal" causes he is not a big fan of Michael Moore.
Kong has probably said this before, but Moore is too willing too ignore/distort/misuse information for the purpose of making his points. Kong finds this practice to be detrimental to one's own position. If you can't back up your beliefs without fudging with the facts then you need to start questioning your own position. Kong figures that Moore knows that he can back his beliefs with real facts, but also knows that the truth doesn't always sell as many tickets and books as a goosed up version can. None-the-less, Kong thinks it's a harmful route to be taking.
Moore does have a decent sense of humor though.
Piddzilla
08-14-03, 05:27 AM
I think what Kong wrote about Moore is pretty much correct. Moore would probably see the text as a description of his work/style rather than criticism though. He has always said that his work is satire and that he thinks humour is the best way to criticize things. There is an american "shockumentary" here on swedish tv (or at least it used to be - I don't know anymore since I hate it) called America's Dumbest Criminals which is a very disparaging entertainment show on less successful crooks from the lower social layers of society. But, hey, it's just criminals! They deserve to be mocked in this totally pointless way. right? Michael Moore does a similar thing, only he is much funnier, wittier, clevererererer (damn, got stuck) and better informed (i.e. done his homework/done some thorough research). The biggest difference though is that he targets "the ruling classes" and he hits them where it hurts. And they wouldn't be so freaking fussy about it if he didn't have a point, in other words, if he wasn't at least to some extent right. And the more powerful the targets are the more media hysteria it will cause. I too sometimes think it is a pity that he is not more serious because then they wouldn't have anything on him. But the question is - where would Michael Moore be today without the satire? Isn't that the whole reason to why he is so big today, that he makes people laugh as well as rage?
I enjoy Moore a lot most of the time and I also salute him for putting people like Heston against the wall. Why should we feel sorry for Heston? He himself said what he said, didn't he, and if he is not man enough or sane enough to take responsibility for his own words and actions then why the hell is he the chairman of gunclub for?
Caitlyn
08-14-03, 02:39 PM
I enjoy Moore a lot most of the time and I also salute him for putting people like Heston against the wall. Why should we feel sorry for Heston? He himself said what he said, didn't he, and if he is not man enough or sane enough to take responsibility for his own words and actions then why the hell is he the chairman of gunclub for?
Okay I’m not fond of Heston and people should be held accountable for their words… but only for the way they were actually said… Moore spliced speeches made by Heston to make it appear he said something he did not and to me, that is just wrong… what Moore did to Heston is no different then if I were to take your paragraph and do this to it:
"I enjoy Heston and he is man enough to take responsibility for his own words and is the chairman of a gun club."
And then claim you said it… ;)
Okay I’m not fond of Heston and people should be held accountable for their words… but only for the way they were actually said… Moore spliced speeches made by Heston to make it appear he said something he did not and to me, that is just wrong… what Moore did to Heston is no different then if I were to take your paragraph and do this to it:
"I enjoy Heston and he is man enough to take responsibility for his own words and is the chairman of a gun club."
And then claim you said it… ;)
Heheheh. Yeah, here's the crux problem with Moore (i keep itchin these cruxs - it's disgusting ;)). He will use the tools of those he criticises i.e. quoting out of context, inappropriate alignment of facts and down-right rhetoric. And in your example Cait he's gone into total-deception mode (tho that too i'm sure our guardians are guilty of, time-to-time) Some say that's the only way these days. Either way, it's obviously moral-outrage that drives him. But it drives him to do some dumb stuff..
Another thing that i heard, but didn't pick up on during the film, is that the rocket-manufacturers he visited seems to have precious little to do with arms. They make NASA rockets etc apparently. Please someone tell me if this is true. That would be a very big f-up.
Still despite the slightly slanted stats, and self-pats-on-the-back, it's actually good to see someone standing up and doing back to the big boys what they often do to us. Manipulate for an agenda. At least his is frequently a good one (except on northern ireland. He's insane when it comes to n.ireland :rolleyes: ) - and he makes it funny to boot (to help us deal with the terror-draped or reality-escaping mind-rape we have to put up with so often - i do feel that strongly about some political/industrial actions and the accompanying spin.)
Piddzilla
08-14-03, 06:36 PM
Okay I’m not fond of Heston and people should be held accountable for their words… but only for the way they were actually said… Moore spliced speeches made by Heston to make it appear he said something he did not and to me, that is just wrong… what Moore did to Heston is no different then if I were to take your paragraph and do this to it:
"I enjoy Heston and he is man enough to take responsibility for his own words and is the chairman of a gun club."
And then claim you said it… ;)
Really? Proove it.
I saw Heston saying that etnicity is the reason to why americans kill each other like crazy. He didn't say that?
Really? Proove it.
I saw Heston saying that etnicity is the reason to why americans kill each other like crazy. He didn't say that?
Really?? The only thing i remember was the "from my cold dead hands bit" (which i thought skipped a bit. Damn, back-editing memory)
Piddzilla
08-14-03, 07:19 PM
Really?? The only thing i remember was the "from my cold dead hands bit" (which i thought skipped a bit. Damn, back-editing memory)
Oh, well I am talking about the interview in Heston's home. The "from my cold dead hands" bit I remember but I never reflected over when he might have said it. But I know from discussions on this board that a lot of people were upset because it appeared as he said it on a different meeting than when he in fact said it. But as I said, what I was talking about was the interview in Heston's home, nothing else.
oh christ yeah, i remember now. The one in his home where Hesty got more and more uncomfortable when it became obvious this wasn't a you're-so-cool-starman interview and showed Moore-ishnous out.
Really? Proove it.
I saw Heston saying that etnicity is the reason to why americans kill each other like crazy. He didn't say that?
The problem is that we don't have the full interview of Heston. Moore cut and edited the interview, and never released the full length one so it's pretty much impossible to say if Heston was taken out of context on those statements or not.
None-the-less, Kong figures that if you believe people are responsible for their words then you probably believe that people are responsible for their actions as well. Heston's actions have shown him to be anti-racist. He worked with Martin Luther King Jr., picketed establishments that practiced discrimination in the '60s, and helped open doors for blacks shut out by racist policies in the entertainment industry.
Maybe Heston has had a change of heart since then, but Kong won't be convinced unless he sees the full interview so he can better judge the context in which Heston is speaking.
Piddzilla
08-14-03, 08:35 PM
The problem is that we don't have the full interview of Heston. Moore cut and edited the interview, and never released the full length one so it's pretty much impossible to say if Heston was taken out of context on those statements or not.
None-the-less, Kong figures that if you believe people are responsible for their words then you probably believe that people are responsible for their actions as well. Heston's actions have shown him to be anti-racist. He worked with Martin Luther King Jr., picketed establishments that practiced discrimination in the '60s, and helped open doors for blacks shut out by racist policies in the entertainment industry.
Maybe Heston has had a change of heart since then, but Kong won't be convinced unless he sees the full interview so he can better judge the context in which Heston is speaking.
So?
Did I call him a racist? All I did was wondering why Moore should be ashamed of that interview "because of 'harassing' a poor old man", a man that happens to be chairman of a powerful organisation. Adolf Hitler did a lot of great things for Germany, and I mean GREAT as in wonders. Does that apologize for all the other crap he did? If you are a public person, the chairman of a powerful organistation, you should be prepared to be held accountable for every single word you say concerning "the field" you are specializing in.
And (we've had this discussion before here on the board, btw) show me an interview in a documentary that is presented in its full lenght. I am sure that there is a couple out there, but they are not the norm.
So?
Did I call him a racist? All I did was wondering why Moore should be ashamed of that interview "because of 'harassing' a poor old man", a man that happens to be chairman of a powerful organisation. Adolf Hitler did a lot of great things for Germany, and I mean GREAT as in wonders. Does that apologize for all the other crap he did? If you are a public person, the chairman of a powerful organistation, you should be prepared to be held accountable for every single word you say concerning "the field" you are specializing in.
And (we've had this discussion before here on the board, btw) show me an interview in a documentary that is presented in its full lenght. I am sure that there is a couple out there, but they are not the norm.
Kong is just saying that he won't jump to any conclusion on Heston based on Moore's edited interview. Moore has been proven to edit things out of context. Kong can't say that this was the case in the Heston interview you spoke of, but Moore did edit Heston's NRA speeches in rather questionable ways so Kong isn't about to give Moore the benefit of the doubt.
Kong agrees that "you should be prepared to be held accountable for every single word you say", and that is also the problem: we don't know "every single word". Just a select few.
Kong doesn't know of any documentaries with full length interviews off the top of his head, but he imagines that most documentarians would be willing to give outside, objective individuals the chance to go over the entire interview if it was requested. Maybe this will happen with BFC; heck it could end up as a special feature on the DVD for all Kong knows. But, for now, Kong will admit his ignorance, and refuse to judge the man on those words alone.
The burden of proof doesn't rest in Kong's hands.
Piddzilla
08-15-03, 06:17 AM
for now, Kong will admit his ignorance, and refuse to judge the man on those words alone.
The burden of proof doesn't rest in Kong's hands.
To me this isn't about Heston really. I don't judge the man (Heston) at all. I do have some opinions about the National Rifle Association though (that's what they're called, right?) and as their chairman I think he lobbied for his organisation in a fiasko-like way during this interview.
Anyway, I don't really care about Heston, as I said. To me it is all about the witch-hunt of Moore which is shocking and understandable at the same time considering the political climate in America right now. [edit]Or at least at the time of the Oscars. Things seem to have cooled down a little since The Speech....
I've written a lot about this allready here (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?t=4148&page=1&pp=25&highlight=revoked) so you can check it out there instead of having me writing it all one more time. ;D
Monkeypunch
08-15-03, 11:54 PM
This is exactly what I kinda would happen. The mesage of the film is being completely ignored for politics. It's not about gun control, though that certainly is a part of it. It's not even about if you like Michael Moore or not. The film's message about living in a society that either intentionally or unintentionally relies on violence to solve all it's problems is completely lost under accusations of taking quotes out of context, (Which I didn't get the sense that it happened here) and editing Charlton Heston's interview, which even if they did, I can imagine it was more of the same damning quotes we got to see. Everyone's so willing to condemn Moore that even if he makes a good point, which he certainly did here, they ignore it completely. So here's the thing: What do you think about what the film says? DO we live in an overly aggressive society here in America, where we're taught early on that Might Makes Right and violence is the best solution? Does the media, and our government reinforce that belief?
Caitlyn
08-17-03, 09:22 PM
Another thing that i heard, but didn't pick up on during the film, is that the rocket-manufacturers he visited seems to have precious little to do with arms. They make NASA rockets etc apparently. Please someone tell me if this is true. That would be a very big f-up.
The Lockheed-Martin plant near Columbine makes rockets for launching satellites into space… NASA, NOAA, and Direct TV are a few of their customers… about the only thing Moore apparently got right was the fact they do move the rockets at night… to avoid traffic problems... and anyone whose ever seen the size of those things should be able to understand their reasoning behind that one…
Really? Proove it.
I saw Heston saying that etnicity is the reason to why americans kill each other like crazy. He didn't say that?
I was referring to the speeches in the film… and if you want me to post the actual speech Heston made and Moore’s version, I will… :D but as far as the interview, I agree with Kong about it...
What do you think about what the film says? DO we live in an overly aggressive society here in America, where we're taught early on that Might Makes Right and violence is the best solution? Does the media, and our government reinforce that belief?
In a word… no. and I think that if you believe that the Government and the media reinforce that belief, then you would also have to buy into the belief that movies, music, and video games contribute to teaching violent behavior…
The Lockheed-Martin plant near Columbine makes rockets for launching satellites into space… NASA, NOAA, and Direct TV are a few of their customers… about the only thing Moore apparently got right was the fact they do move the rockets at night… to avoid traffic problems... and anyone whose ever seen the size of those things should be able to understand their reasoning behind that one…
There see Monk, there are probs. We should admit them. But we should also shout from the rooftops that overall Moore is trying to do an admirable thing - and he certainly reaches those of us who want to hear him at the very least (which judging from his over-all popularity and "sales" is a huge fan base)
In a word… no. and I think that if you believe that the Government and the media reinforce that belief, then you would also have to buy into the belief that movies, music, and video games contribute to teaching violent behavior…
It is interesting tho that the US compares badly with other countries with prevelant gun-ownership. Tho density of city living might be something to do with it i.e. a comparison of big cities in australia/canada for example, with similar size cities in the US would be interesting.
What the cause is is another question of course.
Personally i do buy into the belief that the media you mention can desensitize people to violence and make it more acceptable. Kids mimick it of course, but that's kids. Some of the norms we project for them can be a bit worrying tho i.e. cartoons with flashy violence and some faux-morality tacked on etc. I think violent behaviour is inherent, but these media can normalise and even guide it (i.e. giving the kids moves to copy etc - kung fu with philosophy is cool. Kick-arse coz you're "in the right" philosophies spread by TV etc are potentially screwed up.)
Still, i dare say you know best about some of the day-to-day of all this Cait.
My opinion of the US is, unfortunately, that it is actually a big propogator of the "number 1" philosophy - the kill or be killed ethic, which is not a valid reflection of necessary survivalistic behaviour, when taken alone. Therefore i can believe Moore and Monkey's point that your societies might have a slight extra push in the direction of anti-social behaviour that could lead to increased violence and distrust.
Mind you , britland ain't far behind (thanks to Thatcher - the society-destroyer). If we had guns on demand it'd get pretty damn ugly round this way too. But again, that's "modern" alientated societies for you. If our "forums" of opinion sharing and reflecting (i.e. various media) also propogate ideas of justified violence if you're "good" - and your society believes strongly in the "right" of the individual to do what they want - coupled with a self-perception of inherent "goodness" as a whole, then i can imagine potential problems getting acentuated.
Karl Childers
08-18-03, 06:06 PM
Mind you , britland ain't far behind (thanks to Thatcher - the society-destroyer). If we had guns on demand it'd get pretty damn ugly round this way too.
Hmmm. Last time I checked, "Britland" had plenty of guns in the civilian sector at one time, and the violent crime rate was quite a bit lower than it is now.
It is simple common sense which says, "knowing your victims might be armed creates a serious discouragement and frequent deterrent to assault and robbery."
England's citizens are now merely subjects, without the right to defend themselves and their property. Wasn't there a chap in England recently who shot a burglar after he broke into his farmhouse? Some of the "Lawmakers" have suggested during this trial that burglars have a right not to be shot. Ionesco couldn't write anything more absurd.
The greatest violent crime rates in THIS country typically occur in areas that have the GREATEST restrictions on private ownership. It's not difficult to understand that the obverse is also true. States which have the least amount of right to carry laws, such as Vermont, have the lowest crime rates. Vermont is the single most lenient state concerning gun laws. NO restrictions of carrying concealed weapons. The violent crime rate in Vt. is almost non-existent. Florida and other states have enacted CCW laws and have watched while the crime rates dropped.
One of the most violent cities in the USA the last generation or more has been DC. It has been the leader in murder and shootings many times. Yet it has an almost total restriction on handgun ownership.
GUN CONTROL IS A JOKE. And a bad one at that.
Hmmm. Last time I checked, "Britland" had plenty of guns in the civilian sector at one time, and the violent crime rate was quite a bit lower than it is now.
Sorry - are you talking about the law that banned handgun ownership for sports use and then caused loads of guns to flood onto the market - causing more shooting crimes? Yes- well evaluated chum. That one back-fired - but those guys weren't allowed to carry the guns around.
It is simple common sense which says, "knowing your victims might be armed creates a serious discouragement and frequent deterrent to assault and robbery."
Yes - what about the: knowing that all these drunk blokes have got guns makes me feel really safe slant? What about the number of accidental deaths in the home, especially of children? What about the idea of killing to protect your wallet - happy with that?
England's citizens are now merely subjects, without the right to defend themselves and their property. Wasn't there a chap in England recently who shot a burglar after he broke into his farmhouse? Some of the "Lawmakers" have suggested during this trial that burglars have a right not to be shot. Ionesco couldn't write anything more absurd.
Erm, subjects as compared to what? And forget the Queen business, that's all nonsense. And yes, that bloke did get in trouble for trying to kill that burglar. Tricky one. But a good old bat in the face does the trick just as well, doesn't kill anyone, and is perfectly legal ;)
The greatest violent crime rates in THIS country typically occur in areas that have the GREATEST restrictions on private ownership. It's not difficult to understand that the obverse is also true. States which have the least amount of right to carry laws, such as Vermont, have the lowest crime rates. Vermont is the single most lenient state concerning gun laws. NO restrictions of carrying concealed weapons. The violent crime rate in Vt. is almost non-existent. Florida and other states have enacted CCW laws and have watched while the crime rates dropped.
One of the most violent cities in the USA the last generation or more has been DC. It has been the leader in murder and shootings many times. Yet it has an almost total restriction on handgun ownership.
GUN CONTROL IS A JOKE. And a bad one at that.
Is Vermont just some great big empy wilderness? I have no idea - but there could be lots of factors involved. And what happens when crims decide, seeing as everyone else is armed, and they're armed, and they're in some dire need of money for their smack habit or what have you, they decide....what they hey. They're badder than you. What do you suggest then? Everyone armed with a hyperdermic in case of junkie-attack?
There may be restricitons in DC, but i bet you can still get your hands on a gun really easily if you want to.
Not convinced mate
(and i think the murder stats probably bear me out)
And what happens when crims decide, seeing as everyone else is armed, and they're armed, and they're in some dire need of money for their smack habit or what have you, they decide....what they hey. They're badder than you. What do you suggest then? Everyone armed with a hyperdermic in case of junkie-attack?I fail to see how this makes your case at all. Such a situation could take place in a society with or without severe gun control laws. In fact, it does, given DC's consistently high murder rate. The fact that it's legally difficult (but still reasonably easy) to get a gun in DC benefits criminals far more than law-abiding citizens, who are less likely to go to such lengths. If you're a criminal, though, firearms are far closer to par for the course.
If DC serves as even the slightest indication, the situation you're positing will take place in places both with and without gun control legislation...the difference is that without it, the citizen can match arms; and the criminals know it.
Is Vermont just some great big empy wilderness?Vermont isn't densely populated, I don't believe, but such rankings are determined by ratios, so it doesn't particularly matter.
Not convinced mateIf you're not convinced, I'd say it's because you don't want to be. Karl's putting real-world examples (something you ought to appreciate, if you practice what you preach) to support his beliefs and you're coming back with vague what-ifs and hypotheticals.
You're right, DC's murder right is outrageously high. Routinely among the highest in the country...given it's gun-related policies, I'd say this bears Karl's view out. Frankly, I'm still scratching my head over your post...you seem to think you've got a strong case, but the only real argument you're putting forward is "what about drunk/ irresponsible people?," which, if taken just a shade farther, would have us outlawing automobiles, too.
I fail to see how this makes your case at all. Such a situation could take place in a society with or without severe gun control laws. In fact, it does, given DC's consistently high murder rate. The fact that it's legally difficult (but still reasonably easy) to get a gun in DC benefits criminals far more than law-abiding citizens, who are less likely to go to such lengths. If you're a criminal, though, firearms are far closer to par for the course.
If DC serves as even the slightest indication, the situation you're positing will take place in places both with and without gun control legislation...the difference is that without it, the citizen can match arms; and the criminals know it.
My case would be: i'm happy in a a land where not everyone walks around armed. Karl prefers the armed option, as do you. London has one of the highest gun-death ratios in britain, and i've heard shootings in the distance, and my mate's had a gun pulled on him once (but it could have been a replica) - but that's it. In a basically gun-free country the odds of someone mugging you with a gun are...pretty damn low. As in: next to zero. Most of the gun crime is crim on crim.
Obviously, what i'm arguing is that America would be better of with a no-guns-for-civillians policy. Within that context i think my argument stands thank you very much :p
Vermont isn't densely populated, I don't believe, but such rankings are determined by ratios, so it doesn't particularly matter.
Well it does matter in the sense that a densley populated city is a far more likely breeding ground for gun-crime, especially if everyone is freely armed. Show me some comparable stats for similar cities and THEN i'll be more convinced. Do you see how quantative isn't enough here? You need qualative too.
If you're not convinced, I'd say it's because you don't want to be. Karl's putting real-world examples (something you ought to appreciate, if you practice what you preach) to support his beliefs and you're coming back with vague what-ifs and hypotheticals.
OooOooooO, the tetchy rhetoric returns. You've misunderstood my argument (tho i accept removal of guns is never going to happen in the US, i'm just comparing the case FOR: an armed society AGAINST: an unarmed society)
And, as stated above, i'm dubious about some of the "real-world examples"
You're right, DC's murder right is outrageously high. Routinely among the highest in the country...given it's gun-related policies, I'd say this bears Karl's view out. Frankly, I'm still scratching my head over your post...you seem to think you've got a strong case, but the only real argument you're putting forward is "what about drunk/ irresponsible people?," which, if taken just a shade farther, would have us outlawing automobiles, too.
Heheheh. First point: guns are designed to kill - cars aren't. Tho you're welcome to argue your standard intentions-aren't-important point here. Yes, drunk drivers kill, but it's far easier to discourage drunk drivers (i.e. breathalisers etc) - what can you do if you find a drunk guy with a gun? Nothing. Coz he's not doing anything illegal.
Yods, i scratch my head over your posts so much i've worn a small bird-bath into my skull.
(any "bird-brained" comments you may now be thinking of making will be unamusing, if fairly accurate ;))
Happy shooting tex ;)
PS are you really suggesting arming everyone in DC would make it more peaceful? I know that's Karl's argument - but from my perspective, i still think the crims-are-more-prepared-to-use-them and junkies-more-so argument works in that context too. Maybe they'll just shoot first and then take, if they think otherwise you'll get a chance to shoot back. Can you forsee this happening or not? Where junkies are concerned especially, you know that "nothing" can be the limit.
My case would be: i'm happy in a a land where not everyone walks around armed. Karl prefers the armed option, as do you. London has one of the highest gun-death ratios in britain, and i've heard shootings in the distance, and my mate's had a gun pulled on him once (but it could have been a replica) - but that's it. In a basically gun-free country the odds of someone mugging you with a gun are...pretty damn low. As in: next to zero. Most of the gun crime is crim on crim.
Obviously, what i'm arguing is that America would be better of with a no-guns-for-civillians policy. Within that context i think my argument stands thank you very much :p
OooOooooO, the tetchy rhetoric returns. You've misunderstood my argument (tho i accept removal of guns is never going to happen in the US, i'm just comparing the case FOR: an armed society AGAINST: an unarmed society) Actually, based on these two quotes, it's you that's misunderstood me, and not the other way around. You're making a claim...not an argument. I'm well aware of what you're suggesting...but you seem to make your case by...stating your case.
Well it does matter in the sense that a densley populated city is a far more likely breeding ground for gun-crime, especially if everyone is freely armed.
I don't see why. Who in their right mind would want to mug someone in a crowd as opposed to someone relatively isolated?
Show me some comparable stats for similar cities and THEN i'll be more convinced. Do you see how quantative isn't enough here? You need qualative too.
I'll be glad to do some more research into the matter, but just as damning as low crime rates in control-free areas are high crime rates in highly-controlled areas...which is exactly what DC is.
And, as stated above, i'm dubious about some of the "real-world examples"
Why? We've got one from a dense area, and one from a sparse one. One showing the results of gun control, and one showing the results without. I'm sorry, but you reek of reluctance. If I give you every statistic you ask for, I've no doubt you'll find the tiniest thing to grab hold of, use (and misspell) the word "dodgy," and go on believing what you do now.
Heheheh. First point: guns are designed to kill - cars aren't. Tho you're welcome to argue your standard intentions-aren't-miportant point here.
And you're welcome to unveil your as-of-yet hidden retort to that point. By your logic, we'd ban things like bows and arrows before plastic toys unfit for children, even if the latter caused far more deaths.
Yes, drunk drivers kill, but it's far easier to discourage drunk drivers (i.e. breathalisers etc) - what can you do if you find a drunk guy with a gun? Nothing. Coz he's not doing anything illegal.
In many places, public drunkenness is illegal. Regardless, I imagine you'd still support gun control even if a provision for alcohol were included, so the point is moot.
Yods, i scratch my head over your posts so much i've worn a small bird-bath into my skull.
I can't be held accountable if I'm the first to expose you to rational arguments. :)
Actually, based on these two quotes, it's you that's misunderstood me, and not the other way around. You're making a claim...not an argument. I'm well aware of what you're suggesting...but you seem to make your case by...stating your case.
Well, in that case are you seriously claiming that a gun-free society is more liable to cause crime and related deaths than a gun-toting one??? I was giving you the benfit of the doubt that you'd misunderstood. Now, why don't you go check out the comparable stats between our countries. Across the board/quantative-alone statistics will be fine in this country-to-country comparison
I don't see why. Who in their right mind would want to mug someone in a crowd as opposed to someone relatively isolated?
Oh for heaven's sake! Crime is far more rampant in cities. Drug supplies are far higher and more concentrated in cities as a rule. Crime is more concentrated in cities. The potential for criminal activity self-referencing and growing is greater in cities i.e crime is eay to find and copy in cities. To take the examples to ridiculous and unrealistic extremes, as you do: How likely are you to get mugged wandering around a forest? Honestly!
I'll be glad to do some more research into the matter, but just as damning as low crime rates in control-free areas are high crime rates in highly-controlled areas...which is exactly what DC is.
DC is one good example of crime in a big city. But I STILL dispute the idea that DC and Vermont are a valid comparison. If you fail to see why the failing is more with your perception than my argument :p
Why? We've got one from a dense area, and one from a sparse one. One showing the results of gun control, and one showing the results without. I'm sorry, but you reek of reluctance. If I give you every statistic you ask for, I've no doubt you'll find the tiniest thing to grab hold of, use (and misspell) the word "dodgy," and go on believing what you do now.
Yods, as ever, i have my agenda but i'm prepared to be persuaded. Just coz your answers are specious and i have valid reasons for disagreeing with them doesn't mean i'm being reluctant. It means just that. Your arguments are in no way convincing on a logical level. Why can't you see that the two CANNOT be validly compared? If you genuinely can't then you are far less logical than some people give you credit for.
And you're welcome to unveil your as-of-yet hidden retort to that point. By your logic, we'd ban things like bows and arrows before plastic toys unfit for children, even if the latter caused far more deaths.
No no, it's a very valid point. The final result is the most important thing. I'm just taking the piss coz of how you've avoided addressing motivations under the umbrella of this argument [i.e. you've "either-or"ed again and concluded that therefore motivations are unimportant, which is obviously nonsense]. It is very valid after the events have occured and we can analyse them. (however, in the war example, the result is still very much in question. As, seperately for the most part, are the motivations, whether you like it or not.)
In many places, public drunkenness is illegal. Regardless, I imagine you'd still support gun control even if a provision for alcohol were included, so the point is moot.
Erm, is drunkeness illegal in all places? If people are supposedly always carrying, are they required to stow their firearm when entering a bar? Again, you can't universalise your way out of this one. Just coz public drunkeness isn't allowed in some places doesn't mean it is in all.
As for the SECONDARY argument, that i might theorhetically support gun-control over free-for-all, it's difficult for me to judge being so far away. But you've given me no reasons to support free-for-all so far. Find some more stats ;)
I can't be held accountable if I'm the first to expose you to rational arguments. :)
Mate, i read more logical arguments on the back of cereal packets than what you've got to write sometimes ;)
Caitlyn
08-18-03, 10:49 PM
Obviously, what i'm arguing is that America would be better of with a no-guns-for-civillians policy. Within that context i think my argument stands thank you very much :p
The majority of guns used in crimes are illegally obtained and abolishing legally owned guns would not stop criminals from obtaining weapons nor lower crime rates… Criminals are the source of the crime regardless to how they’re armed… Ice picks, knives, ball bats, tire tools, iron pipes, and chains can kill some one just as fast as a bullet… If legally owned guns were banned, it wouldn’t take the criminals long to realize unarmed citizens make easy targets…crime would be on the rise and before it was over with, you’d have everyone carrying around ball bats…and swinging them at anyone who bumped into them…
Henry The Kid
08-18-03, 11:02 PM
Taking guns out of the hands of civilians is one of the scariest notions liberals have come up with. When you outlaw guns, only outlaws have guns.
Karl Childers
08-18-03, 11:49 PM
It warms the cockles of my heart to see many here are pro-2nd amendment. As far as this country is concerned, so many people forget that the Bill of Rights is not a buffet where one can pick and choose what one finds convenient.
I was going to respond to Golgot but others here have done such a fine job that I might as well take the easy way out. ;)
Golgot, I'm sure your heart is in the right place-- but your reasoning is not. You have made several references in your responses that indicate a level of inconsistency or confusion. For example,
""Sorry - are you talking about the law that banned handgun ownership for sports use and then caused loads of guns to flood onto the market - causing more shooting crimes? Yes- well evaluated chum. That one back-fired - but those guys weren't allowed to carry the guns around.""
You admit that guns were outlawed yet gun violence was still allowed to flourish-- even moreso than before the restrictions were imposed. This statement is the summation of the pro-gun advocates and the antithesis of what the gun control crowd would hope to convey. Did you even read this statement before you posted it?
Also, there was this: ""London has one of the highest gun-death ratios in britain, and i've heard shootings in the distance, and my mate's had a gun pulled on him once (but it could have been a replica) - but that's it. In a basically gun-free country the odds of someone mugging you with a gun are...pretty damn low.""
The point is that those guys who were using guns were crooks! If they wanted to mug or murder or burglar or rape they were already breaking the law. Using a gun only made it easier-- against law-abiding citizens who were likely unarmed! It's ridiculous.
You say, ""Well, in that case are you seriously claiming that a gun-free society is more liable to cause crime and related deaths than a gun-toting one??? I was giving you the benfit of the doubt that you'd misunderstood. Now, why don't you go check out the comparable stats between our countries. Across the board/quantative-alone statistics will be fine in this country-to-country comparison""
From Reason magazine:
Nearly five centuries of growing civility ended in 1954. Violent crime has been climbing ever since. Last December, London’s Evening Standard reported that armed crime, with banned handguns the weapon of choice, was "rocketing." In the two years following the 1997 handgun ban, the use of handguns in crime rose by 40 percent, and the upward trend has continued. From April to November 2001, the number of people robbed at gunpoint in London rose 53 percent.
Gun crime is just part of an increasingly lawless environment. From 1991 to 1995, crimes against the person in England’s inner cities increased 91 percent. And in the four years from 1997 to 2001, the rate of violent crime more than doubled. Your chances of being mugged in London are now six times greater than in New York. England’s rates of assault, robbery, and burglary are far higher than America’s, and 53 percent of English burglaries occur while occupants are at home, compared with 13 percent in the U.S., where burglars admit to fearing armed homeowners more than the police. In a United Nations study of crime in 18 developed nations published in July, England and Wales led the Western world’s crime league, with nearly 55 crimes per 100 people.
Here is a sampling of Golgot's "utopia." :
• In 1973 a young man running on a road at night was stopped by the police and found to be carrying a length of steel, a cycle chain, and a metal clock weight. He explained that a gang of youths had been after him. At his hearing it was found he had been threatened and had previously notified the police. The justices agreed he had a valid reason to carry the weapons. Indeed, 16 days later he was attacked and beaten so badly he was hospitalized. But the prosecutor appealed the ruling, and the appellate judges insisted that carrying a weapon must be related to an imminent and immediate threat. They sent the case back to the lower court with directions to convict.
• In 1987 two men assaulted Eric Butler, a 56-year-old British Petroleum executive, in a London subway car, trying to strangle him and smashing his head against the door. No one came to his aid. He later testified, "My air supply was being cut off, my eyes became blurred, and I feared for my life." In desperation he unsheathed an ornamental sword blade in his walking stick and slashed at one of his attackers, stabbing the man in the stomach. The assailants were charged with wounding. Butler was tried and convicted of carrying an offensive weapon.
• In 1994 an English homeowner, armed with a toy gun, managed to detain two burglars who had broken into his house while he called the police. When the officers arrived, they arrested the homeowner for using an imitation gun to threaten or intimidate. In a similar incident the following year, when an elderly woman fired a toy cap pistol to drive off a group of youths who were threatening her, she was arrested for putting someone in fear. Now the police are pressing Parliament to make imitation guns illegal.
• In 1999 Tony Martin, a 55-year-old Norfolk farmer living alone in a shabby farmhouse, awakened to the sound of breaking glass as two burglars, both with long criminal records, burst into his home. He had been robbed six times before, and his village, like 70 percent of rural English communities, had no police presence. He sneaked downstairs with a shotgun and shot at the intruders. Martin received life in prison for killing one burglar, 10 years for wounding the second, and a year for having an unregistered shotgun. The wounded burglar, having served 18 months of a three-year sentence, is now free and has been granted £5,000 of legal assistance to sue Martin.
Golgot, don't even begin to reference your country's policies in regards to gun control. As you can see by the above examples, your laws make Beckett look like Norman Rockwell.
Henry The Kid
08-19-03, 12:19 AM
It warms the cockles of my heart to see many here are pro-2nd amendment. As far as this country is concerned, so many people forget that the Bill of Rights is not a buffet where one can pick and choose what one finds convenient.
I was going to respond to Golgot but others here have done such a fine job that I might as well take the easy way out. ;)
Golgot, I'm sure your heart is in the right place-- but your reasoning is not. You have made several references in your responses that indicate a level of inconsistency or confusion. For example,
""Sorry - are you talking about the law that banned handgun ownership for sports use and then caused loads of guns to flood onto the market - causing more shooting crimes? Yes- well evaluated chum. That one back-fired - but those guys weren't allowed to carry the guns around.""
You admit that guns were outlawed yet gun violence was still allowed to flourish-- even moreso than before the restrictions were imposed. This statement is the summation of the pro-gun advocates and the antithesis of what the gun control crowd would hope to convey. Did you even read this statement before you posted it?
Also, there was this: ""London has one of the highest gun-death ratios in britain, and i've heard shootings in the distance, and my mate's had a gun pulled on him once (but it could have been a replica) - but that's it. In a basically gun-free country the odds of someone mugging you with a gun are...pretty damn low.""
The point is that those guys who were using guns were crooks! If they wanted to mug or murder or burglar or rape they were already breaking the law. Using a gun only made it easier-- against law-abiding citizens who were likely unarmed! It's ridiculous.
You say, ""Well, in that case are you seriously claiming that a gun-free society is more liable to cause crime and related deaths than a gun-toting one??? I was giving you the benfit of the doubt that you'd misunderstood. Now, why don't you go check out the comparable stats between our countries. Across the board/quantative-alone statistics will be fine in this country-to-country comparison""
From Reason magazine:
Nearly five centuries of growing civility ended in 1954. Violent crime has been climbing ever since. Last December, London’s Evening Standard reported that armed crime, with banned handguns the weapon of choice, was "rocketing." In the two years following the 1997 handgun ban, the use of handguns in crime rose by 40 percent, and the upward trend has continued. From April to November 2001, the number of people robbed at gunpoint in London rose 53 percent.
Gun crime is just part of an increasingly lawless environment. From 1991 to 1995, crimes against the person in England’s inner cities increased 91 percent. And in the four years from 1997 to 2001, the rate of violent crime more than doubled. Your chances of being mugged in London are now six times greater than in New York. England’s rates of assault, robbery, and burglary are far higher than America’s, and 53 percent of English burglaries occur while occupants are at home, compared with 13 percent in the U.S., where burglars admit to fearing armed homeowners more than the police. In a United Nations study of crime in 18 developed nations published in July, England and Wales led the Western world’s crime league, with nearly 55 crimes per 100 people.
Here is a sampling of Golgot's "utopia." :
• In 1973 a young man running on a road at night was stopped by the police and found to be carrying a length of steel, a cycle chain, and a metal clock weight. He explained that a gang of youths had been after him. At his hearing it was found he had been threatened and had previously notified the police. The justices agreed he had a valid reason to carry the weapons. Indeed, 16 days later he was attacked and beaten so badly he was hospitalized. But the prosecutor appealed the ruling, and the appellate judges insisted that carrying a weapon must be related to an imminent and immediate threat. They sent the case back to the lower court with directions to convict.
• In 1987 two men assaulted Eric Butler, a 56-year-old British Petroleum executive, in a London subway car, trying to strangle him and smashing his head against the door. No one came to his aid. He later testified, "My air supply was being cut off, my eyes became blurred, and I feared for my life." In desperation he unsheathed an ornamental sword blade in his walking stick and slashed at one of his attackers, stabbing the man in the stomach. The assailants were charged with wounding. Butler was tried and convicted of carrying an offensive weapon.
• In 1994 an English homeowner, armed with a toy gun, managed to detain two burglars who had broken into his house while he called the police. When the officers arrived, they arrested the homeowner for using an imitation gun to threaten or intimidate. In a similar incident the following year, when an elderly woman fired a toy cap pistol to drive off a group of youths who were threatening her, she was arrested for putting someone in fear. Now the police are pressing Parliament to make imitation guns illegal.
• In 1999 Tony Martin, a 55-year-old Norfolk farmer living alone in a shabby farmhouse, awakened to the sound of breaking glass as two burglars, both with long criminal records, burst into his home. He had been robbed six times before, and his village, like 70 percent of rural English communities, had no police presence. He sneaked downstairs with a shotgun and shot at the intruders. Martin received life in prison for killing one burglar, 10 years for wounding the second, and a year for having an unregistered shotgun. The wounded burglar, having served 18 months of a three-year sentence, is now free and has been granted £5,000 of legal assistance to sue Martin.
Golgot, don't even begin to reference your country's policies in regards to gun control. As you can see by the above examples, your laws make Beckett look like Norman Rockwell.
This is about as good a post as you'll find on this matter.
This will likely be the only subject that I completely disagree with you on Golgot, or agree with the conservatives on this board, but saying gun control is beneficial is completely reactionary. I hate guns, they scare the living **** out of me. I will never allow a gun in my house at any time, but to not let civilians own them, is just plain short-sighted.
Here's the text of an article (transcript of a speech by the actor Tim Robbins)--a link that can be found on Michael Moore's website, www.michaelmoore.com. The article itself is here (http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=15673) .
Here's the text of the very interesting article:
Countering a Wave of Hate
By Tim Robbins
April 17, 2003
Transcript of the speech given by actor Tim Robbins to the National Press Club in Washington, D.C., on April 15, 2003.
I had originally been asked here to talk about the war and our current political situation but I have instead chosen to hijack this opportunity and talk about baseball and show business. Just kidding. Sort of.
I can't tell you how moved I have been at the overwhelming support I have received from newspapers throughout the country these past few days. I hold no illusions that all of these journalists agree with me on my views against the war. While the journalist's outrage at the cancellation of our appearance in Cooperstown is not about my views; it is about my right to express these views. I am extremely grateful that there are those of you out there still with a fierce belief in constitutionally guaranteed rights. We need you the press, now more than ever. This is a crucial moment for all of us.
For all the ugliness and tragedy of 9-11 there was a brief period afterwards where I held a great hope. In the midst of the tears and shocked faces of New Yorkers, in the midst of the lethal air we breathed as we worked at Ground Zero, in the midst of my children's terror at being so close to this crime against humanity, in the midst of all of this I held onto a glimmer of hope in the naive assumption that something good could come out of all this. I imagined our leaders seizing upon this moment of unity in America, this moment when no one wanted to talk about Democrat vs. Republican, white vs. black or any of the other ridiculous divisions that dominate our public discourse.
I imagined our leaders going on television, telling the citizens that although we all want to be at Ground Zero we can't. But there is work that is needed to be done all over America. Our help is needed at community centers, to tutor children, to teach them to read, our work is needed at old age homes to visit the lonely and infirmed, in gutted neighborhoods to rebuild housing and clean up parks, and convert abandoned lots into baseball fields.
I imagined leadership that would take this incredible energy, this generosity of spirit, and create a new unity in America born out of the chaos and tragedy of 9-11. A new unity that would send a message to terrorists everywhere: If you attack us we will become stronger, cleaner, better educated, more unified. You will strengthen our commitment to justice and democracy by your inhumane attacks on us. Like a phoenix out of the fire we will be re-born.
And then came the speech. "You are either with us or against us" And the bombing began. And the old paradigm was restored as our leader encouraged us to show our patriotism by shopping and by volunteering to join groups that would turn in their neighbor for any suspicious behavior.
In the 19 months since 9-11 we have seen our democracy compromised by fear and hatred. Basic inalienable rights, due process, the sanctity of the home have been quickly compromised in a climate of fear. A unified American public has grown bitterly divided and a world population that had profound sympathy and support for us has grown contemptuous and distrustful, viewing us as we once viewed the Soviet Union, as a rogue state.
This past weekend Susan and I and the three kids went to Florida for a family re-union of sorts. Amidst the alcohol and the dancing and the sugar-rushing children there was, of course talk of the war. The most frightening thing about the weekend was the amount of times we were thanked for speaking out against the war because that individual speaking thought it unsafe to do so in their own community in their own life. "Keep talking. I haven't been able to open my mouth."
A relative tells me that a history teacher tells his 11-year-old son, my nephew, that Susan Sarandon is endangering the troops by her opposition to the war. Another teacher in a different school asks our niece if we were coming to the school play. "They're not welcome here," said the molder of young minds.
Another relative tells me of a school board decision to cancel a civics event that was proposing to have a moment of silence for those who have died in the war because the students were including dead Iraqi civilians in their silent prayer. A teacher in another nephew's school is fired for wearing a t-shirt with a peace sign on it. And a friend of the family tells of listening to the radio down south as the talk radio host calls for the murder of a prominent anti-war activist.
Death threats have appeared on other prominent peaceniks doorsteps for their views against the war. Realtives of ours have received threatening e-mails and phone calls. My 13-year-old boy, who has done nothing to anybody, has been embarrassed and humiliated by a sadistic creep who writes, or rather, scratches, his column with his fingers in the dirt.
Susan and I have been listed as traitors, as supporters of Saddam, and various other epithets by the Aussie gossip rags masquerading as newspapers and by their "fair and balanced" electronic media cousins, 19th Century Fox. Apologies to Gore Vidal. Two weeks ago, the United Way cancelled Susan's appearance at a conference on women's leadership and both of us last week were told that both we and the 1st Amendment were not welcome at the Baseball Hall of Fame.
A famous rock and roller called me last week to thank me for speaking out against the war only to go on to tell me that he could not speak himself because he fears repercussions from Clear Channel. "They promote our concert appearances," he said. "They own most of the stations that play our music. I can't come out against this war." And here in Washington, [veteran White House correspondent] Helen Thomas finds herself banished to the back of the room and uncalled on after asking Ari Fleisher whether our showing prisoners of war at Guantanamo Bay on television violated the Geneva Convention.
A chill wind is blowing in this nation. A message is being sent through the White House and its allies in talk radio and Clear Channel and Cooperstown. "If you oppose this administration there can and will be ramifications." Every day the airwaves are filled with warnings, veiled and unveiled threats, spewed invective and hatred directed at any voice of dissent. And the public, like so many relatives and friends that I saw this weekend, sit in mute opposition and in fear.
I'm sick of hearing about Hollywood being against the war. Hollywood's heavy hitters, the real power brokers and cover of the magazine stars have been largely silent on this issue. But Hollywood, the concept, has always been a popular target.
I remember when the Columbine high school shootings happened, President Clinton criticized Hollywood for contributing to this terrible tragedy. This as we were dropping bombs over Kosovo. Could the violent actions of our leaders contribute somewhat to the violent fantasies our teenagers are having? Or is it all just Hollywood and rock and roll?
I remember reading at the time that one of the shooters had tried to enlist to fight the real war a week before he acted out his war in real life at Columbine. I talked about this in the press at the time and curiously no one accused me of being unpatriotic for criticizing Clinton. In fact, the same talk-radio patriots that call us traitors today engaged in daily personal attacks on their president during the war in Kosovo.
Today, prominent politicians who have decried violence in movies, (the blame-Hollywooders if you will), recently voted to give our current president the power to unleash real violence in our current war. They want us to stop the fictional violence but are OK with the real kind. And these same people that tolerate the real violence of war don't want to see the result of it on the nightly news. Unlike the rest of the world, our news coverage of this war remains sanitized, without a glimpse of the blood and gore inflicted upon our soldiers or the women and children in Iraq. Violence as a concept, an abstraction.
It's very strange. As we applaud the hard-edged realism of the opening battle scene of Saving Private Ryan, we cringe at the thought of seeing the same on the nightly news. We are told it would be pornographic. We want no part of reality in real life. We demand that war be painstakingly realized on the screen but that war remain imagined and conceptualized in real life.
And in the midst of all this madness, where is the political opposition? Where have all the Democrats gone? Long time passing, long time ago? With apologies to Robert Byrd, I have to say it is pretty embarrassing to live in a country where a five-foot-one comedian has more guts than most politicians. We need leaders, not pragmatists that cower before the spin zones of former entertainment journalists. We need leaders who understand the Constitution – Congressmen who don't, in a moment of fear, abdicate their most important power, the right to declare war, to the executive branch. And please, can we stop the Congressional sing-a-longs?
In this time when a citizenry applauds the liberation of a country as it lives in fear of its own freedom, when an administration official releases an attack ad questioning the patriotism of a legless Vietnam veteran running for Congress, when people all over the country fear reprisal if they use their right to free speech, it is time to get angry. It is time to get fierce. It doesn't take much to shift the tide. My 11-year-old nephew, mentioned earlier, a shy kid who never talks in class, stood up to his history teacher who was questioning Susan's patriotism.
"That's my aunt you're talking about. Stop it!" and the stunned teacher backtracked and began stammering compliments in embarrassment.
Sports writers across the country reacted with such overwhelming fury at the Hall of Fame that the president of the Hall admitted he made a mistake and Major League Baseball disavowed any connection to the actions of the Hall's president. A bully can be stopped. So can a mob. It takes one person with the courage and a resolute voice. The journalists in this country can battle back at those who would re-write our Constitution in the PATRIOT Act II or Patriot, the sequel, as we would call it in Hollywood. We are counting on you to star in that movie.
Journalists can insist that they not be used as publicists by this administration. The next White House correspondent to be called on by Ari Fleischer should defer their question to the back of the room to the banished journalist de jour. Any instance of intimidation to free speech should be battled against. Any acquiescence to intimidation at this point will only lead to more intimidation. You have, whether you like it or not, an awesome responsibility and an awesome power. The fate of discourse, the health of this republic is in your hands, whether you write on the left or the right.
This is your time and the destiny you have chosen. We lay the continuance of our democracy on your desks and count on your pens to be mightier. Millions are watching and waiting in mute frustration and hope. Hoping for someone to defend the spirit and letter of our Constitution and to defy the intimidation that is visited upon us daily in the name of national security and warped notions of patriotism.
Our ability to disagree, and our inherent right to question our leaders and criticize their actions define who we are. To allow those rights to be taken away out of fear, to punish people for their beliefs, to limit access in the news media to differing opinions is to acknowledge our democracy's defeat.
These are challenging times. There is a wave of hate that seeks to divide us, right and left, pro-war and anti-war. In the name of my 11-year-old nephew and all the other unreported victims of this hostile and unproductive environment of fear, let us try to find our common ground. Let us celebrate this grand and glorious experiment that has survived for 227 years. To do so we must honor and fight vigilantly for the things that unite us. Like freedom, the first amendment and, yes, baseball.
Caitlyn
08-19-03, 10:43 AM
Here's the text of an article (transcript of a speech by the actor Tim Robbins)--a link that can be found on Michael Moore's website, www.michaelmoore.com. The article itself is here (http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=15673) .
Here's the text of the very interesting article:
What am I missing here? What does this have to do with the subject under discussion other then Robbins mentioned Columbine in his little speech and you found the text on Moore’s web site…
Before i start i'll say that you have introduced some very interesting points about problems and contradicitons in british society. (despite Yoda's unbased assertions, i'm totally prepared to change my mind on subjects when reasonable proofs are given. You've NOW given some reasonable proofs - at least, enough for a decent discussion ;))
Golgot, I'm sure your heart is in the right place-- but your reasoning is not. You have made several references in your responses that indicate a level of inconsistency or confusion. For example,
""Sorry - are you talking about the law that banned handgun ownership for sports use and then caused loads of guns to flood onto the market - causing more shooting crimes? Yes- well evaluated chum. That one back-fired - but those guys weren't allowed to carry the guns around.""
You admit that guns were outlawed yet gun violence was still allowed to flourish-- even moreso than before the restrictions were imposed. This statement is the summation of the pro-gun advocates and the antithesis of what the gun control crowd would hope to convey. Did you even read this statement before you posted it?
You've totally misunderstood this point. The legislation WAS a mistake - it was designed to prevent further examples of our own version of Columbine. The result was that loads of hand guns, that were previously for SPORTING use only, made their way onto the balck market - hence yes there was a huge increase in gun availability and gun crime. It was a ****-up, but it is in no way comparable to your situation. The woolyness of thought seems to be on your part in comparing the two.
New legislation is under way to deal with replicas being converted into workable weapons, which is the other trend which has sustained gun availability to criminals. Once these two issues are filtered out gun AVAILABILITY should lower again, and gun-crime with it.
Another problem is our lax immigration policies which brings in people like Albanian drug-runners and others who always use guns. Jamaicans have recently lost immediate rights of citizenship etc for similar reasons. Reducing the other two problems should make it far more feasible for the police to deal with these issues (the street crime stuff and break-ins i'll get to)
The fact still remains that gun crime in britain is almost entirely criminal-on-criminal. And i'm quite happy for them to wipe eachother out. We've lost at least two innocents due to these gunfights in recent years, which isn't cool, but i bet it's a lot healthier than america's DEATH-BY-
GUN stats. In fact, i'm sure over-all MURDERS in the US are far higher in number than in britain. Fairly important in the crime-region i should say ;)
EDIT:
England & Wales had one of the
lowest homicide rates in
Western Europe for 1997 - 1999.
(from: International comparisons
of criminal justice statistics 1999
by
Gordon Barclay, Cynthia Tavares & Arsalaan Siddique - The British Home Office)
Also, there was this: ""London has one of the highest gun-death ratios in britain, and i've heard shootings in the distance, and my mate's had a gun pulled on him once (but it could have been a replica) - but that's it. In a basically gun-free country the odds of someone mugging you with a gun are...pretty damn low.""
The point is that those guys who were using guns were crooks! If they wanted to mug or murder or burglar or rape they were already breaking the law. Using a gun only made it easier-- against law-abiding citizens who were likely unarmed! It's ridiculous.
The rise in gun crime you mention later is a rise from nothing-to-next-to-nothing. And as i stated above we're dealing with the problem of gun supply, which is recent and causal and addressable. (again, i'll get to general crime in a minute) The guns almost always get used crim-on-crim. My mate was in fact involved in a criminal activity when he had the gun pointed at him (i.e. buying marijuana - if it wasn't illegal that wouuldn't need to happen ;)). The guns make NO overall difference to these sort of crimes in britain. The muggings would happen anyway, but with knives. Such is life. I can guarantee you, knowing the british temprement, that introducing the right to be armed would makes things worse, at least for a decade or so ;), tho i respect your point that the potential for your victim to be armed is a huge deterrant, and could indeed reduce street crime and house breaking in the long term in Britain. Equally, total-gun embargoes, which we're working on, could well solve all but the break-in problem. Which again, we're working on: i.e. the stats you quoted are from a time when police numbers reached their lowest comparable levels ever. Since that moment a huge recruitment program has been bearing fruit. Add to that the return to a street-walking policy and we might well see some significant reductions in street and break-in crimes. We shall see. Efforts are at least under-way.
You say, ""Well, in that case are you seriously claiming that a gun-free society is more liable to cause crime and related deaths than a gun-toting one??? I was giving you the benfit of the doubt that you'd misunderstood. Now, why don't you go check out the comparable stats between our countries. Across the board/quantative-alone statistics will be fine in this country-to-country comparison""
First thing: on the DEATHS point i think you'll find the stats back me up ;)
NB Moore's stats:
UK: 68 guns death a year (admittadly on the rise - but we're working on it)
US: 11,127 guns deaths.
Spot the difference? I'll try and check out the over-all murder rate.
On the crime thing...you're making a very valid point. We do have a problem with break-ins and muggings at the moment. And there are huge inconsistancies in our laws that favour criminals etc. We DO have a problem. Part of it is of course caused by the ever increasing rich-poor divide. Drugs are another huge problem.
A few things tho:
(a)
"Nearly five centuries of growing civility ended in 1954. Violent crime has been climbing ever since"
Can you give me some context here?? What the hell are they talking about? What dramatic act happend in 54? And it's nonsense to suggest that Britain was decreasingly violent over that time. It was as full of cheeky scamps cutting throats as it's ever been i.e. violence IN SOCIETY, which is what we're talking about, certainly didn't alter significantly/smoothly as they suggest, if at all. Well, there are no stats either way in most cases - so it's a pointless piece of rhetoric. Institutionalised, direct violence may have lessened slightly at certain points, but as a rule violent domination of the public was still in frequent use. And still can be (tho your riot-police are a whole lot crazier when it comes to PEACEFUL protests. I've seen some horror footage of what they can do to peacful marchers etc. - that **** doesn't happen nearly as much here. Perhaps your cops are freaked out coz anyone could be armed?)
(b)
"• In 1994 an English homeowner, armed with a toy gun, managed to detain two burglars who had broken into his house while he called the police. When the officers arrived, they arrested the homeowner for using an imitation gun to threaten or intimidate. In a similar incident the following year, when an elderly woman fired a toy cap pistol to drive off a group of youths who were threatening her, she was arrested for putting someone in fear. Now the police are pressing Parliament to make imitation guns illegal."
Yes, these situations are ridiculous - but do you understand that the police's hands were tied by new legislations trying to remove these fake-guns which are getting turned into the real thing? - or being used in robberies, muggings etc. There is an ongoing commitment to removing guns completely from our societies. Altho this doesn't solve the break-in problem, it does limit the death-by-gun scenario. The break-in problem is a biggie. But it's partly social in nature. You can't just fix it by waving a gun at it (not when guns in scoiety have some possible, serious repurcussions, that i'll get to - altho over-all i'm undecided what to think. I'm just trying to see all sides. I can see how guns equal up the power-divide between pumped-crims and normal people, i'm just dubious about the other side-effects.)
(c)
As for the other examples: I don't give a **** about what the law is. I can and will do what is necessary to defend myself. I'd rather defend myself and get fined for using an offensive weapon than get done-over. Not that i actually carry - but it's amazing what you can acheive with bluff - so long as no-one's pointing a gun at you ;). That's the way things stand currently. Crims know that, in dodgy areas, everyone carries -so it's fairly evened out.
The farmer you mentioned was freed recently and served a tiny part of his sentence. The junkie-break-in-artist won't win his case. But it is a big debate here (well, it would be if we weren't so busy learning how our leaders have deceived us on behalf of your country ;))
(d)
Potential down-sides to wide-spread fire-arm ownership:
-accidental household death (children etc)
-guns being used in emotional disputes. i.e crimes of passion etc.
-easy and total availability of guns to criminals
-cops freaked out coz anyone could be armed: therefore they're more likely to shoot first (true Caitlyn?)
-easier for store-robbers if they find a store they know to be "unarmed".
-you must be prepared to kill: what in Britain results in a punch-up most of the time can end in death in the US.
So overall...
I'm afraid i must dissapoint you by saying: i'm still happier in a progressivley-gun-free society than a gun-flooded one. As i've said, crime is now a high priority in Britain, and the huge increase in police numbers on the streets SHOULD help. It still doesn't address the major CAUSES of crime - but neither does all-purpose arming. My over-all preference would be sensible government control/semi-legalisation of drugs (see the should-marijuana-be-legalised thread), coupled with some responsible goverment and grass-roots based action on social issues. I know addressing causes doesn't seem sensible to some, but it does to me.
Thanks for the (mainly) reasonable points tho. You've given me things to think about.
(despite Yoda's unbased assertions, i'm totally prepared to change my mind on subjects when reasonable proofs are given. You've NOW given some reasonable proofs - at least, enough for a decent discussion ;))
Fair enough. I'll take your word for it and assume that, whatever it sounded like, you were not completely intent on dismissing Karl's points.
Fair enough. I'll take your word for it and assume that, whatever it sounded like, you were not completely intent on dismissing Karl's points.
Of course not. I'm here to debate and discuss (films and the real world). I have flown off the handle once or twice, but ultimately i try to be as reasonable as possible :yup: - Karl's given me plenty to think about. But you can understand my gut reaction that introducing guns to britain doesn't seem immediately like a solution when i've dealt with every problem that's come my way so far just fine: and that's while living in London and in various nutty locations.
The only places i try to enforce my view are where i feel i have more/better information/reasons to back mine up than others i'm arguing with. I may not always handle it right, but i'm only human (or at least, the doctor's assure me the antenna will drop off in later life ;)) EDIT: On this thread i'm just hypothesising more than anything and trying to get the facts straight where possible (now correct my spelling, i can't be bothered ;))
Cheers for the vote of confidence :) - Still waiting for you on the war thread tho incidently, oh defender-of-attack ;)
Piddzilla
08-19-03, 01:39 PM
I have a friend (an american) who was almost killed when his drunk dad waved the gun around and it went off by accident. The bullet just graced his head, so the gods were with him that night. "I was just going to scare him" his dad said crying the day after. This was never reported to the police. I wonder how many incidents like this one that is never reported.
To me it's not even a question about whether the number of inciedents like this would drop if guns disappeared from people's homes. It is so crystal clear to me that they would. The arguments "for" guns are so absurd to me. It is not like outlaws build the guns themselves. They are purchased somewhere legally in the first place and then find their way out on the black market. If you want to end gun-related violence you have to cut off the supply. And to me it is also absurd that burglary automatically justifies killing of the burglar. But I guess that is the result of a history of heavily armed burglars in American. Here in Sweden, burglars very very rarely have guns on themselves.
At the same time, I really don't know what the solution to the american problem is. The paradox is that there are so many guns on the streets today that taking away the right to arm oneself is leaving people defensless. At the same time, the only thing that leads to is more guns and bigger problems.
This is not really a contribution to any of the sides in this discussion, since I lack good arguments on what to do about the problem. I just shake my head when I hear about the almost fetischist-like gun worship and the musty "get off my property or eat lead" values that is the base for the "pro gunners". [Btw, Robert Altman depicts this absurdity very well (according to me) in one of the last scenes of The Gingerbread Man ] But I understand that it is a question of different backgrounds and traditions. I have never even seen a gun outside the military in my whole life, not counting a couple of hunting rifles.
I also understand now that a lot of the criticism on this site against Michael Moore has probably more to do with people finding him annoying for talking down american gun culture, rather than with him being a naughty boy towards Charlton Heston. ;)
Anyway, I guess a lot of you have allready seen or heard about this, but its worth thinking about anyway:
MORE AMERICANS KILLED BY GUNS THAN BY WAR IN THE 20TH CENTURY (http://www.bradycampaign.org/press/release.asp?Record=289)
Henry The Kid
08-19-03, 02:16 PM
The gun didn't almost shoot your friend. The reckless human wielding the gun almost shot your friend. You can't place blame on an inanimate object when the human was clearly at fault. If a ban on gun occured, and instead he waved a knife around, inadvertantly slicing your friend, would you want a ban on knives as well? Once again, we're extending our morality onto others by saying guns shouldn't be allowed. If only criminals had guns, then what are the law-abiding citizens going to protect themselves with?
Fact In the US, Gun Control laws have been applied in recent times in major urbanized areas, such as Washington DC and NYC, yet they have the highest crime rate. By contrast, Arizona allows citizens to carry loaded side-arms anywhere, and the crime rate is very low. In Florida, since a 1986 law allowed for a private citizen to carry a concealed weapon, the homicide rate has dropped 29%. (TIME, 1995)
Fact Passing laws against the private ownership of guns will only take guns out of the hands of law-abiding people. The black market for guns in Japan (which has always had total gun abolition) bears this out: In 1960, 6% of all confiscated weapons were guns. By 1988, the number had risen to 39%. The black market supply went up over time, not down. (Tokyo, Ministry of Justice, Annual Report on Statistics on Corrections, 1987)
Gun control is a way to take power away from the people. It puts all your hopes and all your security into the hands of a police force who can't be all over the place at the same time.
In the perfect world, we wouldn't need guns. But our travels in reality show that banning guns only bans guns for law-abiding citizens, who then will make easy targets gor gun-toting criminals.
Fact In the US, Gun Control laws have been applied in recent times in major urbanized areas, such as Washington DC and NYC, yet they have the highest crime rate. By contrast, Arizona allows citizens to carry loaded side-arms anywhere, and the crime rate is very low. In Florida, since a 1986 law allowed for a private citizen to carry a concealed weapon, the homicide rate has dropped 29%. (TIME, 1995)
Did the crime rate go up after the control laws were put in place do you know? And isn't Arizona a bit spacious and under-populated comparatively again? I still think that plays a part in liability of prevelant gun use causing problems i.e. it's only when we're rubbing cheek-n-jowl that accidents and bad communal habits are most likely to go on.
Still, for now i'm willing to accept the argument that all-out gun ownership lessens house-breakings and muggings. (tho i still think introduction of the same system into an unprepared culture, like Britain's, would probably be disastrous)
Fact Passing laws against the private ownership of guns will only take guns out of the hands of law-abiding people. The black market for guns in Japan (which has always had total gun abolition) bears this out: In 1960, 6% of all confiscated weapons were guns. By 1988, the number had risen to 39%. The black market supply went up over time, not down. (Tokyo, Ministry of Justice, Annual Report on Statistics on Corrections, 1987)
The thing you've got to remember about Japan is they do have a genuine habit of turning a blind eye to social (plus industrial/economic) problems and hoping they'll go away. This has been demonstrated time and time again.
Limiting gun access to an absolute minority that the police COULD deal with (tho not on every occasion of course) still seems like a good target for non-gun-immersed cultures - even if it'll never be fully acheived. Especially in the anti-terror-climate tho, i'd happily categorise gun-import as a "terror" activity worth focusing on (might as well get something positive out of this broad-brush term ;))
Gun control is a way to take power away from the people. It puts all your hopes and all your security into the hands of a police force who can't be all over the place at the same time.
In the perfect world, we wouldn't need guns. But our travels in reality show that banning guns only bans guns for law-abiding citizens, who then will make easy targets gor gun-toting criminals.
When the country in question is awash with guns, i dare say you're right.
Caitlyn
08-20-03, 12:58 AM
In fact, i'm sure over-all MURDERS in the US are far higher in number than in britain.
I’m sure they are… and I’ll address that in just a moment…
]NB Moore's stats:
UK: 68 guns death a year (admittadly on the rise - but we're working on it)
US: 11,127 guns deaths.
Spot the difference? I'll try and check out the over-all murder rate.
The FBI report shows 8,480 gun related homicides for the same year (1999) that Moore’s stats reflect…
Now, I started wondering about something while I was checking those stats out so I checked the total population of the UK and the US to see how they compare:
The UK - 60,094,648 (is this correct?)
The US - 290,342,554 - and those stats do not include Indigenous people which adds another 3 million or the 8 to 12 million illegal aliens living in the US.
See the difference… I don’t see how you can even remotely compare the two countries… it’s the same thing Moore tried to pull off in Columbine when he compared the gun related deaths in the US to Canada (31 million), Australia (19 million), and Germany (81 million).
And the US population is increasing every year while the UK’s is decreasing… are you guys sending all your criminals over here… :suspicious:
What am I missing here? What does this have to do with the subject under discussion other then Robbins mentioned Columbine in his little speech and you found the text on Moore?s web site?
Well, I just thought it would be interesting to cite this article, considering the sorts of things that have been going on in this forum and in the nation as a whole. The connection to the topic at hand is precisely the ones you mentioned--the citation on Michael Moore's website and the mention of Columbine in the speech, and also the fact that Michael Moore is, himself, one of the most outspoken critics of the Bush administration. I personally think that the speech makes some very valid and important points--worth looking at, at the very least.
I found this movie very scary, I am so glad that I live in a country where is not everyone right to have fire arms. :yup:
Piddzilla
08-20-03, 10:30 AM
The FBI report shows 8,480 gun related homicides for the same year (1999) that Moore’s stats reflect…
The term "gun deaths" include more than just homicides. Suicides and accidents and stuff like that. In short, every individual that dies from a bullett, murdered or not, is included in "gun deaths". The same goes for the link I posted before, I figure.
The UK - 60,094,648 (is this correct?)
The US - 290,342,554 - and those stats do not include Indigenous people which adds another 3 million or the 8 to 12 million illegal aliens living in the US.
See the difference… I don’t see how you can even remotely compare the two countries… it’s the same thing Moore tried to pull off in Columbine when he compared the gun related deaths in the US to Canada (31 million), Australia (19 million), and Germany (81 million).
Ok, to make it simple for us, let's say that UK has 60 million people and USA about 300 million. That means that the american population is five times larger than the british. 5 x 68 = 340 (right?). 340 (instead of 68) vs 11,127 is still pretty mindblowing if you ask me.
Piddzilla
08-20-03, 10:44 AM
I found this movie very scary, I am so glad that I live in a country where is not everyone right to have fire arms. :yup:
Yeah, me too.
Oh, and Henry. I started to write a respond to you yesterday but was too upset and tired. The "who's to blame" thing is totally irrelevant and absurd to me. It is not about blame at all to me. You honestly believe I blame the gun?? :rolleyes:
A question: What do you think would be the most reasonable, to ban guns or to ban reckless people? What is the most realistic?
Anyway, as I said, I think America has a Catch 22 situation. To protect yourselves from the guns you need - guns. What I think is strange is that none of you pro-gunners can admit that the problems you have with guns are caused by your liberal gun laws!!!
I have to say though that I was very surprised by that Florida example. I wonder what more new policies or laws that were introduced at the same time as that law. To me it is kind of unbelievable that you could lower crime rates that much solely by a change in that law. That must be a part of a bigger picture, even though it obviously had something to do with the crime decrease.
And to compare Arizona and Vermont to DC and New York City (whoever it was who did that) is kind of misguiding. I mean, juggling with hand grenades in the Sahara could be okay, I guess, but I wouldn't recommend it in more crowded places.
Nice stats analysis above Pidz :yup:
It IS a shame that Moore doesn't do better things with his - he COULD have done a percentile comparision taking population into account and still shown (i suspect) that the US's death rate from guns is higher than any of the other examples used (i suspect. In any case i took the stats as being still fairly hefty despite the population differences when i first saw them - i'm sure many others did too)
Two things i want to mention to Karl:
The first is (i knew something was nibbling at my brain, but time, time, time...always a pressure) ...the ZERO-TOLERANCE policy which was so successful in NY means it's in no way representative of the US as a whole, or a good comparison for London. London, due to "decentralisation" has received far less money, comparatively, than other areas of britain for new initiatives over the last seven years or so (i.e. since labour arrived - and boy have we started to get angry about that - despite the good sides to that policy :)) - therefore, the recruitment drive in the police is only just kicking in down here.....
Info from today's "The Londoner" newspaper:
-Police numbers had been falling for seven years in london until about 2 years ago.
-the mayor's new plan is to introduce 1000 more policemen/women every year, - so over the last two and a bit years we've gained 2000. The target is 35,000 in a few years time (28,602 currently)
-a return to bobbies-on-the beat (comparable to a milder/less-heavily-funded [i believe] zero-tolerance program) ...should deal with many of the issues Karl has brought up about street crime.
-mobile-theft, and false-reporting of mobile theft, have pushed up crime figures to a ridiculous extent over recent years.
-street crime in london is down 27% between 2001 and 2002. Seems like things are working mate ;)
If zero tolerance was still to some extent in effect at the time of your stats, Karl, then we can imagine that mobile theft wouldn't be nearly such an epidemic as it has been here.
But let's remember - these aren't violent crimes as a rule. I can't really see anyone shooting someone over a mobile phone in britain (tho we'd start, if we all had guns, probably ;)), so there's no real deterrent there.
So, altho i still see, within your own communities, how you can argue for guns-for-all, i'm still DEFINITELY of the opinion that some of these stats you've used have been misleading (concernig US-Britain comparisons, and internal US ones) And that, tho no Utopia, Britain is far better off without guns - a target we're working towards with respects to the influx of guns brought about by banning sporting usage. Again, this last example does NOT justify re-instating handgun-ownership in britain, even for sport.
It's for those within your communities that disagree about guns-for-all that should argue with you. You guys do what you want (it's when you do what you want OUTSIDE your own borders the rest of us get annoyed ;))
The UK - 60,094,648 (is this correct?)
Nah, one a comedian called Chris Morris had to move to France for a bit with his family after he parodied hysteria about paedophilia, so it's 60,094,644 at the mo ;)
Only jesting Cait, i've no idea what the british population is (we have our own illegal immigration problem too). But you must admit that Pidz's assessment of the stats seems the most valid so far.
Still, i bow to your superior knowledge of american streets etc in your first post on the subject.
Henry The Kid
08-20-03, 06:07 PM
Yeah, me too.
Oh, and Henry. I started to write a respond to you yesterday but was too upset and tired. The "who's to blame" thing is totally irrelevant and absurd to me. It is not about blame at all to me. You honestly believe I blame the gun?? :rolleyes:
A question: What do you think would be the most reasonable, to ban guns or to ban reckless people? What is the most realistic?
Anyway, as I said, I think America has a Catch 22 situation. To protect yourselves from the guns you need - guns. What I think is strange is that none of you pro-gunners can admit that the problems you have with guns are caused by your liberal gun laws!!!
I have to say though that I was very surprised by that Florida example. I wonder what more new policies or laws that were introduced at the same time as that law. To me it is kind of unbelievable that you could lower crime rates that much solely by a change in that law. That must be a part of a bigger picture, even though it obviously had something to do with the crime decrease.
And to compare Arizona and Vermont to DC and New York City (whoever it was who did that) is kind of misguiding. I mean, juggling with hand grenades in the Sahara could be okay, I guess, but I wouldn't recommend it in more crowded places.
You're misunderstanding what I'm saying. You assume influences are just as important, and lead to the tragedy. It's the same way with drugs and guns, you can't assume that getting rid of the drug, getting rid of the gun, getting rid of the knife, etc etc, is going to change a damn thing. We make laws against recklessness, whatever you act reckless with. We shouldn't be protected from inanimate objects, we should be protected from recklessness. It may be hard to realize that, but it's the truth. A murderer is going to murder, whether or not he has a gun.
You're misunderstanding what I'm saying. You assume influences are just as important, and lead to the tragedy. It's the same way with drugs and guns, you can't assume that getting rid of the drug, getting rid of the gun, getting rid of the knife, etc etc, is going to change a damn thing. We make laws against recklessness, whatever you act reckless with. We shouldn't be protected from inanimate objects, we should be protected from recklessness. It may be hard to realize that, but it's the truth. A murderer is going to murder, whether or not he has a gun.
Kong doesn't really want to jump into this argument, but he'll just make a small point.
Kong understands you're logic here, but at some point it seems wise to draw a line. Why not be pragmatic when recklessness is likely to occur with the given object, and if the object has little other value than that of destroying something? If we followed you're logic to it's end then we would have to say that private ownership of nuclear weapons is okay as long as we legislate against its reckless use. Would we really want nukes being sold at Wal-Mart?
So, while your logic may make some degree of sense it isn't really very practical and we are left with the question of, "Where should we draw the line?"
Henry The Kid
08-20-03, 11:11 PM
Kong doesn't really want to jump into this argument, but he'll just make a small point.
Kong understands you're logic here, but at some point it seems wise to draw a line. Why not be pragmatic when recklessness is likely to occur with the given object, and if the object has little other value than that of destroying something? If we followed you're logic to it's end then we would have to say that private ownership of nuclear weapons is okay as long as we legislate against its reckless use. Would we really want nukes being sold at Wal-Mart?
So, while your logic may make some degree of sense it isn't really very practical and we are left with the question of, "Where should we draw the line?"
I won't deny that there has to be a line drawn. It's not easy to distinguish just how far is "too far", I agree, but I think it has to be done.
Besides that, while we're on nukes, United States does need to get rid of about 2/3 of all our unused nukes.
Karl Childers
08-20-03, 11:35 PM
You don't "draw the line" on an object that can be used to defend one's life and property. That doesn't make much sense.
Believe it or not, many Americans don't have a problem with using lethal force to stop an aggressor, to thwart an act of aggression. It is really a natural, inherent right to defend one's self by any means necessary. It is an animal-right and a natural urge locked away in our brain stems. Fans of film know that Peckinpah's tag line for Straw Dogs was "every man fears the day he must defend his family." [paraphrased]
What a wholly appropriate example for a gun-rights advocate to use, considering Peckinpah's 1971 film demonstrated that violence lurks everywhere, including "peaceful" Cornish villages, and that the use of a firearm to protect one's family was as pertinent then as it it today.
Most guns-- even handguns-- are not made with any specific purpose in mind. The shooting sports consitute one of the oldest, most traditional diversions of American hobby. The uses for guns run the gamut from hunting to collecting and from target shooting/range competition to plinking or personal defense.
No one has any reason to presume what any one gun might be used for-- especially mine. No one has any right to prohibit or restrict the private ownership and operation of firearms because one feels uncomfortable or threatened by their existence. Get over it.
There is no amendment in the Bill of Rights which states that "the people have a right to feel safe." It doesn't exist. Kong, Pidzilla, Golgot, and everyone else: when you are in this country, you have NO right to feel safe. You have no right to restrict what IS a constitutional right-- the 2nd amendment-- because you are uncomfortable with the right to keep and bear arms. The right to keep and bear arms IS a right.
I have a hard time understanding why some people seem so afraid of my gun. Do you think I'm going to shoot you with it? You have a much better chance of dying in an automobile accident then you do by a firearm. The idea that one may be more necessary or useful than the other is unrational and has no foundation in the discussion of prohibition.
Kong's statement about "drawing the line" is a specious and arbitrary approach that even the gun-grabbers abandoned years ago.
On with the FACTS:
Since Golgot enjoyed Pidzilla's sparse and disconnected stats so much, here are some REAL STATS to chew on.
Let's start with accidents at the hands of recklessness, which seems to be such a source of distress for the anti-gunners here.
Accidental Firearms-Related Deaths Compared to Other Causes of Accidental Death (1997)
1. Motor vehicles: 43,200 deaths
2. Falls: 14,900 deaths
3. Poisoning by solids or liquids: 8,600 deaths
4. Drowning: 4,000 deaths
5. Fires, burns and related deaths: 3,700 deaths
6. Suffocation by swallowing object: 3,300 deaths
7. Firearms-related: 1,500 deaths
8. Poisoning by gases and vapors: 700 deaths
9. All other causes (including medical "misadventures"): 13,900
Total deaths: 93,800
(Source: National Safety Council's 1998 Accident Facts)
The Most Common Activities that Lead to Emergency Room Visits
1. Baseball/softball 404,000
2. Dog bites 334,000
3. Playground 267,000
4. ATV's, mopeds 125,000
5. Volleyball 98,000
6. In-line skating 76,000
7. Horseback riding 71,000
8. Baby walkers 28,000
9. Skateboards 25,000
Note: There is no mention of guns or shooting activities
[Source: U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission]
The Truth About the Kellermann Study claiming firearms increase your chances of being murdered by a factor of 43
Arthur L. Kellermann is an anti-self defense lobbyist with an axe to grind. The "study" was designed to produce a pre-determined result. The "study" is pure "junk science."
Specifically, Kellermann claimed that "for every case of self-protection homicide involving a firearm kept in the home, there were 1.3 accidental deaths, 4.6 criminal homicides and 37 suicides involving firearms." (That adds up to 43.) Did you spot the gimmick?
At the end of his report, Kellermann stated his study did "not include cases in which burglars or intruders are wounded or frightened away by the use or display of a firearm." Kellermann considered only homicides. The "study" conveniently ignored all instances of home defense in which an intruder was not killed. If a would-be victim scared the intruder away with a firearm, that did not count. If the would-be victim wounded the criminal, that did not count, either. To count, someone had to be killed. This is dangerously misleading because if the victims were disarmed and unable to scare off intruders, most or all of the violent crimes would be completed, drastically increasing the incidence of rape, robbery and murder.
Further, 37 of the 43 deaths noted in the "study" were suicides. As the data above show (regarding the suicide rate in Japan, where firearms are virtually non-existent), a person who is intent on killing him- or herself will do it, with or without firearms.
Kellermann also admitted his study did not look at situations in which intruders "purposely avoided a home known to be armed."
In short, Kellermann ignored the vast majority of situations in which legally armed citizens frightened away intruders simply by displaying a firearm.
[from guntruths.com]
Gun Ownership and Violent Crime
Research from the U.S. Department of Justice confirms that responsible gun ownership by boys leads to lower crime rates. Specifically, the Dept. of Justice found that boys who who own legal firearms have much lower rates of delinquency and drug use than do boys who own "illegal" guns, and are even slightly less delinquent than non-owners of guns. Here are the data:
Status Street Crime Gun Crimes Drug Abuse
No guns owned 24 1 15
"Illegal" guns only 74 24 14
Guns Legally Owned 14 0 13
Note: these figures represent the percentage of each category's involvement in street crime, gun crimes and drug abuse.
The Dept. of Justice concluded that boys who owned guns legally were less likely to become involved with criminal activity, when compared to either boys who owned illegal guns or even boys who owned no guns, in part because of the different ways in which they were "socializ[ed] into gun ownership" and the fact they typically had "fathers who own guns for sport and hunting."
[source: "Urban Delinquency and Substance Abuse: Initial Findings--Research Summary," published by the Justice Department's Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention in March 1994.]
Firearm Use by Civilians to Deter Crime
By carefully examining facts and statistics from the Department of Justice, the F.B.I. and other law enforcement agencies, Prof. Gary Kleck from the School of Criminology, Florida State University, discovered Americans use firearms to prevent crimes approximately 1 to 1.5 million times per year. These are the very cases Kellermann chose to ignore. Had Kellermann considered these facts, he would have had to conclude a firearm in the home makes a family safer.
Prof. Kleck also discovered that robbery victims who defended themselves with a gun suffered lower rates of injury than did those who resisted without a gun, or even those who did not resist at all and instead complied with the violent criminal's demands. In short, Prof. Kleck concluded the private ownership of firearms deters criminal behavior. (Source: "Crime Control Through the Private Use of Armed Force" by Gary Kleck)
Concealed Weapons Permit Laws
Liberalized concealed-carry handgun laws, now in effect in 31 states, are a major factor in reducing violent crime. This was proven by University of Chicago by Professors John Lott and David Mustard in their landmark 1996 study, "Crime, Deterrence and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns." The researchers examined crime in the more than 3,000 U.S. counties from 1977 to 1992 and discovered liberalized concealed-carry laws reduced murders by 8.5 percent, rapes by 5 percent and aggravated assaults by 7 percent.
[from guntruths.com]
Murder Rate Highest in Anti-Gun Metropolitan Areas
Baltimore, Detroit, Los Angeles, New York, Philadelphia and Washington, D.C. have perhaps the most repressive laws regarding firearm ownership and possession by citizens. Not surprisingly, in 1998, these areas also had some of the highest murder rates:
City Population Total No. of Murders Murder Rate
(per 100,000)
Baltimore, MD 662,253 312 47.1
Detroit, MI 999,976 430 43
Los Angeles, CA 3,621,680 426 11.8
New York, NY 7,357,745 633 8.6
Philadelphia, PA 1,449,419 338 23.3
Washington, D.C. 523,000 260 49.7
In addition, in 1998, these cities had a combined population of 14,614,073, which is approximately 5.6 percent of the total U.S. population of 259 million. They also had a combined murder total of 2,399, which was about 14.2 percent of the total murders in the U.S. for that year (16,914 total U.S. murders in 1998).
A common response to the statement that the cities with the most repressive firearms laws have the highest violent crime rates is that criminals obviously go into surrounding cities or states to obtain their firearms since the laws there are more relaxed and firearms more readily available. What destroys this argument is the fact that, without exception, those areas where firearms are more readily available and the firearms laws more liberal have lower violent crime rates.
[source: FBI's 1998 Uniform Crime Reports]
Murder Rate and Firearms
As reported in the May 25, 1998, edition of U.S. News & World Report, according to the F.B.I., the murder rate in the U.S. dropped 20 percent--from 24,526 to 19,645--from 1993 to 1996. There was an additional nine percent drop in 1997.
The murder rate in 1993 was 9.5 per 100,000; in 1996 it went down to 7.4 per 100,000. (Source: May 25, 1998, edition of U.S. News & World Report)
Although exact figures are not known, firearm ownership increased since 1994 by as much as 2.5 million per year, while, as shown above, the murder rate decreased during that period. This conclusively shows firearms do not lead to higher murder rates. (Source: May 25, 1998, edition of U.S. News & World Report)
In 1995, there were a total of 22,552 homicides (which would include murders, but exclude the 343 "legal interventions") in the U.S. Of these, 15,551, or 69 percent, involved the use of a firearm. The percentage of firearms-related homicide decreased from 71 percent in 1994. By 1998, the rate of firearms use in murder was down to 64.9 (Source: National Safety Council's 1998 Accident Facts; F.B.I.'s 1998 Uniform Crime Reports)
In 1995, there were 3.3 non-fatal firearms related injuries for each death. (Source: National Safety Council's 1998 Accident Facts)
U.S. Murder Rate Since 1900
(Rate shown is per 100.000 population)
1900 1.2
1901 1.2
1902 1.2
1903 1.1
1904 1.3
1905 2.1
1906 3.9
1907 4.9
1908 4.8
1909 4.2
1910 4.6
1911 5.5
1912 5.4
1913 6.1
1914 6.2
1915 5.9
1916 6.3
1917 6.9
1918 6.5
1919 7.2
1920 6.8
1921 8.1
1922 8.0
1923 7.8
1924 8.1
1925 8.3
1926 8.4
1927 8.4
1928 8.6
1929 8.4
1930 8.8
1931 9.2
1932 9.0
1933 9.7
1934 9.5
1935 8.3
1936 8.0
1937 7.6
1938 6.8
1939 6.4
1940 6.3
1941 6.0
1942 5.9
1943 5.1
1944 5.0
1945 5.7
1946 6.4
1947 6.1
1948 5.9
1949 5.4 1950 5.3
1951 4.9
1952 5.2
1953 4.8
1954 4.8
1955 4.5
1956 4.6
1957 4.5
1958 4.5
1959 4.6
1960 4.7
1961 4.7
1962 4.8
1963 4.9
1964 5.1
1965 5.5
1966 5.9
1967 6.8
1968 7.3
1969 7.7
1970 8.3
1971 9.1
1972 9.4
1973 9.7
1974 10.1
1975 9.9
1976 9.0
1977 9.1
1978 9.2
1979 10.0
1980 10.7
1981 10.3
1982 9.6
1983 8.6
1984 8.4
1985 8.4
1986 9.0
1987 8.7
1988 9.0
1989 9.3
1990 10.0
1991 10.5
1992 10.0
1993 10.1
1994 9.6
1995 8.7
1996 7.9
1997 7.4
1998 6.3
1999 TBD
[Source: National Center for Health Statistics, Vital Statistics, Revised July, 1999]
Notes: The murder rate peaked in the mid-1930s and again in 1980. These facts also show there is no correlation between the 1939 National Firearms Act (NFA), which imposed stringent regulations on fully automatic weapons, or the 1968 Gun Control Act (GCA), and the murder rate. In fact, the murder rate skyrocketed in the 12 years following enactment of the 1968 GCA.
In 1900 there were few gun laws. New York had no handgun law and California no waiting period. Guns of all types could be ordered by mail or bought anonymously. And the homicide rate was 1.2, about one-sixth of what it is today. The homicide rate peaked in 1933, during the Depression, and then fell. It was low during and after World War II, but began to rise in the 1960s and 1970s, and reached its high for this century, 10.7, in 1980. It then fell to 8.3 in 1985, a fall of 22%. This welcome news was virtually ignored by the media, which emphasize rises in violence but downplay decreases. Homicide rose again in the late 1980s, but not to its 1980 high. The homicide rate continued to rise following the Gun Control Act of 1968, while the fall in the early 1980s occurred when anti-crime laws but no new anti-gun laws were passed.
It is also significant that from 1900, the number of firearms owned by Americans continued to increase throughout the 20th Century, but the murder rate fluctuated. By the end of the century, the murder rate had decreased to a 30-year low. This conclusively shows the availability of firearms is unrelated to the murder rate; i.e., firearms do not lead to increased violent crime rates.
[from guntruths.com]
Decreasing Violent Crime
According to the FBI's 1998 Uniform Crime Reports (released in October, 1999), from 1997 to 1998:
Overall violent crime: the overall violent crime rate in the U.S. decreased by 7.3 percent.
Murders: In 1997, there were a total of 18,208 murders in the U.S.; in 1998, there were 16,914. [source: FBI's 1998 Uniform Crime Reports, page 13]
Murder Rate: From 1997 to 1998, the murder rate decreased by 7.4 percent from 6.8 per 100,000 to 6.3 per 100,000 population, the lowest since 1967 (when the rate was 6.2).
Robbery: From 1997 to 1998, the robbery rate declined by 11.3 percent to 165.2 per 100,000, the lowest since 1969 (when the rate was 148.4).
Firearm Use In Violent Crime: More significantly, despite the fact the number of firearms and handguns owned by individual Americans continued to increase from 1997 to 1998, the F.B.I. also reported:
Decrease in Firearm Murders: In 1997, of the 15,837 murders as to which the type of weapon used was known to the F.B.I., 10,729 were committed with firearms; in 1998, 14,088 murders in which the type of weapon used was known, 9,143 were committed with firearms.
Decrease in Rate of Firearm Murders: Thus, the rate of firearms used to commit murders decreased from 67.8 percent (of murders in which the type of weapon used was known to the F.B.I.) in 1997, to 64.9 percent in 1998.
Firearms vs. Other Weapons in 1998 (total numbers): Extrapolating these rates to the total number of murders in 1998 (as opposed to just the murders in which the type of weapon used was known), 10,977 of the total 16,914 murders apparently involved the use of firearms, and 5,937 involved other types of weapons.
Firearms vs. Other Weapons in 1998 (rate per 100,000): In 1998, there were 4.1 (per 100,000 population) murders involving the use of firearms, and 2.2 (per 100,000) murders involving weapons other than firearms.
[Note: it is instructive to compare the non-firearms murder rate in the U.S. to the total murder rates in those countries which have strict gun control; e.g., Japan, where the total murder rate of .6 per 100,000 is about one quarter of the non-firearms murder rate in the U.S. This proves that the absence of firearms does not lead to lower murder rates. Click here to examine these data.]
Knives--Increased Usage: By contrast, the FBI also reports that the percentage of murders involving knives is on the rise. Knives were used in 13.3 percent of the murders committed in the United States in 1998 as compared to 12.7 percent of murders in 1994.
Decrease in Use of Firearms in Robberies: The rate of firearms used to commit robberies decreased from 39.7 in 1997 to 38.2 in 1998.
The 17 states and the District of Columbia without concealed-carry permits enjoy an 81 percent higher rate of violent crime. Their restrictive gun laws produced 1,400 more murders, 4,200 more rapes, 12,000 more robberies and 60,000 more aggravated assaults.
So, when Golgot and Pidzilla and others proclaim their "freedom" from a society that does not recognize the right to private ownership of firearms, that's okay. Hey, it's your culture. I certainly don't want it.
Because the United States possesses the right to keep and bear arms for its tax-paying civilians, we are automatically the freest nation on earth. And I don't expect most Europeans to understand why.
The Soviet Union established gun control in 1929. From 1929 to 1953, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Turkey established gun control in 1911. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Germany established gun control in 1938. From 1939 to 1945, 13 million Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals, mentally ill people, and other "mongrelized peoples," unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, 1 million "educated people", unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
You don't "draw the line" on an object that can be used to defend one's life and property. That doesn't make much sense.
So you draw no lines at all? Everyone should be allowed to have a tomahawk missile in their backyard or a vile anthrax just in case?
Most americans agree that there does need to be a line; this disagreement is generally in where that line should be drawn.
Karl Childers
08-21-03, 12:12 AM
So you draw no lines at all? Everyone should be allowed to have a tomahawk missile in their backyard or a vile anthrax just in case?
The 2nd amendment did not recognize the right to keep and bear warships, although I am not certain such a challenge was ever directly raised.
I personally don't believe it is necessary for individuals to own military equipment that requires specialized training and which relies on the concept of explosiveness to kill its targets. "Explosiveness" suggests unpredictability and perhaps uncontrolled effect and was designed to be used only in the unconfined expanses of field combat, not personal combat.
You expressly stated, ""Kong understands you're logic here, but at some point it seems wise to draw a line. Why not be pragmatic when recklessness is likely to occur with the given object, and if the object has little other value than that of destroying something?""
You are proclaiming there should be some shared understanding of pragmatism here, by prohibiting something that doesn't appear to be as useful on a daily basis as an automobile. That is presumptuous projection and nothing more. I say every law-abiding citizen has an inalienable right AND civic duty to protect himself and his family as necessary. I fail to see how owning, operating and even carrying a handgun for these purposes is impractical. It is indeed practical.
Attempting to compare nukes/missiles with personal handguns is a tired example of a very steep slippery slope.
The 2nd amendment did not recognize the right to keep and bear warships, although I am not certain such a challenge was ever directly raised.
So?
I personally don't believe it is necessary for individuals to own military equipment that requires specialized training and which relies on the concept of explosiveness to kill its targets. "Explosiveness" suggests unpredictability and perhaps uncontrolled effect and was designed to be used only in the unconfined expanses of field combat, not personal combat.
This would be line.
You expressly stated, ""Kong understands you're logic here, but at some point it seems wise to draw a line. Why not be pragmatic when recklessness is likely to occur with the given object, and if the object has little other value than that of destroying something?""
You are proclaiming there should be some shared understanding of pragmatism here, by prohibiting something that doesn't appear to be as useful on a daily basis as an automobile. That is presumptuous projection and nothing more. I say every law-abiding citizen has an inalienable right AND civic duty to protect himself and his family as necessary. I fail to see how owning, operating and even carrying a handgun for these purposes is impractical. It is indeed practical.
It's practical in the same sense that the nuclear arms race was practical. Kong is just saying that a line can (hopefully) be drawn at a point where it becomes impractical. You seem to believe that owning military equipment would be impractical, and for very well expressed reasons Kong might add. Kong never actually said where he drew this line himself, so it seems you are being a bit presumptuous.
Attempting to compare nukes/missiles with personal handguns is a tired example of a very steep slippery slope.
Slippery for whom? Kong doesn't find it slippery at all. Personal ownership of handguns can be argued to be practical, but personal ownership of atmoic weapons cannot be argued for nearly as well. It doesn't seem like it should be slippery for anyone. The point was to illustrate that there can be impractical levels of being armed for self-defense. This still leaves the question of where the two sides meet unresolved, and Kong never attempted to even suggest where he thinks this occurs. So, attacking a position Kong hasn't stated is rather pointless. Kong has given you no position to attack so calm down.
Piddzilla
08-21-03, 08:10 AM
You're misunderstanding what I'm saying. You assume influences are just as important, and lead to the tragedy. It's the same way with drugs and guns, you can't assume that getting rid of the drug, getting rid of the gun, getting rid of the knife, etc etc, is going to change a damn thing. We make laws against recklessness, whatever you act reckless with. We shouldn't be protected from inanimate objects, we should be protected from recklessness. It may be hard to realize that, but it's the truth. A murderer is going to murder, whether or not he has a gun.
I am not misunderstanding what you are saying, but it seems to me that you are ignoring what I am saying.
To me it is no problem at all solving the drug-problem by taking away the drugs. No drugs, no drug addicts and no crimes related to drugs. With guns it is different since the gun doesn't disappear once you've shot it up. You can use it over and over again and that is why this problem is so hard to handle. If you banned all guns in America today they would still exist only they would all be on the black market and harder to control. If you have read my posts you would know that is the dilemma I have talked about all the time without anyone addressing it in their posts to me. What I find so irritating is that you guys totally ignore the fact that your gun deaths statistics speaks for themselves and that the reason to why they look the way they do is simply because you have so many guns.
And, god damnit, how is taking away guns from reckless people not protecting us from reckless people?? To go back to my example about my friend. How would him owning a gun have protected him that night? I mean, it's not like it was a duel or anything. Also, if his dad had not had that gun in his possession, it would never had happened! "Oh yes it would, because if you want to murder someone you will succeed in the end anyway". Well, my friend's dad did not want to murder anyone. And please stop comparing guns with knives right now. If it is the same thing then why don't people with guns trade them in for knives? That would probably make both sides happy. The anti-gun people because we would get rid of guns, and the pro-gun people because they would still have an excellent weapon to protect themselves with. I am sure the homocides rates wouldn't drop very much, but accidental killings would and you know it.
You don't "draw the line" on an object that can be used to defend one's life and property. That doesn't make much sense.
Believe it or not, many Americans don't have a problem with using lethal force to stop an aggressor, to thwart an act of aggression. It is really a natural, inherent right to defend one's self by any means necessary. It is an animal-right and a natural urge locked away in our brain stems. Fans of film know that Peckinpah's tag line for Straw Dogs was "every man fears the day he must defend his family." [paraphrased]
Oh, I believe it. You are saying that americans haven't travelled as far from "the animal stage" as the rest of the world? ;) Low shot.. forgive me.
If someone is trying to kill me or anyone close to me I think I would defend them the same way you would. Of course a gun would give me the upper hand in a situation like that or even out the odds if the other guy had a gun. But in general I don't believe our lives here in Sweden would be safter with more guns. On the contrary, if we had guns the same way you guys do I am absolutely positive we would create a lot of new problems and also worsen those we allready have got.
Do you carry your gun around on you all the time? If so, would you recommend that every one should do that?
Most guns-- even handguns-- are not made with any specific purpose in mind. The shooting sports consitute one of the oldest, most traditional diversions of American hobby. The uses for guns run the gamut from hunting to collecting and from target shooting/range competition to plinking or personal defense.
Fair enough. Then my suggestion is that all "hobby guns" are being locked up in the club house instead of people having them in their house along with kids and liquor. Invest in a burglar alarm and buy a baseball bat and you are protected against the burglars too.
No one has any reason to presume what any one gun might be used for-- especially mine. No one has any right to prohibit or restrict the private ownership and operation of firearms because one feels uncomfortable or threatened by their existence. Get over it.
And the reason to why you wear your gun is what? Maybe you are the one who should get over something. A lot of people wear guns because they are afraid of something. And fear is very unreliable.
There is no amendment in the Bill of Rights which states that "the people have a right to feel safe." It doesn't exist. Kong, Pidzilla, Golgot, and everyone else: when you are in this country, you have NO right to feel safe. You have no right to restrict what IS a constitutional right-- the 2nd amendment-- because you are uncomfortable with the right to keep and bear arms. The right to keep and bear arms IS a right.
That doesn't make it right. When was that amendment written? Things have changed a lot since those days, wouldn't you agree?
As I said to Caitlyn yesterday, if I did go to USA the possibility for me getting a gun is there. Why don't I feel that way about going to Britain? Or Australia? Or Spain?
I have a hard time understanding why some people seem so afraid of my gun. Do you think I'm going to shoot you with it? You have a much better chance of dying in an automobile accident then you do by a firearm. The idea that one may be more necessary or useful than the other is unrational and has no foundation in the discussion of prohibition.
I agree, talking about automobile accidents on a thread about guns is irrelevant and has no foundation in the discussion of prohibition. For those who want to make comparisions between guns and cars I suggest you make a thread of your own. If you are interested in the car accident problem only I suggest you try the thread on seat belts, another right robbed from the citizens under the cover of being for the good of the people.
Ok now. I have never met you or your gun so I am not afraid of neither the first nor the latter. However, there is a greater possibility of you shooting me with it if you would feel threatened by me and the gun I don't have then if you didn't have it.
Kong's statement about "drawing the line" is a specious and arbitrary approach that even the gun-grabbers abandoned years ago.
Well, you obviously don't want there to be any lines at all.
On with the FACTS:
Since Golgot enjoyed Pidzilla's sparse and disconnected stats so much, here are some REAL STATS to chew on.
Let's start with accidents at the hands of recklessness, which seems to be such a source of distress for the anti-gunners here.
Accidental Firearms-Related Deaths Compared to Other Causes of Accidental Death (1997)
1. Motor vehicles: 43,200 deaths
2. Falls: 14,900 deaths
3. Poisoning by solids or liquids: 8,600 deaths
4. Drowning: 4,000 deaths
5. Fires, burns and related deaths: 3,700 deaths
6. Suffocation by swallowing object: 3,300 deaths
7. Firearms-related: 1,500 deaths
8. Poisoning by gases and vapors: 700 deaths
9. All other causes (including medical "misadventures"): 13,900
Total deaths: 93,800
(Source: National Safety Council's 1998 Accident Facts)
First of all, what was sparse and disconnected with the facts I posted?
Secondly, what argument are you trying to make in this discussion by letting us know that the number of accidental gun deaths in 1997 were 1,500 which was "only" enough to make number seven on the chart? The fact that it is not number one would make me believe it is not a problem worth dealing with?
Thridly, car accidents, drowning accidents, fires and all the other things on that list are all things that needs to be taken care of. This, however, is a discussion about guns.
The Most Common Activities that Lead to Emergency Room Visits
1. Baseball/softball 404,000
2. Dog bites 334,000
3. Playground 267,000
4. ATV's, mopeds 125,000
5. Volleyball 98,000
6. In-line skating 76,000
7. Horseback riding 71,000
8. Baby walkers 28,000
9. Skateboards 25,000
Note: There is no mention of guns or shooting activities
[Source: U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission]
Yeah, and horseback riding is a 100% safe activity to engage in because it is in 7th place on the list.
The Truth About the Kellermann Study claiming firearms increase your chances of being murdered by a factor of 43
Arthur L. Kellermann is an anti-self defense lobbyist with an axe to grind. The "study" was designed to produce a pre-determined result. The "study" is pure "junk science."
And here I stopped reading since you are a gun-loving lobbyist with issues...
..just kidding... but the post is sooo long and I will only have time to make a few comments.
I actually don't know who Kellerman is and I haven't read that study so I don't really know what to say about it or your comments on it.
[from guntruths.com]
Gun Ownership and Violent Crime
Research from the U.S. Department of Justice confirms that responsible gun ownership by boys leads to lower crime rates.
I won't argue with you on that. It is the irresponsible ones I am worried about.
Firearm Use by Civilians to Deter Crime
By carefully examining facts and statistics from the Department of Justice, the F.B.I. and other law enforcement agencies, Prof. Gary Kleck from the School of Criminology, Florida State University, discovered Americans use firearms to prevent crimes approximately 1 to 1.5 million times per year. These are the very cases Kellermann chose to ignore. Had Kellermann considered these facts, he would have had to conclude a firearm in the home makes a family safer.
Prof. Kleck also discovered that robbery victims who defended themselves with a gun suffered lower rates of injury than did those who resisted without a gun, or even those who did not resist at all and instead complied with the violent criminal's demands. In short, Prof. Kleck concluded the private ownership of firearms deters criminal behavior. (Source: "Crime Control Through the Private Use of Armed Force" by Gary Kleck)
I don't find that hard to believe either, but how is that proving that more guns is better than no guns? And you have to see the big picture. I could probably meet these studies on special cases with other studies on other special cases. I bet there are some study that supports the view that guns in the home increases the gun deaths among kids.
Concealed Weapons Permit Laws
Liberalized concealed-carry handgun laws, now in effect in 31 states, are a major factor in reducing violent crime. This was proven by University of Chicago by Professors John Lott and David Mustard in their landmark 1996 study, "Crime, Deterrence and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns." The researchers examined crime in the more than 3,000 U.S. counties from 1977 to 1992 and discovered liberalized concealed-carry laws reduced murders by 8.5 percent, rapes by 5 percent and aggravated assaults by 7 percent.
[from guntruths.com]
And this is part of the dilemma I've been talking about. To protect yourself from the guns you need more guns.
Murder Rate Highest in Anti-Gun Metropolitan Areas
Baltimore, Detroit, Los Angeles, New York, Philadelphia and Washington, D.C. have perhaps the most repressive laws regarding firearm ownership and possession by citizens. Not surprisingly, in 1998, these areas also had some of the highest murder rates:
City Population Total No. of Murders Murder Rate
(per 100,000)
Baltimore, MD 662,253 312 47.1
Detroit, MI 999,976 430 43
Los Angeles, CA 3,621,680 426 11.8
New York, NY 7,357,745 633 8.6
Philadelphia, PA 1,449,419 338 23.3
Washington, D.C. 523,000 260 49.7
In addition, in 1998, these cities had a combined population of 14,614,073, which is approximately 5.6 percent of the total U.S. population of 259 million. They also had a combined murder total of 2,399, which was about 14.2 percent of the total murders in the U.S. for that year (16,914 total U.S. murders in 1998).
This is too me not strange at all. When were these restricted laws introduced in those areas? Before or after they started having problems with high crime rates? The laws are desperate measures to do something about the misery and is the result of decades and centuries of no gun control at all. Or have these areas had those laws forever? If I was a gun owning criminal in New York City, do you actually believe that I would turn my gun in when these restricitve laws were introduced? What is the reason to why they call me outlaw, you think? The crime situation in those areas have gone to a point where there is just not much difference that a new law can make. But together with a lot of longterm programs and crime preventing measures starting with kids in problem areas at a very young age, sometime in the future you could se a difference.
A common response to the statement that the cities with the most repressive firearms laws have the highest violent crime rates is that criminals obviously go into surrounding cities or states to obtain their firearms since the laws there are more relaxed and firearms more readily available. What destroys this argument is the fact that, without exception, those areas where firearms are more readily available and the firearms laws more liberal have lower violent crime rates.
And you don't think that has something to do with less criminals being situated there?
I am sorry but I just don't have time to respond to the rest right now....
Karl Childers
08-21-03, 10:43 AM
And you don't think that has something to do with less criminals being situated there?
I'm not sure how to address this.
You and Golgot have repeatedly attempted to debunk or disregard several pieces of factual data which have been presented to you in a debate that has demanded stats and facts to support its viewpoints.
I don't care. The facts are there and you can talk around them all you want.
Interestingly enough, however, the above statement you have chosen to make does absolutely nothing to support your irrational and flimsy viewpoints. So I will answer your question.
Yes, I definitely believe that certain areas-- both suburban and urban-- and those which have quite liberal carry laws, might have lower crime stats because there is less criminal activity. Which inadvertently supports my point that guns are not the problem. If the other areas have very strict gun laws, yet violent crime is highest in those areas, how can strict guns laws solve the crime problem???? Please try to answer this.
Somebody please attempt to answer this for me. How does restricting the right to carry or to own a firearm for law abiding citizens attempt to solve these high crime problems?
The facts are there, and you have chosen to ignore what they are trying to say, yet in attempting to put into words your viewpoints, you have contradicted your feelings by inadvertently supporting mine.
Don't feel bad. Anti-gun activists have nothing to stand on, while pro-gun activists have everything in their corner: facts, stats, common sense, history, morality, etc.
I do NOT carry a gun. I personally don't feel the need, but I have no desire to restrict those who wish to do so.
Your comments about the 2nd amendment do not deserve an actual rebuttal, suffice to say that most Americans enjoy a degree of personal freedom that worries most Europeans. We live by the constitution-- or at least we try to-- in this country. That is what makes the United States the finest Republic on the planet; not a democracy, but a Republic.
The 2nd amendment automatically guarantees the preservation of the 1st amendment-- always has, always will.
I'm not sure how to address this.
You and Golgot have repeatedly attempted to debunk or disregard several pieces of factual data which have been presented to you in a debate that has demanded stats and facts to support its viewpoints.
I don't care. The facts are there and you can talk around them all you want.
Karl, one problem here is that you are apparently coming in with absolutely NO intention of seeing any other sides on this. Hence you refuse to accept that there might be ANY problems with ANY of your stats. That's a ridiculous approach when you haven't addressed our criticisms (well - i've only skimmed so far, i'll get back to it tonight). Stats are only as valid as their methodology, application and context. Inappropriately used they can be highly deceiving and in no way "facts". I'm not saying ALL of your "facts" come under that category - but SOME of the earlier ones were DEFINITELY inappropriately applied and cannot be considered gospel:
i.e.
-NY to London comparisons while ignoring the role of "decentralisation"/lowest-ever-police-numbers in britain and Zero Tolerance in NY at those times)
-Sparse rural area crime figures versus inner-cities. Cities are breeding grounds for criminal activities. There are "exceptions" to this "rule", but we need you to actually address them b4 we can discuss it, rather than just insisting you're right no matter what.
Quantative without qualative assessment is normally pointless EDIT: especially in social assessments. At least address the issues surrounding your vaunted "facts".
suffice to say that most Americans enjoy a degree of personal freedom that worries most Europeans.
:rotfl:
Ahhh, that is sooooo sweet. With perceptive and informed opinions like that how can we fail to make some headway here?
NB please note i'm NOT arguing against you arms-for-all argument. It's your country, and you're welcome to it ;) I'm just trying to get you to address some inconsistancies. Asking for discussion is not the same as insisting you're wrong. It's you that's insisting you're right and that all your facts are perfect. That makes discussion impossible.
Sir Toose
08-21-03, 12:34 PM
To me it is no problem at all solving the drug-problem by taking away the drugs. No drugs, no drug addicts and no crimes related to drugs. With guns it is different since the gun doesn't disappear once you've shot it up. You can use it over and over again and that is why this problem is so hard to handle. If you banned all guns in America today they would still exist only they would all be on the black market and harder to control. If you have read my posts you would know that is the dilemma I have talked about all the time without anyone addressing it in their posts to me. What I find so irritating is that you guys totally ignore the fact that your gun deaths statistics speaks for themselves and that the reason to why they look the way they do is simply because you have so many guns.
That's all true. It's capitalism supply/demand at its finest. To take it a step further though even if you stopped the legal manufacture of guns it would not stop private manufacture of guns. Modern tools are so capable and guns are really so simple that home manufactured firearms would, IMHO, become all the rage (if the supply of black market guns became too expensive or non existent). One school I went to in NY had gangs with home-made guns... they called them "Zips". If an under-achieving high school kid can figure it out... well, need I say more? The problem is less with the guns and more with humanity wasting it's ingenuity on devising methods of killing one another. I'm a gun owner myself... the only reason for it (for me) is protection.
And, god damnit, how is taking away guns from reckless people not protecting us from reckless people?? To go back to my example about my friend. How would him owning a gun have protected him that night? I mean, it's not like it was a duel or anything. Also, if his dad had not had that gun in his possession, it would never had happened! "Oh yes it would, because if you want to murder someone you will succeed in the end anyway". Well, my friend's dad did not want to murder anyone. And please stop comparing guns with knives right now. If it is the same thing then why don't people with guns trade them in for knives? That would probably make both sides happy. The anti-gun people because we would get rid of guns, and the pro-gun people because they would still have an excellent weapon to protect themselves with. I am sure the homocides rates wouldn't drop very much, but accidental killings would and you know it.
Reckless people should be stripped of guns. Well, even that's a gray area huh? Just because someone is reckless we strip them of the right to protect themselves? I don't know... I'm glad there are people out there with bigger brains than I.
Regarding knives.... the comparison I would make is that if someone were really intent on killing someone else they would do it. It would happen whether a gun were available or not. It's the motive that's the problem... and the fact that people value human life very little.
Henry The Kid
08-21-03, 03:53 PM
I am not misunderstanding what you are saying, but it seems to me that you are ignoring what I am saying.
To me it is no problem at all solving the drug-problem by taking away the drugs. No drugs, no drug addicts and no crimes related to drugs. With guns it is different since the gun doesn't disappear once you've shot it up. You can use it over and over again and that is why this problem is so hard to handle. If you banned all guns in America today they would still exist only they would all be on the black market and harder to control. If you have read my posts you would know that is the dilemma I have talked about all the time without anyone addressing it in their posts to me. What I find so irritating is that you guys totally ignore the fact that your gun deaths statistics speaks for themselves and that the reason to why they look the way they do is simply because you have so many guns.
And, god damnit, how is taking away guns from reckless people not protecting us from reckless people?? To go back to my example about my friend. How would him owning a gun have protected him that night? I mean, it's not like it was a duel or anything. Also, if his dad had not had that gun in his possession, it would never had happened! "Oh yes it would, because if you want to murder someone you will succeed in the end anyway". Well, my friend's dad did not want to murder anyone. And please stop comparing guns with knives right now. If it is the same thing then why don't people with guns trade them in for knives? That would probably make both sides happy. The anti-gun people because we would get rid of guns, and the pro-gun people because they would still have an excellent weapon to protect themselves with. I am sure the homocides rates wouldn't drop very much, but accidental killings would and you know it.
You can go around with that logic all you want. Let's say if his dad did not have a gun, and, just hypotheticaly, had an very heavy object. If he dropped said object on your friend's chest, he would have likely died, just the same. Believe it or not, you are blaming an object when the recklessness of humans is to blame. In my situation, he should have been smart enough not to have it in positions where it could be dropped on your friend. I'm so sick of people making every excuse for their actions... "I was drunk, I didn't mean to do it!"
By the way, I may seem like I'm being aggresive here, but I'm trying not to to the best of my ability.
Furthermore, just so we don't get any wrong assumptions about me, I don't condone gun use. In the perfect world, we wouldn't need guns, or any weapons for that matter. As a person who is naturally nonviolent, I despise guns. However, in the reality of America, any ban of guns would cause more problems than it would solve. I don't deny that accidental gun deaths would go down, but I also firmly believe that other ways for us to kill each other would arise very quickly. Furthermore, I also think that in the perfect world, drugs wouldn't have to exist. But as it is, wasting billions on a drug war that will never solve anything is not only pointless, it's ****ing absurd.
MMooreFan
08-22-03, 08:16 PM
Micheal Moore addressed the gun problem in America with startling facts and smears the crap of our violence in Heston's face and I thank him for it, for anyone who thinks Moore stepped out of line at the Academy Awards, don't twist you panties in a twist!
Karl Childers
08-22-03, 09:16 PM
Micheal Moore addressed the gun problem in America with startling facts and smears the crap of our violence in Heston's face and I thank him for it, for anyone who thinks Moore stepped out of line at the Academy Awards, don't twist you panties in a twist!
Oh please. Michael Moore didn't do a freaking thing to address the gun problem because there isn't a gun problem. There is, however, a problem with violence in this country; but I fail to see where Charlton Heston is responsible for that, or even partly responsible. I have never heard such brainwashed, left-wing, blame-it-on-the-gun trash in my entire life.
I suggest you need to get out a little more often, instead of swallowing the pap the notoriously-famous liar Michael Moore tries to peddle to his Socialist flock of sheep.
Michael Moore isn't classy enough to take out Chuck Heston's garbage, yet he confronts him in his deceitful mockumentary, while twisting the narration and the video editing to suit his personal agenda. The only "crap that was smeared" was the lying BS that Moore presented to the public under the context of "non-fiction."
Your first statement is a peach. Here is a little analogy quiz for you:
Michael Moore is to "startling facts" what...
a) Rosie O'Donnell is to fat-free diet
b) Mike Tyson is to urbane gentleman
c) Rush Limbaugh is to passive objectivity
d) Stephen King is to struggling writer
e) All of the above
Richard Dreyfuss, the liberal Hollywood actor and occasional proponent of gun control, had this to say about Charlton Heston, following the announcement of Heston's Alzheimer's: [emphasis mine]
"The actor either gets you to where you have to go, or not. Heston did; priceless. He could portray greatness, which is no longer an artistic goal; he could portray a grandeur that was so satisfying. What he was able to personify so perfectly for us was a vision of ourselves called heroic.
"Is this out of favor? Out of step? Antique? Yes. Antique as in gorgeous, incredibly valuable, and not produced anymore."
"It has become fashionable to characterize his politics, almost as if they were separate from him. People are either defensive or patronizing (if not contemptuous). I can only say I wish all the liberals and all the conservatives I knew had the class and forbearance he has. Would I be as patient or serene when so many had showed me such contempt, or tried to make me feel stupid or small? I doubt it. This is dignity, simply and completely. A much more important quality than political passion at the end of the day, and far more lacking, don't you think? "
Karl Childers
08-22-03, 09:47 PM
One more thing:
For recklessly and ignorantly insulting all who suffer from Alzheimer's disease-- and not just his target, Heston-- I would hope the oxygen thief who is known as George Clooney should use the same amount of discretion when crossing the street in front of a speeding bus.
:p :p
I can only say I wish all the liberals and all the conservatives I knew had the class and forbearance he has.
[QUOTE=nebbit][QUOTE=Karl Childers]You don't "draw the line" on an object that can be used to defend one's life and property. That doesn't make much sense.
Believe it or not, many Americans don't have a problem with using lethal force to stop an aggressor, to thwart an act of aggression. It is really a natural, inherent right to defend one's self by any means necessary. It is an animal-right and a natural urge locked away in our brain stems. Fans of film know that Peckinpah's tag line for Straw Dogs was "every man fears the day he must defend his family." [paraphrased]
_______________________________________________________________
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
What the hell, maybe you should spend more time with your family nice and relaxed, what kind of a role model is someone who lives in fear & what if's.
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// _______________________________________________________________
Most guns-- even handguns-- are not made with any specific purpose in mind. The shooting sports consitute one of the oldest, most traditional diversions of American hobby.
_______________________________________________________________
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
What kind of a hobby is killing! OMG
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
_______________________________________________________________
The right to keep and bear arms IS a right.
_______________________________________________________________
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Just because you think its right doesn't mean it is.
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
_______________________________________________________________
I have a hard time understanding why some people seem so afraid of my gun.
_______________________________________________________________
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
Maybe they are afraid of the violence and harm that this object can do, it is made to kill thats all.
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
_______________________________________________________________
Let's start with accidents at the hands of recklessness, which seems to be such a source of distress for the anti-gunners here.
_______________________________________________________________
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Any death caused by Guns or anything is one too many.
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
_______________________________________________________________
Pidzilla and others proclaim their "freedom" from a society that does not recognize the right to private ownership of firearms, that's okay. Hey, it's your culture. I certainly don't want it.
_______________________________________________________________
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
Sounds alright to me, I do not want to live or ever be living in a country that has a gun culture.
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
_______________________________________________________________
:eek:
Karl Childers
08-23-03, 01:34 AM
Thanks, Nebbit.
Your response is easily the most entertaining material I have read in quite a while.
I will be keeping an eye out for your future posts in the likelihood I will be thoroughly amused and properly humored.
By the way, your avatar is cute. ;D
You don't "draw the line" on an object that can be used to defend one's life and property. That doesn't make much sense.
Not if you're intent on sticking to your rationale no-matter-what anyway :rolleyes:
Believe it or not, many Americans don't have a problem with using lethal force to stop an aggressor, to thwart an act of aggression. It is really a natural, inherent right to defend one's self by any means necessary. It is an animal-right and a natural urge locked away in our brain stems.
Sure - what about the natural urge to kill - and how guns do actually make death and suicide far easier i.e. a snatch decision is enough. A knife is more "involved", and for suicide must be used with determination to achieve the wanted affect. Guns make these things easier. That's hard to argue against IMO (please note that i am just addressing this point - not dismissing all your arguments as you'd probably claim other-wise)
No one has any reason to presume what any one gun might be used for-- especially mine. No one has any right to prohibit or restrict the private ownership and operation of firearms because one feels uncomfortable or threatened by their existence. Get over it.
Now we have no right to speculate? And everyone who expresses doubt is doing so coz they're uncomfortable/threatened? Hmmm.
There is no amendment in the Bill of Rights which states that "the people have a right to feel safe." It doesn't exist. Kong, Pidzilla, Golgot, and everyone else: when you are in this country, you have NO right to feel safe.
I'm not saying there is - no one's saying that to my knowledge. We're not unrealistic fools you know.
I have a hard time understanding why some people seem so afraid of my gun. Do you think I'm going to shoot you with it? You have a much better chance of dying in an automobile accident then you do by a firearm.
Considering how unreasonable you seem to be, being on the other side of the planet does make me feel slightly safer yes ;)
This comparison, and all the others you mention in a big list, are pointless. So what? Things that increase possibility of death (guns) - if they can be shown to have less of a postive threat-reduction-effect than you're suggesting - are distinct from things with an over-all more-positive effect than the deaths they cause. Your evidence still isn't that convincing i.e using NY to represent America, using inappropriate state-comparisons etc) Just pointing out the flaws - still not saying your wrong "per se" about gun's threat-reduction-effect.
Kong's statement about "drawing the line" is a specious and arbitrary approach that even the gun-grabbers abandoned years ago.[QUOTE=Karl Childers]
Yes, yes, it's all out or nothing. So you've said.
Since Golgot enjoyed Pidzilla's sparse and disconnected stats so much, here are some REAL STATS to chew on.
[QUOTE=Karl Childers]Let's start with accidents at the hands of recklessness, which seems to be such a source of distress for the anti-gunners here.
I enjoyed his clarification of an accidental mistake in analysing some facts, yes. That's what i was talking about at the time.
The Truth About the Kellermann Study claiming firearms increase your chances of being murdered by a factor of 43
Arthur L. Kellermann is an anti-self defense lobbyist with an axe to grind. The "study" was designed to produce a pre-determined result. The "study" is pure "junk science."
Specifically, Kellermann claimed that "for every case of self-protection homicide involving a firearm kept in the home, there were 1.3 accidental deaths, 4.6 criminal homicides and 37 suicides involving firearms." (That adds up to 43.) Did you spot the gimmick?
At the end of his report, Kellermann stated his study did "not include cases in which burglars or intruders are wounded or frightened away by the use or display of a firearm." Kellermann considered only homicides. The "study" conveniently ignored all instances of home defense in which an intruder was not killed.
etc etc etc ... the points you make about self-defense against rape etc are very strong. But about everything else you've argued in the quote above are fairly weak. You need much better criticisms b4 you claim it's "junk science" . Kellerman clearly states then that this is an investigation into firearms affects on murder-rates. Therefore your other points are irrelevant. The murder rate goes up with prevelant fire-arm ownership it seems overall, and his study back this up. He focused on one area - i dare say with a bias in mind - but he stated what he's excluding, which you don't seem capable of :p
Further, 37 of the 43 deaths noted in the "study" were suicides. As the data above show (regarding the suicide rate in Japan, where firearms are virtually non-existent), a person who is intent on killing him- or herself will do it, with or without firearms.
Guns make a split-second decision a reality. A bullet in the brain is a lot quicker than some split wrist too. Therefore, we can see how gun presence could be considered a facilitator to these things.
[from guntruths.com]
Gun Ownership and Violent Crime
Research from the U.S. Department of Justice confirms that responsible gun ownership by boys leads to lower crime rates. Specifically, the Dept. of Justice found that boys who who own legal firearms have much lower rates of delinquency and drug use than do boys who own "illegal" guns, and are even slightly less delinquent than non-owners of guns.
Here are the data:
Status Street Crime Gun Crimes Drug Abuse
No guns owned 24 1 15
"Illegal" guns only 74 24 14
Guns Legally Owned 14 0 13
Note: these figures represent the percentage of each category's involvement in street crime, gun crimes and drug abuse.
"responsible" is immediately a rhetoric-ridden and quite probably unprovable criteria - which makes this source sound ridiculous from the off. It's not demonstrable/causal that coz your firearm is legal etc etc that you use it responsably.
Not ONE legal gun owner has ever commited a crime of the types mentioned? I find this most unlikely. What's the sample here?
Murder Rate Highest in Anti-Gun Metropolitan Areas
Baltimore, Detroit, Los Angeles, New York, Philadelphia and Washington, D.C. have perhaps the most repressive laws regarding firearm ownership and possession by citizens. Not surprisingly, in 1998, these areas also had some of the highest murder rates: - where's the comparison with comparably large cities with non "repressive" gun laws??? How many cities are there of this type? Which big cities actually have guns-for-all policies - you have never mentioned any.
U.S. Murder Rate Since 1900
etc etc
Whatever the changes over-time and with relation to law change, you stil currently have a higher death rate than other more "repressive"ly gun-controlled countries. Make of it what you will.
And i'm not sure you're taking into account how long some things take to ripple out in some of your analysis.
So, when Golgot and Pidzilla and others proclaim their "freedom" from a society that does not recognize the right to private ownership of firearms, that's okay. Hey, it's your culture. I certainly don't want it.
Ah shame, such a nice young man too. You would have been so welcome ;)
Because the United States possesses the right to keep and bear arms for its tax-paying civilians, we are automatically the freest nation on earth. And I don't expect most Europeans to understand why.
Wow - it's so easy to be free. I've got a gun = I'm free. I don't have a gun = ?? What? I'm a slave? ;) :p
The Soviet Union established gun control in 1929. From 1929 to 1953, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Turkey established gun control in 1911. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Germany established gun control in 1938. From 1939 to 1945, 13 million Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals, mentally ill people, and other "mongrelized peoples," unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, 1 million "educated people", unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Oooookay - so it seems you're trying to say that without guns-for-all your government would act like the various fascist and totalitarian administrations mentioned above. How fascinating. Even i wouldn't go that far ;) :p
Thanks, Nebbit.
By the way, your avatar is cute. ;D
Cute like me :laugh:
Henry The Kid
08-23-03, 03:38 AM
Oooookay - so it seems you're trying to say that without guns-for-all your government would act like the various fascist and totalitarian administrations mentioned above. How fascinating. Even i wouldn't go that far ;) :p
Heh. I would.
MMooreFan
08-23-03, 09:38 AM
[QUOTE=Karl Childers]Oh please. Michael Moore didn't do a freaking thing to address the gun problem because there isn't a gun problem. There is, however, a problem with violence in this country; but I fail to see where Charlton Heston is responsible for that, or even partly responsible. I have never heard such brainwashed, left-wing, blame-it-on-the-gun trash in my entire life.
I suggest you need to get out a little more often, instead of swallowing the pap the notoriously-famous liar Michael Moore tries to peddle to his Socialist flock of sheep.
Michael Moore isn't classy enough to take out Chuck Heston's garbage, yet he confronts him in his deceitful mockumentary, while twisting the narration and the video editing to suit his personal agenda. The only "crap that was smeared" was the lying BS that Moore presented to the public under the context of "non-fiction."
----------------------------------------------------------------------Did I read your post right, did you say there isn't a gun problem? But there is a violence problem? So what does that mean, there is a brass-knuckle problem, get serious. We are the most violent nation on Earth, 11k gun related deaths with the second highest nation being Britian with 600 thats a big problem. Heston only helps fuel gun crazy idiots such as yourself, he hasn't helped a sole, and its been proven you are more likely to kill a family member with a gun in the household then to defend them. So Heston and the rest of the blood thristy NRA should go cram their AK-47s up their ass.
We are the most violent nation on Earth, 11k gun related deaths with the second highest nation being Britian with 600 thats a big problem
Erm, hate to quibble, but i'm pretty sure the UK doesn't have the second highest gun-related deaths. If Moore's statistic of 68 was accurate at the time (and Germany and France managed 381 and 255, withtheri comparable populaces), the rise we've seen here seems unlikely to have reached 600 a year. I'm fairly sure it's much lower than that (partially coz we're learning about gun-wounds more in our hospitals etc of course)
Please note that Britain had the lowest homicide rates in Western Europe between 97 and 99. I doubt things have changed drastically, especially since police numbers have been rising hugely over the last two years.
My country is currently wandering around with only the faintest strands of hope and self-empowerment holding us together, and the standard get-on-with-it gumption of course, but at least there's more coppers on the streets now eh? And at least there are reasons to be hopeful - Moore's film was about international aggression to - we might eventually see some people held accountable for these actions we couldn't stop.
We might learn there are things we can do - if we just keep our eyes open :yup:
Karl Childers
08-23-03, 12:17 PM
Did I read your post right,
I wouldn't be too surprised if you didn't, since it appears you have a significant problem with comprehension.
did you say there isn't a gun problem? But there is a violence problem?
A gun is an inanimate object. I fail to see how an inanimate object can cause a problem, unless there is some sort of mechanical failure, which is not the case here. To quote Mick Strider (not the LOTR character), "A gun is a tool that you put in your hand. Anything you put in your head can be used as a weapon."
I find it useless trying to explain these things to uninformed individuals such as yourself. These concepts really are very simple, and have been settled many hundreds of years ago.
So I ask you, MMoore, how can an inanimate object, such as a gun, be a problem, when the issue at hand is not mechanical failure? Please try to answer this for me.
So what does that mean, there is a brass-knuckle problem, get serious.
No, there isn't a problem with brass knuckles anymore than there is a problem with knives, bats, or guns.
When people beat the crap out of each other on the streets and in the back alleys of every cosmopolitan and suburban area, is it deemed there is a problem with fists and feet?
How many countless times does a woman become the victim of domestic assault every single day in this ultra violent country? When the cops get the call on their radio, do they say, "Oh no, another problem with fists at 142 Oak Drive?"
We need, as a society, to start thinking about what we can do to eliminate fists from people. We have a fist problem in this country because everyone is going to get the crap beat out of them at least once in his life.
Maybe we should cut out people's tongues lest they yell "fire!" in a crowded movie theatre.
After all, the problem is with the tool, the inanimate object, and not society itself. :rolleyes:
We are the most violent nation on Earth,
Per capita, I'm not sure about that. I would have to do some research. The fact we might be the most violent only strengthens the position that those who obey the law must be able to protect themselves against those who are violent and do not obey the law.
It's funny. No one could answer my challenge. This seems the perfect place to re-insert it. One of you anti-gunners, please try and explain this.
Where the gun violence is greatest, such as DC, and where there is an almost total prohibition on handguns, how is creating more gun laws going to eliminate gun violence? How is giving people the right to protect themselves in a terribly violent community going to create more problems?
Heston only helps fuel gun crazy idiots such as yourself,
Idiot? I was wondering when someone like yourself would start the personal insult game. It figures.
So Heston has "helped gun crazy idiots?" What does that mean exactly? It means it is easier for me to get the gun of my choice, or does it infer that Heston is somewhat responsible for gun-related deaths?
Okay, so the leaders of the Pro-Choice lobby make it easier to get an abortion? I would say yes. And perhaps they are responsible for the termination of unborn humans? I would say yes. YOU AGREE?
Yet, 99.98% of all firearms are ever used to break the law. The controversy surrounding the gun is the potential violence the gun might be involved with. Less than 1%, and I'm sure Heston or anybody else didn't have any influence one way or the other with those criminals, considering there are OVER 20,000 GUN LAWS at the moment.
The controversy of abortion is THE ACT ITSELF.
So, do you agree that the leaders of the Pro-Choice movement are responsible for the termination of unborn, living creatures? Yes or no? Please explain.
he hasn't helped a sole,
I'm not sure, but he might have helped some flounders or cods. :D
and its been proven you are more likely to kill a family member with a gun in the household then to defend them.
No, it hasn't. Yet another myth that sheeple love to swallow.
From the Second Amendment Sisters website:
To suggest that science has proven that defending oneself or one's family with a gun is dangerous, gun prohibitionists repeat Dr. Kellermann's long discredited claim: "a gun owner is 43 times more likely to kill a family member than an intruder." [17] This fallacy , fabricated using tax dollars, is one of the most misused slogans of the anti-self-defense lobby.
The honest measure of the protective benefits of guns are the lives saved, the injuries prevented, the medical costs saved, and the property protected not Kellermann's burglar or rapist body count. Only 0.1% (1 in a thousand) of the defensive uses of guns results in the death of the predator. [3] Any study, such as Kellermann' "43 times" fallacy, that only counts bodies will expectedly underestimate the benefits of gun a thousand fold. Think for a minute. Would anyone suggest that the only measure of the benefit of law enforcement is the number of people killed by police? Of course not. The honest measure of the benefits of guns are the lives saved, the injuries prevented, the medical costs saved by deaths and injuries averted, and the property protected. 65 lives protected by guns for every life lost to a gun. [2]
Kellermann recently downgraded his estimate to "2.7 times," [18] but he persisted in discredited methodology. He used a method that cannot distinguish between "cause" and "effect." His method would be like finding more diet drinks in the refrigerators of fat people and then concluding that diet drinks "cause" obesity.
Also, he studied groups with high rates of violent criminality, alcoholism, drug addiction, abject poverty, and domestic abuse . From such a poor and violent study group he attempted to generalize his findings to normal homes. Interestingly, when Dr. Kellermann was interviewed he stated that, if his wife were attacked, he would want her to have a gun for protection.[19]
Apparently, Dr. Kellermann doesn't even believe his own studies.
So Heston and the rest of the blood thristy NRA should go cram their AK-47s up their ass.
:bawling: :bawling: :bawling: :bawling:
Here is a link you and your uninformed buddies can visit. It might do you some good. :D
www.changethatsrightnow.com/problem_detail.asp?PhobiaID=1603&SDID=1431
A gun is an inanimate object. I fail to see how an inanimate object can cause a problem, unless there is some sort of mechanical failure, which is not the case here. To quote Mick Strider (not the LOTR character), "A gun is a tool that you put in your hand. Anything you put in your head can be used as a weapon."
I find it useless trying to explain these things to uninformed individuals such as yourself. These concepts really are very simple, and have been settled many hundreds of years ago.
Heheheh, i do so love this type of bizarre thinking. Yes- an object is an object - therefore it is but an object. You make it sound, in the first place, like it's not connected to it's context (i.e. the people who use them/the effect they have, how they change people's perceptions etc - the quote was v. interesting BTW - coz it's the thoughts in your head that worry people like me more than the gun itself). If said object is: designed to kill/maim etc then it's more than just an object. Tis a killing/maiming-object. Slight difference bucko.
Never-the-less: the biggest problem is people for sure - but the way gun's can facilitate people's negative sides is also part of the "equation".
Per capita, I'm not sure about that. I would have to do some research. The fact we might be the most violent only strengthens the position that those who obey the law must be able to protect themselves against those who are violent and do not obey the law.
It's funny. No one could answer my challenge. This seems the perfect place to re-insert it. One of you anti-gunners, please try and explain this.
Where the gun violence is greatest, such as DC, and where there is an almost total prohibition on handguns, how is creating more gun laws going to eliminate gun violence? How is giving people the right to protect themselves in a terribly violent community going to create more problems?
Please do do some more research (and perhaps ask the question: could there be even one more reason, just one more reason [for starters], for all the violence, other than "repressive" gun laws).
But please also try and take on board the criticisms levelled at your current "facts" i.e.
I'm still not an anti-gunner concerning your country as such. I don't live there so i can't know enough about the realities and context (I am still fairly firmly anti-gun for my country tho)....BUT.....
Please give us:
-evidence of a BIG/HIGHLY POPULATED CITY comparable to DC etc that has no "repressive" gun laws, and has a lower crime rate etc etc. Until you do that, it just seems that: big cities are violent. That's all you've demonstrated so far cowboy.
I'm going to answer your question with a question: Where's your proof that giving guns to all in a big city will make things better? (not much point having a safe house if you can't step outside without getting shot for example - just a thought-experiment ;))
The controversy of abortion is THE ACT ITSELF.
Well, if you want to compare it to guns, it's the "object" involved i.e. the technology that makes it possible PLUS the human intent and surrounding perceptions that are the issue. So the availability of the "object" makes it possible. Not a perfect analogy you've made here ultimately. But seeing as how you don't like to draw lines of relative comparison (just i'm-right/you're-wrong lines down the middle) i guess you won't see the problem :rolleyes:
So, do you agree that the leaders of the Pro-Choice movement are responsible for the termination of unborn, living creatures? Yes or no? Please explain.
They're not soley responsible. They facilitate people making their choices certainly. So of course - the NRA or what have you aren't responsible for gun crime etc - but they facilitate ALL the varied actions and preventions-of-actions a gun can be used for. Good n bad baby. Choice. The question in hand is: Just what kinds of choices are we now able to make thanks to these new-ish technologies being so prevelant. And should we be examining the convenience and nature of their application. Yes. Tho in both gun and abortion cases there are entirely different contextual situations and repurcussions that need addressing. i.e. ultimately - they're different. Nice try tho ;)
Sheeple....
I think a name is needed for dogmatic-automatons like yourself. I think for now i'll call you a Dogmaton. We can start a special thread to think of a better one if you keep giving out so much material tho ;)
Your slightly extended criticism of Kellermann was a vague improvement, tho the lavish amounts of rhetoric surrounding the facts undermine that a fair bit. You make a valid point about lives-saved. At least Kellermann obviously recognises this now. If he has taken this into account to arrive at his "2.7 times more likely" assessment, then what is your current criticism?? That's he's adjusted to fit the facts? That he's prepared to change his mind. Or that he doesn't "stick to his guns" no matter what like you?
I can only say I wish all the liberals and all the conservatives I knew had the class and forbearance he has.
http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2003/8/12/171427/607
A fairly strong (for a liberal ;)) defence of Moore's position and techniques against his critics.
Some points i didn't know that I'm glad were cleared up
-Lockheed-Martin DO manufacture WMDs (i.e. missiles not just for space exploration etc)
-Charlton Heston isn't misrepresented really (I've watched it again, and the main claims aren't true as i see it)
What a lot of this comes down to is standard documentary editing techniques. We may well walk away with the impression that the gun was bought from the bank in one day, or what have you, but Moore just gives us the facts with maximum impact.
The main strength in this argument is that the critics are also using comparable techniques of maximum-impact "editing" in their relaying of the film to others.
Caitlyn
08-25-03, 02:51 PM
Some points i didn't know that I'm glad were cleared up
-Lockheed-Martin DO manufacture WMDs (i.e. missiles not just for space exploration etc)
No one ever said Lockheed - Martin did not hold a defense contract with the government… but Moore stated verbally and in big bold letters across the screen that the Lockheed - Martin plant near Columbine made Weapons of Mass Destruction which was not true... which raises the question of why he didn’t just go to one of the plants that actually do make weapons… he went all over the country anyway.
-Charlton Heston isn't misrepresented really (I've watched it again, and the main claims aren't true as i see it)
So in other words, if I take the statement you made above and edit it to read the way I want it to:
Erm, hate to quibble, but I’m pretty sure the UK gun-related deaths have reached 600 a year. We’re learning more about gun-wounds in our hospitals. Please note that Britain is currently wandering around with only the faintest strands of hope and we might eventually be held accountable for these actions. We might learn a few things.
You have no problem with that? And no one should really claim that there is anything wrong with it either since every word of it is yours…
No one ever said Lockheed - Martin did not hold a defense contract with the government… but Moore stated verbally and in big bold letters across the screen that the Lockheed - Martin plant near Columbine made Weapons of Mass Destruction which was not true... which raises the question of why he didn’t just go to one of the plants that actually do make weapons… he went all over the country anyway.
So in other words, if I take the statement you made above and edit it to read the way I want it to:
Erm, hate to quibble, but I’m pretty sure the UK gun-related deaths have reached 600 a year. We’re learning more about gun-wounds in our hospitals. Please note that Britain is currently wandering around with only the faintest strands of hope and we might eventually be held accountable for these actions. We might learn a few things.
You have no problem with that? And no one should really claim that there is anything wrong with it either since every word of it is yours…
C'mon Cait - he wrote "world's largest weapons maker" under the Lockheed-Martin sign - How could that be taken to mean it was all produced in Columbine? Only a fool would assume the largest amount of weapons in the world generated by one company were produced at one plant.
The representative himself took Moore's question to be relating to all Lockeed-Martin actions.
As to the second thing - if you had a valid aim, and there was a climate of fear being used to push things spun in the other direction, i'd consider it potentially more valid than as it stands . You should know from my posts that I DO have a problem with Moore's spinning - but i understand the justification. People like Karl make me understand it even more.
Moore acheived his aim - "counter-propoganda". What aim were you acheiving with the above? People are that angry they're going to these lengths. I too would like to see a more honest solution. But would a more reasonanble presentation style have got so much attention? (well, it would have been successful outside the US anyway i think. He was trying to have an impact internally too)
His facts aren't really wrong - so where's the big problem ultimately?[though of course the theorising on both sides about affects of internal aggression in your culture are just that - theories. The stuff about external aggression, well...Moore has the majority of the rest of the world on his side - that might count for something]
Do you see on what levels I'm condoning some of this spin?
Karl Childers
08-25-03, 06:23 PM
I wonder what type of fantasy world Golgot lives in where he can pick and choose the standards of debate as he sees fit.
Whenever Golgot has been painted into a rhetorical corner, either by me or by Caitlyn, he declares, "but." Golgot, I gave up on you because there is nothing left to debate. The facts have been presented and you have nothing to show for it but, "but." Nothing.
DC and other areas have high crime when they have harsh restrictions on handguns. It's very simple.
You say, "but there are other factors involved, like a big city where there is greater crime." Gee, you think.
There is greater crime there because PEOPLE ARE NOT ALLOWED TO PROTECT THEMSELVES. The burden of proof is on YOU, and your anti-gun brethren, to rationalize and research in proving otherwise. You have not done that, you just say "but."
Now it becomes okay for Moore to twist his words because there is a fair amount of pro-gun "propoganda" he has to work against. I'm not sure the gun lobby uses propoganda. They are merely trying to defend the traditions that have been in place in this country for the last 227 years against knee-jerk, fascist blowhards who are afraid of guns and afraid of the 2nd amendment. It's an uphill battle against fear and loathing from the ever-increasing ignorance of the left.
The facts and stats concerning the enirety of gun control are on the side of the pro-gun lobby, and Michael Moore has to make a twisted and deceptive product in order to make it more palatable to the masses. That's what it is.
Apologists like Golgot can SPIN out of control all they want, but it doesn't change the reality of the gun control issue, which is that gun control simply doesn't work. Not in this country.
And until Golgot or anyone else can prove what the real problems are in DC and other areas where there is high crime and tough gun laws, he will be doing nothing but blowin' smoke.
MMooreFan
08-25-03, 06:39 PM
.
There is greater crime there because PEOPLE ARE NOT ALLOWED TO PROTECT THEMSELVES.
I don't believe what you just said, have you ever heard of the study you are twice as likely to kill a family member then an intruder. Any fool can purchase a gun (gun shows) but not every fool can use a gun properly expecailly in a heated situation like a robbery. If you want to lower crime then parents should be parents and drug/alchol users should be punsihed to the full extent of the law.
Piddzilla
08-25-03, 07:06 PM
The burden of proof is on YOU, and your anti-gun brethren, to rationalize and research in proving otherwise. You have not done that, you just say "but."
Since I guess I am included in "brethren"...
The problem with you is that you think that if you post a fact or some data on something you automatically think it is indisputable. The reason to why I left this discussion was not, if anyone thought so, that I felt I was "defeated". No, it was because even though I took time to respond to all your arguments, including most of your facts and data in the end of your post, you did not bother to respond to a single one of my arguments. Not one. So you posted a bunch of facts. Very well. I told you what I made out of those facts and you chose to ignore it. It sounds like it would have impressed you more if I had chosen to post an equal amount of data produced by the anti-gun side but without commenting or saying anything at all about your data (I actually did post some facts in an earlier post - which you also didn't comment on, you just posted some other facts. We could go on forever, you know).
In short, I find discussing with you as productive as talking to a wall. Enjoy the rest of the "debate".
Bye bye...
I wonder what type of fantasy world Golgot lives in where he can pick and choose the standards of debate as he sees fit.
Whenever Golgot has been painted into a rhetorical corner, either by me or by Caitlyn, he declares, "but." Golgot, I gave up on you because there is nothing left to debate. The facts have been presented and you have nothing to show for it but, "but." Nothing.
"Painted into a rhetorical corner" eh? Perfect description. I address problems with your facts and you ignore them (or in the case below - totally misunderstand them :rolleyes: ) I'm trying to stay consistant to the the two main debates going on here: The one about Moore's use of spin and the effectiveness/truthfulness of his claims, and your one about guns-for-all being the solution to all crime problems.
DC and other areas have high crime when they have harsh restrictions on handguns. It's very simple.
You say, "but there are other factors involved, like a big city where there is greater crime." Gee, you think.
There is greater crime there because PEOPLE ARE NOT ALLOWED TO PROTECT THEMSELVES. The burden of proof is on YOU, and your anti-gun brethren, to rationalize and research in proving otherwise. You have not done that, you just say "but."
The only words in your vocabulary seems to be "it's just so and don't you dare question it".
First thing: I said: show me a city of comparable size/density-of-population to DC which has guns-for-all laws and a lower-crime-rate. You've failed to do this.
Second thing: I'm not convinced that you're taking all the contextual factors into account. You seem to be being very simplistic. They change the laws - crime goes up. This could be like the situation in England where illegal gun purchases go up when hand-gun access was banned and therefore they flooded the market.
I don't know the mechanism so i need you to explain it to me: how did it work? All the guns people had didn't suddenly disappear did they! (were they requisitioned? That sounds unconstitutional/doubtful) So i assume it was just that to purchase one became more difficult. When did this happen - we might need to give it time, or adjust the system. You can't just say: guns-get-restricted/crime-goes-up. If you extended that as the be-all-and-end-all fact you treat it as, crime will go up exponentially. Is it still doing that? What's the current situation?
Now it becomes okay for Moore to twist his words because there is a fair amount of pro-gun "propoganda" he has to work against. I'm not sure the gun lobby uses propoganda. They are merely trying to defend the traditions that have been in place in this country for the last 227 years against knee-jerk, fascist blowhards who are afraid of guns and afraid of the 2nd amendment.
So suddenly your bombast becomes excusable, but his communication of facts through strong presentation is unacceptable (coz you disagree with his conclusions/theory)?
QUOTE=Karl Childers] It's an uphill battle against fear and loathing from the ever-increasing ignorance of the left. [/QUOTE]
:rotfl:
The facts and stats concerning the enirety of gun control are on the side of the pro-gun lobby, and Michael Moore has to make a twisted and deceptive product in order to make it more palatable to the masses. That's what it is.
Not so - certain facts like: the murder-rate versus other nations and the internal US acceptance of inexcusable international aggression and interference that causes more violence and instability are certainly true.
Many of your facts have been entirely spurious - and whether you realise it or not you are constantly spinning coz YOU won't accept their MIGHT be a problem with your stance. Keep painting your rhetoric pictures buddy.
Apologists like Golgot can SPIN out of control all they want, but it doesn't change the reality of the gun control issue, which is that gun control simply doesn't work. Not in this country.
And until Golgot or anyone else can prove what the real problems are in DC and other areas where there is high crime and tough gun laws, he will be doing nothing but blowin' smoke.
The problem in DC might be one of human nature combined with an acceptance of majority-gun-use as a norm. Why not address some of the CAUSES that make people act as they do? Do you live in a big city? Have you talked to members of it? What are their takes on the situation? I don't know - other than a few snippets in Moore's prog etc.[negative of course] - but I'd like to know. All you ever do is say there's only one solution - without investigating any of the others [but seeing as you can't make all the guns disappear i admit i'm not sure what that solution might be. New non-lethal weapons perhaps? (better than seeing them used for supressing peaceful protests etc) Ah well, not my problem ultimately, tho i am concerned]
I ain't apologsing for anything - i'm just trying to get to the bottom of things so i can make up my mind. You've already made yours up. Go lie in it ;)
Karl Childers
08-25-03, 09:16 PM
It appears Pidzilla has a point about me not taking the time to address some of his comments. I apologize. I did not ignore him because I was evading any of his debate, but rather because I found it more practical to riposte with the more prolific Golgot and MMoore, my time being limited.
At the risk of sounding lazy, I respectfully ask Pidzilla if he would take a little effort to raise the main points he would like for me to address. If he doesn't wish to, I understand. Perhaps they will be inadvertently addressed later in the thread, assuming it progresses much further.
However, I have repeated myself on several points when it appears my opposition doesn't always listen well.
says the man who misquotes or just doesn't understand my argument. Get your over-alls back on percentage-painter ;)
Since I guess I am included in "brethren"...
The problem with you is that you think that if you post a fact or some data on something you automatically think it is indisputable. The reason to why I left this discussion was not, if anyone thought so, that I felt I was "defeated". No, it was because even though I took time to respond to all your arguments, including most of your facts and data in the end of your post, you did not bother to respond to a single one of my arguments. Not one. So you posted a bunch of facts. Very well. I told you what I made out of those facts and you chose to ignore it. It sounds like it would have impressed you more if I had chosen to post an equal amount of data produced by the anti-gun side but without commenting or saying anything at all about your data (I actually did post some facts in an earlier post - which you also didn't comment on, you just posted some other facts. We could go on forever, you know).
In short, I find discussing with you as productive as talking to a wall. Enjoy the rest of the "debate".
Bye bye...
I know exaaaaaaaaactly how you feel. He hasn't come back on a single one of my points. Like talking to a brick wall with "I am right and that's that" written on it even :rolleyes: ;)
Karl Childers
08-26-03, 12:08 AM
I will attempt to "appease" Golgot yet again with some more facts. I did a little research to help answer his request about gun control laws in big cities, and if any cities with lax gun control are lower in crime.
Here are pretty much all of the major cities, although I might have missed a few. Below are the violent crime rates for each city, per 100,000. Violent crime includes murder, rape, robbery, and assault. The national average for each city, big and small, is 506.1, and no doubt this low figure comes from the hundreds of much smaller cities.
I am unaware of the degree of gun control in most of these areas, having found it almost impossible to find such information on the Google pages. Much of the cities are famous either way in terms of levels of gun control.
DC is 1,507.7; St Louis is 2,322.5; LA is 1,353; San Diego is 565.5; Philadelphia is 1,571.6; Pittsburgh is 928.7; Detroit is 2,274; Chicago is 1,630.6; Albany is 1,136.5; San Francisco is 851.6; Cincinatti is 800; Cleveland is 1,194; Miami is 2,017; Tampa is 2,073; Charlotte is 1,201.7; Atlanta is 2,743.1; Austin is 500.8; Dallas is 1,432.9; Denver is 544.4; Phoenix is 749.9; Tucson is 906.6; Las Vegas is 622.4; Baltimore is 2,469.8; Seattle is 787.8; Trenton is 1,575.6; Buffalo is 1,186.2; Boston is 1,282.6; Houston is 1,119.1; Memphis is 1,528.2; Indianapolis is 890.9; Milwaukee is 976.6.
The five worst cities—St. Louis, Detroit, Atlanta, Baltimore, Tampa: three of the five have very strict gun laws, 2 have moderate gun laws.
The five best cities—Las Vegas, Phoenix, Seattle, San Diego, Austin: have moderate to lax gun laws.
A quick perusal of the list above will generally indicate that the cities with greater control are the most violent, and vice versa.
Also, from IRSA:
Crime statistics released Monday by the Federal Bureau of
Investigation (FBI) suggest strongly that tough gun control laws
do little to curb violent crime.
According to the latest FBI Uniform Crime Reports, the U.S.
murder rate jumped 3.1 percent while forcible rapes inched up
0.2 percent. Overall, the U.S. crime rate climbed 2 percent.
Interestingly enough, cities having strict gun control laws saw
their respective crime rates jump well in excess of the national
average. For example:
-- In Boston, where the state legislature recently imposed the
most oppressive gun laws in the nation, the murder rate went up a
whopping 67 percent in 2001. Likewise, the rate of forcible rapes
went up 11 percent.
-- Buffalo, NY, also saw a 67 percent increase in its murder
rate and a 30 percent increase in its forcible rape rate in 2001.
New York politicians routinely boast about having some of the
toughest state gun control laws in the country.
-- Chicago not only outpaced the national average by posting a
5 percent increase in its murder rate, but the city remains the
odds-on favorite to capture the title of "Nation's Murder Capitol."
In Chicago, it's illegal for citizens to own defensive handguns.
The city's mayor, Richie Daley, is currently on a personal crusade
to ban civilian firearm ownership nationwide.
-- While liberal Coloradoans were busy penning legislation to
clamp down on law-abiding citizens attending gun shows, Denver
saw a 40 percent increase in its murder rate.
-- Hartford, Conn., suffered a 47 percent increase in its
murder rate and a 21 percent increase in its rape rate for 2001.
The Connecticut state legislature is busy competing with
Massachusetts for the title of being the least-friendly state
to law-abiding gun owners.
-- St. Louis, Mo., prides itself as being responsible for the
defeat of a recent statewide referendum that would have allowed
law-abiding citizens to carry defensive firearms. For 2001,
St. Louis saw a 19 percent increase in its murder rate and a
7 percent jump in rapes.
On the flip side, the gun control movement has long criticized
Florida for having "lax" gun control laws -- including concealed
carry. But, unlike cities in the "gun control belt," Miami's
murder and rape rates remained stable for 2001.
"The gun control movement continues to claim that banning
civilian firearm ownership is the key to eliminating violent
crime," commented ISRA president Richard Pearson. "These latest
FBI figures refute that claim. In places where law-abiding gun
owners are severely restricted, murders and rapes went way up.
In places where law-abiding citizens are allowed to defend
themselves, murders and rapes remained relatively stable."
"The bottom line is that gun control makes raping, robbing
and murdering much easier," continued Pearson. "Therefore,
people who oppose concealed carry are, for all practical
purposes, accessories to the assault, rape, and murder of
defenseless citizens. People who propose raising FOID card
fees are essentially setting poor people up for slaughter.
People who advocate firearm "waiting periods" are leaving
battered women defenseless against abusive males. And anyone
claiming that gun control makes our streets safer is either
greatly misinformed, or just a liar."
On to the banned MMoore. He asks, I don't believe what you just said, have you ever heard of the study you are twice as likely to kill a family member then an intruder.
I suppose he was too busy insulting other forum members (this guy has some serious issues) to read the debunking of the Kellerman study I posted not once, but twice.
I'm not sure the gun lobby uses propoganda. They are merely trying to defend the traditions that have been in place in this country for the last 227 years .
Karl I know you like guns etc, but I can't help myself, you say that the gun lobby doesn't use propoganda, It seems to me that you have bought it, you feel this desire to protect yourself from the marauding gun toting who ever, as mmoorefan pointed we are in more danger from family members, you better protect yourself now.
Just because something is a tradition does not mean it is right, Muslim girls are circumcised because it is tradition despite the mutilation etc, should we keep on doing it.
:eek:
Caitlyn
08-26-03, 02:10 AM
its been proven you are more likely to kill a family member with a gun in the household then to defend them.
I was going to leave this alone because MMooreFan had been banned but now I feel a need to make a few comments about this...
The studies dealing with household deaths are in error. None of the research in this area has actually inquired as to whose gun was used in the killing. Instead, if a household owned a gun, and someone in that household died as a result of a gunshot wound, the gun in the household was blamed. When you check the records, virtually all the killings were the result of a gun brought into the home by an intruder who murdered someone in the home.
Karl Childers
08-26-03, 02:25 AM
Karl I know you like guns etc, but I can't help myself, you say that the gun lobby doesn't use propoganda, It seems to me that you have bought it, you feel this desire to protect yourself from the marauding gun toting who ever,
I'm not sure what I've bought. I, personally, as I've already stated once, do not carry a gun. I personally do not feel the need to. However, I do not wish to restrict others who may want to do so.
Nebbit, there is no fear cultivated by the pro-gun crowd. None. They are merely trying to keep the tradition, the hobby alive...against some very irrational, terribly misinformed people who rely more on fear, loathing, ignorance, and knee-jerk reactions, than they do logic, common sense, and truth. The truth is out there. Don't allow yourself to be overwhelmed by those who seek a personal agenda or wish to foster a movement of fear and misconception.
Violent crime is real. It doesn't need to be sensationalized or exaggerated in order to make it known. The gun-rights lobbies have no need or desire to propogandize anything. The anti-gun lobbies have every reason to propogandize because the people know that violent crime is real and every one is a potential victim and that gun control DOES NOT WORK. It is very simple.
There are over 20,000 gun laws on the books right now and NONE of them do anything to stop violent crime. NONE.
as mmoorefan pointed we are in more danger from family members, you better protect yourself now.
The study is false, as I've already pointed out twice. Unless you grew up in a home where your father is a booger-eating, incenstuous monster who likes to threaten the mailman for trespassing and enjoys beating on your Mom for entertainment, then you are pretty safe.
Don't go around quoting MMoorefan, he is one mean-spirited little troll.
Just because something is a tradition does not mean it is right, Muslim girls are circumcised because it is tradition despite the mutilation etc, should we keep on doing it.
You are correct, Nebbit. Just because something is a tradition doesn't make it right. I agree. Some traditions are bad., such as female circumcision; and some traditions are good, such as the right to keep and bear arms in the USA. [I bet you are a real cutie. ;D]
As James Madison said, "Americans need not fear the federal government because they enjoy the advantage of being armed, which you possess over the people of almost every other nation." James Madison, "The Federalist 46 (1788).
James Madison is the father of the Constitution, in case anyone cares.
Karl Childers
08-26-03, 02:44 AM
Quick!
How many gun control advocates are featured on our nation's currency?
:D :D :D :D
[QUOTE=Karl Childers]I'm not sure what I've bought. I, personally, as I've already stated once, do not carry a gun. I personally do not feel the need to. However, I do not wish to restrict others who may want to do so.
_____________________________________________________________
**Sorry about that, must read better before I assume, my fault.**
_____________________________________________________________
Don't allow yourself to be overwhelmed by those who seek a personal agenda or wish to foster a movement of fear and misconception.
_____________________________________________________________
***No need to worry about me, not much overwhelms me***
_____________________________________________________________
Violent crime is real.
_____________________________________________________________
***I know it is I am a victim of it myself, it still doesn't think everyone should have the right to bears arms, how do you tell who is nasty etc***
_____________________________________________________________
The study is false, as I've already pointed out twice. Unless you grew up in a home where your father is a booger-eating, incenstuous monster who likes to threaten the mailman for trespassing and enjoys beating on your Mom for entertainment, then you are pretty safe.
_____________________________________________________________
***I wasn't quoting MMoorefan I was agreeing with him, as studies here show that also, how do you know if a study is false or not? Unfortunately a lot of people grow up in some terrible homes, I am glad I had a good home with loving parents.****
_____________________________________________________________
[I bet you are a real cutie. ;D]
____________________________________________________________
I am, for shore.
I think that one of the things that Michael Moore was trying to say with this film was that the media feeds on paranoia because sensationalism in the news is more profitable--more newsworthy. This contributes to setting up a cultural climate that puts the general population on edge--making them excessively nervous and trigger-happy for no apparent reason.
I think what Moore is arguing for is compassion in society in the face of ruthless corporate profiteering. This theme ties in with his earlier film, Roger and Me. It was particularly telling in the sequence where Moore organizes a group of Columbine survivors/victims and takes them to K-Mart to demand a halt on the sale of handgun ammunition.
Regarding Moore's portrayal of Charleton Heston--I agree that he went a little too far in demonizing a great thespian--a man that I, personally, admire and respect. However, quite apart from the fact that one's words can be taken out of context and distorted in the editing room (God knows that's happened to me any number of times ;)), what I find disturbing about Heston's conduct is the fact that he so prominently participated in NRA rallies so close on the heels of the Columbine shooting and then another underage shooting incident, and then he (seemingly) disdainfully refused to apologize to the concerned citizenry. I don't know what brought on such conduct on his part, and I am in no position to pass judgment on him, but I think it was somewhat reprehensible and Moore was justified in confronting him about it.
. However, quite apart from the fact that one's words can be taken out of context and distorted in the editing room (God knows that's happened to me any number of times ;)),
Nice to see you have resurfaced, I was interested in your post as I thought, he isn't raving about himself for once, until I hit this bit, just couldn't help yourself, GET OVER IT :scream:
Karl Childers
09-12-03, 12:39 AM
I think that one of the things that Michael Moore was trying to say with this film was that the media feeds on paranoia because sensationalism in the news is more profitable--more newsworthy. This contributes to setting up a cultural climate that puts the general population on edge--making them excessively nervous and trigger-happy for no apparent reason.
Really? You think maybe the gun control crowd might also use tactics of fear to further their agenda? Or do you think the NRA folks own the corner on that? Considering the enormous, historical trash heap of lies and deception the gun control movement has created over the years, I think their has been plenty of fear-mongering coming from the left-wing , prohibitionist side. Let's repeat that....prohibitionist.
We prohibit something when we are afraid of it. Whether or not it is moral or just to prohibit it, is another matter entirely. But prohibition means control, as in gun control.
Ask an entire stadium of gun control advocates whether or not they are afraid of guns, and you would be hard pressed to find one that says he is not. I'm not talking about a healthy fear, a respect; but an irrational fear of something which is unfamiliar and foreign to their sub-culture. Of course, not all gun control proponents are unfamiliar with guns, nor are they crippled with fear by them. But the majority of them certainly appear to be.
More unsettling than the fear and loathing of an inanimate object is the desire to control other people. Of course, this appears to be a Socialist/Fascist phenomenon. Many gun control advocates fear people, and are totally envious of those who are unafraid to defend themselves using lethal force. This envy frequently results in a desire to control those people, because we must all be on the same footing. We can't have people using lethal force to defend their property or themselves when others are too afraid to do this.
Gun control is all about fear, and all about controlling not only inanimate objects, but people-- entire sub-cultures of people. People who believe in the right to keep and bear arms-- without restriction-- and who celebrate this freedom by maintaining the shooting/hunting sports.
Django's quote is so ironic considering that the topic of this thread is Michael Moore's highly fictionalized mockumentary. Why did Moore have to twist his facts and alter his audio/footage if there is no fear mongering on his side?
I think what Moore is arguing for is compassion in society in the face of ruthless corporate profiteering. This theme ties in with his earlier film, Roger and Me. It was particularly telling in the sequence where Moore organizes a group of Columbine survivors/victims and takes them to K-Mart to demand a halt on the sale of handgun ammunition.
So you are saying Moore's pathetic stunt at K-Mart was more about squashing the big, mean Capitalist bully than it was about gun control? Not hardly. If he was truly concerned about the former, he would stop wearing cheap sneakers manufactured in filthy, third-world sweat shops. Wouldn't he?
Tackling something like that is too difficult, it requires too much effort. Moore prefers following around his prey with a cheap camera and a bunch of brainwashed groupies. Hunting down the likes of Ken Starr and that Roger dude provide instant cult power among the ignorant, socialist Left. Maximum exposure, minimum work. He's no dummy. I'll give him that.
So he takes his groupies to K-Mart to protest ammo sales. Meanwhile, K-Mart is sinking and Wal Mart is booming. :D :D :D (Wal Mart has a nice deal on 100 packs of .45 acp ammo if anyone is interested, btw. ;D)
what I find disturbing about Heston's conduct is the fact that he so prominently participated in NRA rallies so close on the heels of the Columbine shooting and then another underage shooting incident, and then he (seemingly) disdainfully refused to apologize to the concerned citizenry.
Did I miss something? Was Heston and the NRA responsible for Columbine or any other shooting? Either they were responsible, or they were not. If they were responsible for Columbine, please explain.
If they were not, then why would anyone expect them to change their schedule-- their agenda (since they are a LOBBY, don't forget)-- because of the oversensitivity and fear-mongering of their opposition?
Caitlyn
09-12-03, 01:37 AM
what I find disturbing about Heston's conduct is the fact that he so prominently participated in NRA rallies so close on the heels of the Columbine shooting and then another underage shooting incident, and then he (seemingly) disdainfully refused to apologize to the concerned citizenry. I don't know what brought on such conduct on his part, and I am in no position to pass judgment on him, but I think it was somewhat reprehensible and Moore was justified in confronting him about it.
Okay, just to set the record straight on this… following the Columbine shooting, the NRA cancelled all the events they had scheduled except for their annual business meeting that by law, had to be held… and this meeting had been scheduled several years before the shooting took place…
As far as the Flint shooting… the speech Heston gave there took place 8 months after the shooting and was at a “Get Out the Vote” rally… not an NRA rally… as a matter of fact, Michael Moore was there himself at the same time doing the same thing Heston was doing except he was holding rallies for Nadar’s party…
Given the facts, Heston had nothing to apologize for and as far as I am concerned, if any apologizes are in order, they should be made by Moore for assuming people were too ignorant to search out the truth for themselves…
Karl Childers
09-12-03, 02:56 AM
Given the facts, Heston had nothing to apologize for and as far as I am concerned, if any apologizes are in order, they should be made by Moore for assuming people were too ignorant to search out the truth for themselves…
Beautifully said. And SO true. :)
I still can't believe so many people have become brainwashed by this huckster. Michael Moore can't even take himself seriously. Why do others?
Really? You think maybe the gun control crowd might also use tactics of fear to further their agenda? Or do you think the NRA folks own the corner on that? Considering the enormous, historical trash heap of lies and deception the gun control movement has created over the years, I think their has been plenty of fear-mongering coming from the left-wing , prohibitionist side. Let's repeat that....prohibitionist.
We prohibit something when we are afraid of it. Whether or not it is moral or just to prohibit it, is another matter entirely. But prohibition means control, as in gun control.
Ask an entire stadium of gun control advocates whether or not they are afraid of guns, and you would be hard pressed to find one that says he is not. I'm not talking about a healthy fear, a respect; but an irrational fear of something which is unfamiliar and foreign to their sub-culture. Of course, not all gun control proponents are unfamiliar with guns, nor are they crippled with fear by them. But the majority of them certainly appear to be.
More unsettling than the fear and loathing of an inanimate object is the desire to control other people. Of course, this appears to be a Socialist/Fascist phenomenon. Many gun control advocates fear people, and are totally envious of those who are unafraid to defend themselves using lethal force. This envy frequently results in a desire to control those people, because we must all be on the same footing. We can't have people using lethal force to defend their property or themselves when others are too afraid to do this.
Gun control is all about fear, and all about controlling not only inanimate objects, but people-- entire sub-cultures of people. People who believe in the right to keep and bear arms-- without restriction-- and who celebrate this freedom by maintaining the shooting/hunting sports.
Django's quote is so ironic considering that the topic of this thread is Michael Moore's highly fictionalized mockumentary. Why did Moore have to twist his facts and alter his audio/footage if there is no fear mongering on his side?
Hey, I'm not trying to make a statement about gun control one way or the other. All I did was state my interpretive critical evaluation of Michael Moore's film!
So you are saying Moore's pathetic stunt at K-Mart was more about squashing the big, mean Capitalist bully than it was about gun control? Not hardly. If he was truly concerned about the former, he would stop wearing cheap sneakers manufactured in filthy, third-world sweat shops. Wouldn't he?
Tackling something like that is too difficult, it requires too much effort. Moore prefers following around his prey with a cheap camera and a bunch of brainwashed groupies. Hunting down the likes of Ken Starr and that Roger dude provide instant cult power among the ignorant, socialist Left. Maximum exposure, minimum work. He's no dummy. I'll give him that.
So he takes his groupies to K-Mart to protest ammo sales. Meanwhile, K-Mart is sinking and Wal Mart is booming. :D :D :D (Wal Mart has a nice deal on 100 packs of .45 acp ammo if anyone is interested, btw. ;D)
Again, I was only stating my critical evaluation of Moore's film and the message it conveys (to me). I'm not interested in getting into the gun control debate one way or the other, thanks!
Did I miss something? Was Heston and the NRA responsible for Columbine or any other shooting? Either they were responsible, or they were not. If they were responsible for Columbine, please explain.
If they were not, then why would anyone expect them to change their schedule-- their agenda (since they are a LOBBY, don't forget)-- because of the oversensitivity and fear-mongering of their opposition?
I didn't say that Heston was responsible for Columbine. I just think that it was in really bad taste to hold a gun rally immediately after a shooting incident like Columbine. Kind of like throwing a party on someone's grave. I just think that something like that reflects badly on Heston because it seems to suggest that he places no value on human life, and after all his moralistic posturing in his movies and real life, doing something like this conveys the image that he is completely insensitive to basic human concerns--as if his ivory-tower Hollywood lifestyle has cut him off from the basic interests of average people.
Okay, just to set the record straight on this… following the Columbine shooting, the NRA cancelled all the events they had scheduled except for their annual business meeting that by law, had to be held… and this meeting had been scheduled several years before the shooting took place…
As far as the Flint shooting… the speech Heston gave there took place 8 months after the shooting and was at a “Get Out the Vote” rally… not an NRA rally… as a matter of fact, Michael Moore was there himself at the same time doing the same thing Heston was doing except he was holding rallies for Nadar’s party…
Given the facts, Heston had nothing to apologize for and as far as I am concerned, if any apologizes are in order, they should be made by Moore for assuming people were too ignorant to search out the truth for themselves…
Well, if that's the case, that isn't the impression I got from watching the movie! Point is, Heston made his "cold dead hands" speech in an NRA rally in the vicinity of the Columbine shooting immediately following the incident, right? A rally that was picketed by victims of the shooting. Whether the rally was scheduled years in advance or not, the timing stank. The fact that a business meeting for the National Rifle Association could not be rescheduled or cancelled because of a shooting incident simply because it had been scheduled years before is a pretty shallow excuse in my opinion. And even if the meeting was held, what, in God's name, did Heston think he was doing making the "cold dead hands" speech with a rifle in his hands, no less! The timing stank so bad as to reflect on the possibility that Heston is completely insensitive to the concerns of the average populace--a populace scarred by a horrifying incident only recently. Sure, Heston had nothing to do with Columbine, but that doesn't excuse his behavior. Suppose, for example, a group of Muslims held a convention in New York city on September 12, 2001 in which the lead speaker openly expressed his support for Osama bin Laden and Al Quaeda, wouldn't they all be arrested on the spot? Even if they had nothing to do with 9/11 at all? The same principle applies to Heston's actions, I'd say. I never said he was at all responsible for Columbine, only that his actions in the wake of Columbine were seriously questionable and, if nothing else, extremely insensitive and heartless.
I'll leave it to Cait to correct what I'm pretty sure are many misconceptions on your part. I feel compelled to respond to this, however:Suppose, for example, a group of Muslims held a convention in New York city on September 12, 2001 in which the lead speaker openly expressed his support for Osama bin Laden and Al Quaeda, wouldn't they all be arrested on the spot? Even if they had nothing to do with 9/11 at all? The same principle applies to Heston's actions, I'd say. I never said he was at all responsible for Columbine, only that his actions in the wake of Columbine were seriously questionable and, if nothing else, extremely insensitive and heartless.That's an awful comparison. Heston saying that he doesn't intend to let the government ever take his gun away is nowhere near the same as publicly supporting genocidal maniacs. Owning a gun is not a crime. Flying a plane into a building is. Your analogy is stunningly invalid.
I'll leave it to Cait to correct what I'm pretty sure are many misconceptions on your part. I feel compelled to respond to this, however:That's an awful comparison. Heston saying that he doesn't intend to let the government ever take his gun away is nowhere near the same as publicly supporting genocidal maniacs. Owning a gun is not a crime. Flying a plane into a building is. Your analogy is stunningly invalid.
Oh, so I guess waving a gun in an NRA rally in the wake of the Columbine incident does not constitute expressing your support for homicidal maniacs? I think the analogy is dead on!
Monkeypunch
09-12-03, 10:32 PM
I'll leave it to Cait to correct what I'm pretty sure are many misconceptions on your part. I feel compelled to respond to this, however:That's an awful comparison. Heston saying that he doesn't intend to let the government ever take his gun away is nowhere near the same as publicly supporting genocidal maniacs. Owning a gun is not a crime. Flying a plane into a building is. Your analogy is stunningly invalid.
OMG, I actually agree with you on this one! :eek: D, That was the most jaw-droppingly retarded thing I've ever "heard" anyone say!
OMG, I actually agree with you on this one! :eek: D, That was the most jaw-droppingly retarded thing I've ever "heard" anyone say!
Like I said, I think my comparison is quite valid. An NRA convention in defiance of government gun control directly in the wake of a tragic shooting incident like Columbine, in which the "terrorists"--schoolkids--were expressing the same sort of anarchistic anti-authoritarian tendency as, for example, Timothy McVeigh and even the 9/11 terrorists--can definitely be analogized to a Muslim convention expressing support for Al Quaeda held directly in the wake of 9/11. Keep in mind that, as Moore's movie demonstrates, Heston hails from the same Michigan territory that is a stronghold for the nationalist militia that espouses anti-government paranoia and expresses violent anti-authoritarian tendencies--a group with connections with Timothy McVeigh. Now, considering that Heston, great man that he undeniably is, hails from that same region in Michigan, if you follow the same logic and imagine a famous Muslim from Kuwait or Afghanistan or even Iraq (although it has no proven connections with Al Quaeda or Bin Laden) making a public speech in defiance of US authority in New York, a couple of months after 9/11, can you imagine what the consequences of his actions would be? Undoubtedly, he would be arrested--if not publicly lynched! In any case, his actions would be severely criticized by any rational human being. Heck, there were Sikhs getting beaten up in Colorado and California simply because they wear turbans and sport beards kind of like Bin Laden! Despite the fact that they have no connection at all with terrorist extremists like Bin Laden! And, if I remember correctly, at the time, there was talk of retaliation agains Mexicans, for God's sake! There was no sense of proportion at all in those few months following 9/11--as if the entire nation had been taken over by hysteria and paranoia, losing all sense of proportion--a fact that, as I see it, is the only possible justification for the Iraq war--the only way that Bush could have gotten away with his invasion of Iraq and its 45 billion dollar price tag, in the face of a domestic economic recession, with no real solid basis or justification for his actions. Let's face it, the last couple of years, the US has been teetering on the brink of McCarthyism, and we're damn lucky that we didn't go as far as that, given the gravity of the situation back then!
Oh, so I guess waving a gun in an NRA rally in the wake of the Columbine incident does not constitute expressing your support for homicidal maniacs? I think the analogy is dead on!How does waving a gun around inherently express support for anything that is done with any other gun? The only thing they're supporting is the right to own guns. That's their entire reason for existing, in case you'd forgotten.
By your "logic" Ford should shut down any dealership in a town where someone's been hit by a Thunderbird. Get a grip. We don't close the deli when someone chokes on a piece of ham.
How does waving a gun around inherently express support for anything that is done with any other gun? The only thing they're supporting is the right to own guns. That's their entire reason for existing, in case you'd forgotten.
By your "logic" Ford should shut down any dealership in a town where someone's been hit by a Thunderbird. Get a grip. We don't close the deli when someone chokes on a piece of ham.
It's not the same thing at all. Columbine was fundamentally linked with the issue of gun control--namely the underaged getting their hands on guns and using them on innocent schoolkids. A problem that has been going on for some time in the US and came to a head with Columbine. As such, the NRA, by holding a rally in the wake of Columbine, was definitely making a political statement amounting to a total disregard for the humanity that paid the price with Columbine. Your analogies are way off, I'm afraid to say. Keep in mind that guns are weapons--instruments designed to kill or maim. Cars and food are quite the opposite. Accidental death is not the same as cold-blooded murder! By holding a gun rally in the wake of Columbine, the NRA was implicitly supporting the actions of the Columbine terrorists--namely, cold-blooded, deliberate murder.
Monkeypunch
09-12-03, 11:20 PM
It's not the same thing at all. Columbine was fundamentally linked with the issue of gun control--namely the underaged getting their hands on guns and using them on innocent schoolkids. A problem that has been going on for some time in the US and came to a head with Columbine. As such, the NRA, by holding a rally in the wake of Columbine, was definitely making a political statement amounting to a total disregard for the humanity that paid the price with Columbine. Your analogies are way off, I'm afraid to say. Keep in mind that guns are weapons--instruments designed to kill or maim. Cars and food are quite the opposite. Accidental death is not the same as cold-blooded murder! By holding a gun rally in the wake of Columbine, the NRA was implicitly supporting the actions of the Columbine terrorists--namely, cold-blooded, deliberate murder.
I'm surprising myself by agreeing with Yoda here, yet again...
Was it really the appropriate time or place? Probably not, but they weren't supporting the murder of kids! Do you even listen to the words that come out of your mouth? Yeah, maybe they should have expressed their sympathy towards the parents and loved ones of the folks that were killed, and yeah, they really should have postponed it to a later date, or even moved it, but all their "Guilty" of is insensitivity. You're implying that all gun owners are secretly violent maniacs, which is an unfortunate and untrue generalization.
I'm surprising myself by agreeing with Yoda here, yet again...
Was it really the appropriate time or place? Probably not, but they weren't supporting the murder of kids! Do you even listen to the words that come out of your mouth? Yeah, maybe they should have expressed their sympathy towards the parents and loved ones of the folks that were killed, and yeah, they really should have postponed it to a later date, or even moved it, but all their "Guilty" of is insensitivity. You're implying that all gun owners are secretly violent maniacs, which is an unfortunate and untrue generalization.
Give me a break! Let's suppose, hypothetically, one of your close family members was gunned down in cold blood by some crazed Korean. Then imagine if the very next day, a group of gun-toting Koreans invaded your home and held a convention advocating their right to bear arms in defiance of government gun-control. I wonder what your response would be!
Monkeypunch
09-12-03, 11:39 PM
Give me a break! Let's suppose, hypothetically, one of your close family members was gunned down in cold blood by some crazed Korean. Then imagine if the very next day, a group of gun-toting Koreans invaded your home and held a convention advocating their right to bear arms in defiance of government gun-control. I wonder what your response would be!
Why Koreans? Do you not like Koreans? My aunt is Korean, Do you have something against my aunt? Are you a racist?
But I digress. Yes, it was offensive and inappropriate, I clearly stated that. What you are saying is that they were there in support of the killers, which they weren't. That was your idea alone. Even Michael moore wasn't making that leap, if you actually paid attention! His point, and it's the same point I've been making, was that it was insensitive, not that the NRA were showing solidarity with the two f*ckwits who did the shootings! How can I explain this in words small enough for you to comprehend? The fact that you only hear what you want to hear makes you just as bad as the folks you condemn.
Why Koreans? Do you not like Koreans? My aunt is Korean, Do you have something against my aunt? Are you a racist?
But I digress. Yes, it was offensive and inappropriate, I clearly stated that. What you are saying is that they were there in support of the killers, which they weren't. That was your idea alone. Even Michael moore wasn't making that leap, if you actually paid attention! His point, and it's the same point I've been making, was that it was insensitive, not that the NRA were showing solidarity with the two f*ckwits who did the shootings! How can I explain this in words small enough for you to comprehend? The fact that you only hear what you want to hear makes you just as bad as the folks you condemn.
I have nothing against Koreans or anyone else. No, I'm not a racist. I just picked Koreans as an arbitrary group of people, but my example is in no way ethnically based. My point applies to any group of people.
Regarding expressing one's support, what I said was that the actions of Heston and the NRA implicitly (i.e. not explicitly) constituted the expression of support for the Columbine terrorists. I did not say there was any connection--just that it was so offensive as to go as far as to constitute implicit support. It was more like an analogy than a statement of fact--what I meant to say was that the actions of the NRA and Heston were so offensive that it was like supporting the Columbine terrorists. It was like an implicit show of solidarity with the Columbine shooters.
About the rest of your old, tired refrain, frankly, I've grown pretty tired of hearing that old song endlessly, especially since it has absolutely no connection with the sort of person I am.
I will attempt to "appease" Golgot yet again with some more facts.
You'd start to actually appease me if you'd engage with the problems facing some of your more methodologically-misguided facts
I am unaware of the degree of gun control in most of these areas, having found it almost impossible to find such information on the Google pages. Much of the cities are famous either way in terms of levels of gun control.
Well, unfortunately we need that to judge the overall figures (and the fame of these cities' gun status hasn't quite drifted as far as britland i'm afraid ;)). The next little examples are intriguing tho...
The five worst cities—St. Louis, Detroit, Atlanta, Baltimore, Tampa: three of the five have very strict gun laws, 2 have moderate gun laws.
The five best cities—Las Vegas, Phoenix, Seattle, San Diego, Austin: have moderate to lax gun laws.
A quick perusal of the list above will generally indicate that the cities with greater control are the most violent, and vice versa.
Yes and no.
A slightly slower perusal seems to suggest that: two of the worst cities have MODERATE guns laws i.e. wishy washy neither-here-nor-there laws. Easily bypassable laws possibly. Either way, they also exist in some of the best cities.
So what, two? in each case? Are of the corresponding extreme you say causes each situation.
To be mollified i'd need to know that there weren't extenuating circumstances in the cities. i.e.
...are any of the violent ones on drug routes or in other situations equally geographically/socially liable to heightened criminal activity.
....are the more violent cities poorer over all (have a bigger poverty gap etc)
....do the better cities have exceptional/novel social setups i.e. Las Vegas has an ever changing society (with lots of holdiay-makers) in the middle of the desert and lots of security (doesn't it?). These seem like conditions which only add up to entrenched crimes of the gambling/swindling nature more than street-gang/breaking-and-entering/established-contacts/buyer-drug-dealing culture. Perhaps.
[and as for Seattle - everyone i've met from there has been so endearingly slow in every aspect, that by the time they'd decided to hold someone up, or even obeyed a provoked/uncontrolled urge to violence, someone else could've taken the gun, carried them to a bar, bought them a drink and asked them all about it (and then waited half an hour for a reply ;) - soz y'all from seattle, just my experience ;))]
Gotta go do stuff now - if anything else rings true or seems skewed to me amongst the rest i'll be sure to get back to you ;)
Caitlyn
09-13-03, 04:30 PM
Well, if that's the case, that isn't the impression I got from watching the movie!
“I still can't believe so many people have become brainwashed by this huckster. Michael Moore can't even take himself seriously. Why do others?” ~ Karl Childers
Point is, Heston made his "cold dead hands" speech in an NRA rally in the vicinity of the Columbine shooting immediately following the incident, right?
Wrong… if you watch the movie again, you might notice Heston is wearing two entirely different suits in those opening shots… the fact of the matter is that the “Cold Dead Hands” scene happened over a year after Columbine in North Carolina when Heston was given a musket as a gift and he raised it above his head and said, “from my cold dead hands” as a show of appreciation for the gift… quiet a bit of difference between that and what Moore tried to make it out to be…
A rally that was picketed by victims of the shooting.
Anytime there is a tragedy like Columbine, people want to find someone or something to blame… makes it easier for them to look in the mirror… I personally find it a bit interesting that Denver’s Mayor, Marion Webb, was the main instigator inciting anger against the NRA… and then was elected on May 4, 1999, 13 days following the shooting, to his 3rd term in office…
And even if the meeting was held, what, in God's name, did Heston think he was doing making the "cold dead hands" speech with a rifle in his hands, no less!
I addressed this above…
The timing stank so bad as to reflect on the possibility that Heston is completely insensitive to the concerns of the average populace--a populace scarred by a horrifying incident only recently. Sure, Heston had nothing to do with Columbine, but that doesn't excuse his behavior.
1) By Wednesday, the 22st of April, 1999... all billboards advertising the NRA’s convention had been taken down surrounding Denver at the request of the NRA.
2) In a letter to NRA members Wednesday, President Charlton Heston and the group's executive vice president, Wayne LaPierre, said all seminars, workshops, luncheons, exhibits by gun makers and other vendors, and festivities are canceled. All that was left was their annual meeting, set for 10 a.m. May 1 in the Colorado Convention Center. Under its bylaws and New York state law, the NRA must hold their annual meeting.
"The tragedy in Littleton last Tuesday calls upon us to take steps, along with dozens of other planned public events, to modify our schedule to show our profound sympathy and respect for the families and communities in the Denver area in their time of great loss," ~ Charlton Heston and Wayne LaPierre
Columbine was fundamentally linked with the issue of gun control--namely the underaged getting their hands on guns and using them on innocent schoolkids.
The guns used at Columbine were illegally obtained by two underage teens who were already on probation for criminal acts… and not once have I heard anything about a push to review much less change any of the criminal probation laws… instead everyone’s solution was to push for another gun law…
Like I said, I think my comparison is quite valid. An NRA convention in defiance of government gun control
Your comparison stinks… and would you mind explaining how the NRA convention was in defiance of government gun control?
Wrong… if you watch the movie again, you might notice Heston is wearing two entirely different suits in those opening shots… the fact of the matter is that the “Cold Dead Hands” scene happened over a year after Columbine in North Carolina when Heston was given a musket as a gift and he raised it above his head and said, “from my cold dead hands” as a show of appreciation for the gift… quiet a bit of difference between that and what Moore tried to make it out to be…____________________________________________________________
Thanks Cait for your balance point of view, and also explaining
the dead hands thing.
____________________________________________________________
Anytime there is a tragedy like Columbine, people want to find someone or something to blame… makes it easier for them to look in the mirror…
____________________________________________________________
The same thing happens here in Australia, everything is blamed
except the people who do the crime.
____________________________________________________________
The guns used at Columbine were illegally obtained by two underage teens who were already on probation for criminal acts… and not once have I heard anything about a push to review much less change any of the criminal probation laws…
_____________________________________________________________
Agreed, it must be hard for the police when they do their job and the
courts let a lot of offenders out to re-offend, sometimes the next day.
Thanks again Cait. :yup:
“I still can't believe so many people have become brainwashed by this huckster. Michael Moore can't even take himself seriously. Why do others?” ~ Karl Childers
Hmm... I'm not sure what your quoting Karl Childers hopes to achieve other than expressing one person's subjective opinion! Personally, I think Michael Moore is an excellent and insightful satirist, and his voice is very much needed in our world today.
Wrong… if you watch the movie again, you might notice Heston is wearing two entirely different suits in those opening shots… the fact of the matter is that the “Cold Dead Hands” scene happened over a year after Columbine in North Carolina when Heston was given a musket as a gift and he raised it above his head and said, “from my cold dead hands” as a show of appreciation for the gift… quiet a bit of difference between that and what Moore tried to make it out to be…
I'll have to double-check that. From what I made out from the movie, 10 days after Columbine, the NRA held a huge gun rally in Denver, in which Charleton Heston made some pretty prominent speeches. Whether the footage shown in the movie is taken from a later event or not, I will have to study the film again to ascertain. I still think that it was a pretty shameful thing for the NRA to hold a gun rally in Denver just 10 days after Columbine.
Anytime there is a tragedy like Columbine, people want to find someone or something to blame… makes it easier for them to look in the mirror… I personally find it a bit interesting that Denver’s Mayor, Marion Webb, was the main instigator inciting anger against the NRA… and then was elected on May 4, 1999, 13 days following the shooting, to his 3rd term in office…
I think the whole point of the movie was about trying to figure out what led up to the events in Columbine High School. If you watch the movie carefully, it's pretty clear that Michael Moore relates it to the culture of violence in our society in all its forms, a culture that the media and corporations apparently feed on motivated by profit.
1) By Wednesday, the 22st of April, 1999... all billboards advertising the NRA’s convention had been taken down surrounding Denver at the request of the NRA.
2) In a letter to NRA members Wednesday, President Charlton Heston and the group's executive vice president, Wayne LaPierre, said all seminars, workshops, luncheons, exhibits by gun makers and other vendors, and festivities are canceled. All that was left was their annual meeting, set for 10 a.m. May 1 in the Colorado Convention Center. Under its bylaws and New York state law, the NRA must hold their annual meeting.
"The tragedy in Littleton last Tuesday calls upon us to take steps, along with dozens of other planned public events, to modify our schedule to show our profound sympathy and respect for the families and communities in the Denver area in their time of great loss," ~ Charlton Heston and Wayne LaPierre
I'm not sure that these conciliatory gestures excuse holding a massive gun rally in Denver 10 days after the incident. I hardly think that it is plausible that New York State law requires the NRA to hold their annual meeting! At the very least, the meeting could have been rescheduled and/or resituated. To hold a huge gun rally in Denver, Co., 10 days after the Columbine shootings is inexcusable, however you may try to justify it!
The guns used at Columbine were illegally obtained by two underage teens who were already on probation for criminal acts… and not once have I heard anything about a push to review much less change any of the criminal probation laws… instead everyone’s solution was to push for another gun law…
So what, exactly, is your point? The fact is that, as Michael Moore showed in his film, the ammunition for the shootings was purchased legitimately from K-Mart! The fact that ammunition was so readily available made it that much easier for these kids to acquire the materials they needed to commit their criminal acts. The fact that guns are so easily accessible in the US (as Mike showed in the film, he gets a free gun from a bank upon opening a bank account!) makes it that much easier for kids and psychos to acquire them. Michael Moore is trying to say that something needs to be done about this. He also portrays the Michigan militia in his movie and depicts their anti-authoritarian, even anarchistic, violent tendencies--tendencies which apparently influenced Timothy McVeigh to carry out the Oklahoma city bombing. It all ties in to the culture of violence in the US that makes incidents like these possible--that's what Michael Moore attempts to address in his movie. That's the whole point of the movie.
Your comparison stinks… and would you mind explaining how the NRA convention was in defiance of government gun control?
Well, I think it was pretty obvious that the whole point of the NRA convention was to express their opposition (i.e. defiance) to government gun control! At least, that's the impression I got from the movie, but correct me if I'm wrong.
Karl Childers
09-15-03, 09:50 PM
To be mollified i'd need to know that there weren't extenuating circumstances in the cities. i.e.
I'm simply stating some statistics. You wanted stats, I gave them to you. No more, though. You can do your own research and mollify yourself. And, as I've already stated, of course there are extenuating circumstances in every statistical case study. The point is that crime is caused by many factors. Guns don't create crime, they are merely a tool used in a crime. The gun control crowd has a difficult time understanding this. But you wanted your cheesy facts, because you couldn't hold your own, rhetorically. I gave you some stats, and you want to know about the complete and total reality of every city.
You are not worth any more of my time.
...are any of the violent ones on drug routes or in other situations equally geographically/socially liable to heightened criminal activity.
....are the more violent cities poorer over all (have a bigger poverty gap etc)
....do the better cities have exceptional/novel social setups i.e. Las Vegas has an ever changing society (with lots of holdiay-makers) in the middle of the desert and lots of security (doesn't it?). These seem like conditions which only add up to entrenched crimes of the gambling/swindling nature more than street-gang/breaking-and-entering/established-contacts/buyer-drug-dealing culture. Perhaps.
[and as for Seattle - everyone i've met from there has been so endearingly slow in every aspect, that by the time they'd decided to hold someone up, or even obeyed a provoked/uncontrolled urge to violence, someone else could've taken the gun, carried them to a bar, bought them a drink and asked them all about it (and then waited half an hour for a reply ;) - soz y'all from seattle, just my experience ;))]
Total drivel.
Karl Childers
09-15-03, 10:52 PM
Personally, I think Michael Moore is an excellent and insightful satirist, and his voice is very much needed in our world today.
Being a satirist is one thing. Intentionally baiting subjects, altering his technical work to present something totally separate from the actual message, and winning an academy award for best documentary goes far beyond satire. Michael Moore is not a satirist, but a world class liar and manipulator. For every one website supporting his despicable stunts, there are four or five exposing him for the charlatan he is. Will Rogers was a satirist; Michael Moore is a conniving con-artist. Know the difference!
I'll have to double-check that. From what I made out from the movie, 10 days after Columbine, the NRA held a huge gun rally in Denver, in which Charleton Heston made some pretty prominent speeches. Whether the footage shown in the movie is taken from a later event or not, I will have to study the film again to ascertain.
Don't bother rotting your brain on another viewing of his bile. Just read this:
The distortion is nauseatingly extreme. Heston's "cold dead hands" speech, which leads off Moore's depiction of the Denver meeting, was not given at Denver in defiance to Columbine. It was given a year later in Charlotte, North Carolina, and was his gesture of gratitude upon being given the handmade musket he's holding, at that annual meeting. A key word there is 'annual.' Although Moore successfully makes it appear that Heston has held the rally in response to the Columbine massacre - this wasn't the case.
The portrayal is that the line is made in defiance of Columbine while at an insensitive rally in Michigan, when it's actually a thank-you speech given a year later in North Carolina. It was a statement to reaffirm the right to own firearms, no different than saying the same thing with a steak raised over your head to show opposition to fanatical groups like PETA. It had nothing to do with any tragic event.
---from Richard Bushnell, www.bowlingfortruth.com
Believe it now, Django?
I still think that it was a pretty shameful thing for the NRA to hold a gun rally in Denver just 10 days after Columbine.
Well, I guarantee the millions of people in this country who are strong supporters of the 2nd amendment will heartily disagree with you. The NRA was simply keeping to schedule, and considering that opposition to the 2nd amendment was so high following the tragedy, it made perfect sense to remain vigilant and re-assert our Consitutional right.
I'm not sure that these conciliatory gestures excuse holding a massive gun rally in Denver 10 days after the incident. I hardly think that it is plausible that New York State law requires the NRA to hold their annual meeting! At the very least, the meeting could have been rescheduled and/or resituated. To hold a huge gun rally in Denver, Co., 10 days after the Columbine shootings is inexcusable, however you may try to justify it!
That's just your opinion. It's an emotional opinion, too. It's emotional because the NRA and the right to keep and bear arms have absolutely no connection to the Columbine incident. NONE.
By perhaps pure luck, or the gracious will of God, the propane bombs the killers planted the night before the shootings fortunately didn't go off. The death toll could very well have been over a hundred if they did.
And I suppose the National Propane Fuel Dealer's Association shouldn't have been held in Colorado within a month of the tragedy, had those tanks gone off???
The fact is that, as Michael Moore showed in his film, the ammunition for the shootings was purchased legitimately from K-Mart!
So what? K-Mart has for years sold firearms, ammunition, and hunting gear. I suppose K-Mart shouldn't cater to sub-cultures that you and other liberals find uncomfortable. Too bad.
A couple of nut-job kids who spent the majority of their time listening to violent music and watching violent movies and playing violent video games while their parents didn't give a rat's ass about them, are the PROBLEM. Selling ammunition at K-Mart within the context of the laws is perfectly legal and constitutional. If K-Mart didn't sell ammo, the kids would simply have walked into a sporting goods store and purchased it there. BIG FREAKING DEAL.
The fact that guns are so easily accessible in the US (as Mike showed in the film, he gets a free gun from a bank upon opening a bank account!)
So easily brainwashed, huh? Why is that more easily accessible than a more conventional firearms purchase? As with the rest of his fictitious film, Moore purposely created many deceptions in this scene to create this ridiculous impression that anyone can walk in and buy a gun and walk out without any standard restrictions. Not hardly.
All background checks are performed at the bank, just like anywhere else. A $1,000 deposit must be made. I'm sure your typical mass murderer would do that. There are no guns at the bank; they are at a vault and the bank customer picks it up at a licensed federal firearms dealer. You were duped again, Django!
He also portrays the Michigan militia in his movie and depicts their anti-authoritarian, even anarchistic, violent tendencies--tendencies which apparently influenced Timothy McVeigh to carry out the Oklahoma city bombing. It all ties in to the culture of violence in the US that makes incidents like these possible--that's what Michael Moore attempts to address in his movie.
Ha ha ha ha.....How hilarious! Michael Moore found the most threatening, dumb-ass booger eating cavemen he could find, and filmed them. Presto!!! All gun owners are threatening dumb-ass booger eating cavemen who fear and loathe the government. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Did you ever stop to question why Moore didn't interview any normal people? Of course not.
I can't believe how easily swayed people like you are. Have you ever known any real gun owners? Probably not. Open your mind and think for yourself, for crying out loud. CELEBRATE DIVERSITY. :D
Please, Michael Moore, interview me. Please.
That's the whole point of the movie.
The point of the movie was to fool the fence-sitters, affirm the liberal, anti-2nd amendment crowd, and BS the Euro-trash elite at Cannes, all the while crapping on the United States and the most important right we have. That was the point.
And, in refererence to all the posters who are convinced that Moore is correct in his OPINION that the US is generally a fearful nation, I found this brilliant gem at the bowlingfortruth website. I also had thought of this, but forgot to mention it earlier. It sums it up perfectly and so easily refutes Moore's rhetorical BS:
Moore claims that excessive coverage of gun violence by the media makes Americans scared of each other and therefore more violent. This circular argument doesn't make any sense either. On the one hand, Moore has made an entire film purporting to investigate why the U.S. has the highest rate of gun violence in the developed world. He then attempts to answer the question by theorizing that the media provides too much coverage of gun violence, causing citizens to fear each other. But now wait just a darn second here -- If gun violence is really so bad, shouldn't the media be covering it and don't citizens have something to be afraid of? Or on the other hand -- if the media is indeed over-covering the issue and America is safer than we think, why did Moore make this film?
---Richard Bushnell, www.bowlingfortruth.com
Oh, I know Michael. We have the highest rate of gun deaths because we are a nation that fears too much our highest rate of gun death because we are a nation that fears too much our highest rate of gun death.......................... :idea:
And, in refererence to all the posters who are convinced that Moore is correct in his OPINION that the US is generally a fearful nation, I found this brilliant gem at the bowlingfortruth website. I also had thought of this, but forgot to mention it earlier. It sums it up perfectly and so easily refutes Moore's rhetorical BS:
Moore claims that excessive coverage of gun violence by the media makes Americans scared of each other and therefore more violent. This circular argument doesn't make any sense either. On the one hand, Moore has made an entire film purporting to investigate why the U.S. has the highest rate of gun violence in the developed world. He then attempts to answer the question by theorizing that the media provides too much coverage of gun violence, causing citizens to fear each other. But now wait just a darn second here -- If gun violence is really so bad, shouldn't the media be covering it and don't citizens have something to be afraid of? Or on the other hand -- if the media is indeed over-covering the issue and America is safer than we think, why did Moore make this film?
---Richard Bushnell, http://www.bowlingfortruth.com
Good point...there's a blatant contradiction there.
Anyway, I found one of the men Moore interviewed, Barry Glassner (author of Culture of Fear), to be stunningly ignorant of what should be incredibly simple concepts. He cited as evidence of his theory, for example, the fact that murders have gone down, but news coverage of murders have gone up.
About half a minute's analysis should yield problems with this line of thinking. Glassner has things completely backwards: common things do not make the news. Rare ones do. Of course we'll see an increase in news coverage on violent murders at the same time the frequency of said murders is going down...if they're more commonplace, they're not news. You never see "Man Buys Hat" on the front page. Gun deaths in Britain are rare, and consequently it makes a great deal of news when one takes place. By Glassner's logic, that means they are also operating within a "culture of fear."
More accurately, however, is that their media (and ours) is behaving exactly the way you would expect it to: by reporting the things that are interesting and/or uncommon. Glassner's point seems to hinge on the assumption that the news can simply cease to exist, but they have to lead with SOMETHING, and if violent murder is rare, it's to be expected that more attention will be paid to it when it takes place.
Karl Childers
09-16-03, 02:41 AM
That's good stuff, Yoda. So true.
Critical thinking is important. I'm baffled there are so many Bowling For Columbine fans, and they apparently have a hard time with such a thing.
You guys raise some valid issues, and, at some point, I will definitely address them in depth. But I must interject about one issue here. I see where you're coming from, Yoda, and you raise a valid issue. However, the point I think Michael Moore was trying to make when interviewing Barry Glassner was, simply put, that the media thrives on sensationalism--whatever sells--the motive, of course, being profit. As such, it tends to paint a distorted picture of reality by, for example, overblowing a single story and harping on it endlessly. You see this all the time in CNN--they take one story and harp on and on about it for days on end--blowing it way out of proportion. This creates a distorted impression of the world we live in in the mind of the TV viewer, perpetuating fear through misinformation in ignorance. I believe the example that Glassner cites in the movie is that of the site of the LA riots. He says that in the minds of most white Americans, walking through the site of the LA riots means that you are sure to get killed. The reality, however, is far from that. What happens is that a single event gets so ingrained in the popular consciousness thanks to it being blown out of proportion by the news media that the venue that the event occurred becomes perceived as unsafe. The truth is that the neighborhood is no different than any other--it just happened to be the venue of a tragic incident at one time that was blown way out of proportion by the media. I think this is what Glassner refers to when he talks about the culture of fear--the media feeding on popular fears by distorting the truth purely from the point of view of saleability rather than responsible journalism. The result being that this sort of fear-mongering paints a distorted perception of reality in the minds of the population at large, perpetuting ignorance and paranoia--the same sort of paranoia that unscrupulous war-mongers like George W. Bush exploit to further their militant political agenda.
Piddzilla
09-16-03, 07:42 AM
Good point...there's a blatant contradiction there.
Anyway, I found one of the men Moore interviewed, Barry Glassner (author of Culture of Fear), to be stunningly ignorant of what should be incredibly simple concepts. He cited as evidence of his theory, for example, the fact that murders have gone down, but news coverage of murders have gone up.
About half a minute's analysis should yield problems with this line of thinking. Glassner has things completely backwards: common things do not make the news. Rare ones do. Of course we'll see an increase in news coverage on violent murders at the same time the frequency of said murders is going down...if they're more commonplace, they're not news. You never see "Man Buys Hat" on the front page. Gun deaths in Britain are rare, and consequently it makes a great deal of news when one takes place. By Glassner's logic, that means they are also operating within a "culture of fear."
More accurately, however, is that their media (and ours) is behaving exactly the way you would expect it to: by reporting the things that are interesting and/or uncommon. Glassner's point seems to hinge on the assumption that the news can simply cease to exist, but they have to lead with SOMETHING, and if violent murder is rare, it's to be expected that more attention will be paid to it when it takes place.
So, what you are saying is that if in one year one hispanic guy killed another man while a thousand white guys killed a thousand other men, the media should cover the murder involving a hispanic guy only because that one was more uncommon?
You are distorting the role that media should have. The lower the murder rate in a neighborhood the more important to cover the actual murders?? What is the news here? The murders or the fact that the murder rate is going down? The downgoing rate. What is the media choosing to cover? The murders!
The fact that violent crimes is going up in white areas in USA while it is going down in black areas (or was it hispanic? It was long ago since I saw the film) came as a surprise to me. It was NEWS to me. But even though this was clearly news the media chose to not tell the public about it, but instead chose to follow the old tracks: selling blood and violence to the public.
I recommend Pierre Bourdieu's excellent book On Television to anyone here. It is quite an eyeopener even though he can annoy the **** out of you sometime.
He talks a lot about sensationalism and news that are really unimportant to the reader/viewer but is still favoured over the things that really affect our lives because the unimportant news involves more gore or sensationalism. I.e., the messy details of a murder wins over that new law anyday.
The role of the media should not be to report about the most "ucommon" and sensational stuff. It should be to report about the most important stuff. Its role should be to educate and inform, not to entertain or just astonish.
Right on, Piddzilla! :yup:
You guys raise some valid issues, and, at some point, I will definitely address them in depth. But I must interject about one issue here. I see where you're coming from, Yoda, and you raise a valid issue. However, the point I think Michael Moore was trying to make when interviewing Barry Glassner was, simply put, that the media thrives on sensationalism--whatever sells--the motive, of course, being profit. As such, it tends to paint a distorted picture of reality by, for example, overblowing a single story and harping on it endlessly. You see this all the time in CNN--they take one story and harp on and on about it for days on end--blowing it way out of proportion. This creates a distorted impression of the world we live in in the mind of the TV viewer, perpetuating fear through misinformation in ignorance. I believe the example that Glassner cites in the movie is that of the site of the LA riots. He says that in the minds of most white Americans, walking through the site of the LA riots means that you are sure to get killed. The reality, however, is far from that. What happens is that a single event gets so ingrained in the popular consciousness thanks to it being blown out of proportion by the news media that the venue that the event occurred becomes perceived as unsafe. The truth is that the neighborhood is no different than any other--it just happened to be the venue of a tragic incident at one time that was blown way out of proportion by the media. I think this is what Glassner refers to when he talks about the culture of fear--the media feeding on popular fears by distorting the truth purely from the point of view of saleability rather than responsible journalism. The result being that this sort of fear-mongering paints a distorted perception of reality in the minds of the population at large, perpetuting ignorance and paranoia--the same sort of paranoia that unscrupulous war-mongers like George W. Bush exploit to further their militant political agenda.I don't see how this is in any way a response to what I've said. You're just stating Glassner's position again, which I am already familiar with.
So, what you are saying is that if in one year one hispanic guy killed another man while a thousand white guys killed a thousand other men, the media should cover the murder involving a hispanic guy only because that one was more uncommon?
No, because it's not an absolute. It's a general principle, and a perfectly sensible one, too.
You are distorting the role that media should have. The lower the murder rate in a neighborhood the more important to cover the actual murders?? What is the news here? The murders or the fact that the murder rate is going down? The downgoing rate. What is the media choosing to cover? The murders!You arbitrarily state that the downgoing rate is news. Why? Both are news, and I see no compelling argument as for why the rate drop should be the lead story. Besides: what are they going to do? Lead with the same story every night? "The murder rate is still low"? That's not news.
I think you're complicating a relatively simple issue. If you look at a local newspaper in a small town, you'll probably find articles making a big deal out of little things. Op-eds about a pothole in main street, or a local outcry when some teenager steals a pack of gum. This has nothing to do with sensationalism, and everything to do with relativity: folks in areas like that don't see much major crime, so their standard as to what constitutes "news" is different. By your logic, this makes them fear-mongering sensationalists.
The fact that violent crimes is going up in white areas in USA while it is going down in black areas (or was it hispanic? It was long ago since I saw the film) came as a surprise to me. It was NEWS to me. But even though this was clearly news the media chose to not tell the public about it, but instead chose to follow the old tracks: selling blood and violence to the public.I don't recall hearing that, but even if I were to concede it, I don't see much evidence for the claim that "the media chose to not tell the public about it." If you mean that they're not shouting it from the rooftops day and night, then I suppose you're right, but I think you're exaggerating heavily with the implication that such things are simply ignored.
He talks a lot about sensationalism and news that are really unimportant to the reader/viewer but is still favoured over the things that really affect our lives because the unimportant news involves more gore or sensationalism. I.e., the messy details of a murder wins over that new law anyday.
The role of the media should not be to report about the most "ucommon" and sensational stuff. It should be to report about the most important stuff. Its role should be to educate and inform, not to entertain or just astonish.The media is nothing more or less than a reflection of our society. If they truly are concerned with nothing but profit, then you can hardly blame them for giving us precisely what it is we want. The alcoholic, not the bartender, bears most of the responsibility for his condition.
I'm sure sensationalism plays a part, but there is no "culture of fear," and there is no grand conspiracy to frighten the American people with something that isn't there, either. Hell, Moore contradicts himself in that manner, as well. He talks about how we're too afraid of everything, and then proceeds to list the things we really should be afraid of. Huh?
I'm simply stating some statistics. You wanted stats, I gave them to you. No more, though. You can do your own research and mollify yourself. And, as I've already stated, of course there are extenuating circumstances in every statistical case study. The point is that crime is caused by many factors. Guns don't create crime, they are merely a tool used in a crime. The gun control crowd has a difficult time understanding this. But you wanted your cheesy facts, because you couldn't hold your own, rhetorically. I gave you some stats, and you want to know about the complete and total reality of every city.
You are not worth any more of my time.
Total drivel.
Listen mate, it's your country. I'm just trying to get to the bottom of matters, not float on the surface thinking that scattering unexamined stats around solves anything just coz they appear to back up your point of view. Which, despite all your investigations, is what you do. I asked for CONTEXTUALISED facts, not more random and unexamined facts, which is what you gave me.
I'm very much undecided on the whole issue of what might be best for your country at this point in time. My suspicion is that some of your arguments may be in the right area, but your approach and attitude are ****ed-up and are detrimental to any effective and flexible long term addressing of the issue.
Your still worth my time, i just pity the others around you, gun or no gun ;)
NB - despite your simplistic appraisal that a gun-is-just-an-object, why can't you accept that it's an object designed to kill, which also has the appreciable effect of making death-dealing easier and more "efficient"/"convenient"?? The split second it takes for a suicider or murderer to pull the trigger (with a dispassionate distance between the killer and victim in the last case) is brought about by the nature of this tool. Nothing exists or operates in isolation. Nothing is just an object. They had intentions in design, and more importantly have effects in application and existence. Guns DO increase the probability of murder and suicide in my opinion. They facilitate a split-second decision becoming a reality. Accept it.
Listen mate, it's your country. I'm just trying to get to the bottom of matters, not float on the surface thinking that scattering unexamined stats around solves anything just coz they appear to back up your point of view. Which, despite all your investigations, is what you do. I asked for CONTEXTUALISED facts, not more random and unexamined facts, which is what you gave me.
I think he's trying to say that you're impossible to please. You're applying a completely unrealistic burden of proof on Karl and others with a similar viewpoint. Basically, unless Karl goes out and surveys a dozen major American cities personally, you'll still be able to hide behind your demand of "extenuating circumstances."
You arbitrarily state that the downgoing rate is news. Why? Both are news, and I see no compelling argument as for why the rate drop should be the lead story. Besides: what are they going to do? Lead with the same story every night? "The murder rate is still low"? That's not news.
...
The media is nothing more or less than a reflection of our society. If they truly are concerned with nothing but profit, then you can hardly blame them for giving us precisely what it is we want. The alcoholic, not the bartender, bears most of the responsibility for his condition.
...
I'm sure sensationalism plays a part, but there is no "culture of fear," and there is no grand conspiracy to frighten the American people with something that isn't there, either. Hell, Moore contradicts himself in that manner, as well. He talks about how we're too afraid of everything, and then proceeds to list the things we really should be afraid of. Huh?
NB i don't think there's any deliberate conspiracy here by any means. What we're looking at appears to be unfortunate human dynamics.
I think the point here is that "slow" news is also news. If the media truly represented society as you assert, then it should represent both the continuing state of things as well as the changes.
The "extelligence" of knowledge, opinion and norms that surrounds us should help facilitate good decision where possible, as much as we should strive not to be the alchoholic in your allegory. A society that peddled addictive substances left right and centre and could see no problem in that, coz it's the individual's right not to conform, is setting up a ridiculous dichotomy between indivdual and society on some levels (and ignoring the powerful role/presence of conformity in the first place, and the free-will-removing aspects of addiction in a second ;)). Removing morality from business practice is one problem in our societies and the un-cared-about repurcussions of some "social" practices is another contingent issue. Claiming we should operate as isolated figures making our decisions no matter what society is doing is both right and untenable ;) (oh dear, a contradiction. I'm sure you can deal with it ;))
Contradictions aren't always a sign of something being wrong. They can be a sign of multiple issues at work, which we need to refine our understanding of. Moore seems to be saying here that there are fears he perceives as exagerrated (and even manipulative/destructive, despite their being no great profit in this other than viewing figures/sustenance of this practice), while genuine problems/fears that should motivate us to greater social-equilibrium/healing actions go unreported and unrepresented in society.
Hope that was pat enough ;)
I think he's trying to say that you're impossible to please. You're applying a completely unrealistic burden of proof on Karl and others with a similar viewpoint. Basically, unless Karl goes out and surveys a dozen major American cities personally, you'll still be able to hide behind your demand of "extenuating circumstances."
Until he has the facts he can't make the claims he does. Simple as that ;)
Until he has the facts he can't make the claims he does. Simple as that ;)It almost feels as if you didn't even read what I wrote. The gripe is that you apply a completely implausible and inconsistent burden of proof, and hide behind this demand for flawless, unattainable data. That's silly.
It almost feels as if you didn't even read what I wrote. The gripe is that you apply a completely implausible and inconsistent burden of proof, and hide behind this demand for flawless, unattainable data. That's silly.
i read what you said perfectly well (on this occasion ;)) - the point is the same: Karl can't claim what he claims until the throughly examined stats are in. At the moment he doesn't possess them. This is not unreasonable. I'm just saying he can't make the claims he makes WITHOUT this very-difficult-to-attain, but necessary, qualative assessment. His arguments are currently specious, despite the fact that i potentially agree that total gun availability might well be the best solution on offer currently for you guys.
Why inconsistant pray tell? Coz all of the things i said about the war in iraq are currently coming true, despite the absence of verifiable facts prior to the case?
This current case is far more documented and analysable, to the extent that the information is potentially attainable. The events are at hand, and the environments consistant. Tell me why these floating stats are acceptable justification for the points of view that Karl (and you then) hold.
To ask for contextual information is standard methodological practice.
Piddzilla
09-16-03, 08:06 PM
No, because it's not an absolute. It's a general principle, and a perfectly sensible one, too.
Elaborate please. What is it that is a general principle?
What I am basically saying is that it is for some reason more news-value in hispanics killing each other than whites killing each other. This is what Michael Moore is putting the finger on in his movie. You say that it makes perfect sense because of the fact that hispanics killing each other are more "ucommon" and therefore it has a bigger news-value. And why is this a perfectly sensible principle? To me it sounds absolutely nuts and your defense of it very absurd. Do you honestly believe that media has chosen to focus on hispanics killing each other instead of whites killing each other because it is more "uncommon"?
You arbitrarily state that the downgoing rate is news. Why? Both are news, and I see no compelling argument as for why the rate drop should be the lead story. Besides: what are they going to do? Lead with the same story every night? "The murder rate is still low"? That's not news.
:rolleyes: That is not the issue. The issue is that media is focusing on one thing but not on something else. Why is that? And listen to what you are saying: "I don't see no compelling argument as for why the rate drop should be the lead story". Why not? Why is the fact that someone is being murdered worthy being a lead story but the good news that the murder rate is going down NOT worthy of being a lead story? Do you think the fact that news programs is very sensitive to how many people that are watching them have something to do with it? They are not that different from programs like Cops for example. They are more entertainment oriented than information oriented. That's why I always prefer news programs on the public service channels because you know that they are not dependent on the size of the audience (i.e. the money for the commercials) for their survival.
I think you're complicating a relatively simple issue. If you look at a local newspaper in a small town, you'll probably find articles making a big deal out of little things. Op-eds about a pothole in main street, or a local outcry when some teenager steals a pack of gum. This has nothing to do with sensationalism, and everything to do with relativity: folks in areas like that don't see much major crime, so their standard as to what constitutes "news" is different. By your logic, this makes them fear-mongering sensationalists.
That is a complete different issue. That is making news out of something that isn't news because of the fact that you lack real news. I have never claimed that has anything to do with sensationalism. You have to fill the paper with something. And don't tell me what my logic makes people on a local newspaper... I might as well tell you that your logic makes hispanics look like murderous monkeys. Which I am sure you don't think they are.
First of all I am talking about two different things:
1. The fact that media is obviously covering white crime and colored crime differently and in a way that risks pointing out minorities as more violent then the white majority when that is simply not true. That is wrong, at least if you ask me. The rate drop just illustrates the point that there is just as much crime going on in white areas but the reporters ignore those crimes. That is wrong, at least if you ask me. If a murder of an unknown hispanic man is worth reporting, then the murder of an unknown white man is equally worth reporting. Michael Moore is simply asking the question why it isn't so.
2. The issue of sensationalism. Sensationailsm to me is to wallow in events that it makes absolutely no difference whatsoever if the readers know about or not. I am not saying that a murder is not supposed to be reported, but is it really necessary for the readers to know how many bones in the body that were broken or for how far away from the body parts of the brain was found? Is this page one stuff? Yes, but should it be? It doesn't concern anybody but the family and friends of the victim and I am sure they could do without the attention. If a public or official person is murdered the media however has a responsibility to inform the public.
I don't recall hearing that, but even if I were to concede it, I don't see much evidence for the claim that "the media chose to not tell the public about it." If you mean that they're not shouting it from the rooftops day and night, then I suppose you're right, but I think you're exaggerating heavily with the implication that such things are simply ignored.
Well, I recall hearing that and I thought that was what this discussion was about. He says it in the movie.
I think the media didn't report it because they either ignored it or simply didn't know about it. And has it ever crossed your mind that someone actually is deciding what is news and what is not news everyday and decides what you get to take part of? It is not like the news shown on tv was all the news there were that particulary day. And I think that if you check out the media companies surveys on what news that attracts the most viewers, I am sure that violent murders in the ghetto has a top position on the list. So, that's what they feed you.
I think they should report the rate drop and draw their own conclusions from it. Not just go on like things haven't changed at all the last decade or so.
The media is nothing more or less than a reflection of our society. If they truly are concerned with nothing but profit, then you can hardly blame them for giving us precisely what it is we want. The alcoholic, not the bartender, bears most of the responsibility for his condition.
The media is oh so much more than the reflection of our society, Yoda. At the same time it is nothing else than a reflection of the people working on that specific news station or newspaper. Media is probably the most powerful force in our society after the government and the military. As I said, they control what people get to see and hear about and what they don't get to see and hear about. There are some journalistic ethics (or at least there should be) that should be followed. And the question is whether or not it is following good journalism ethics when you report some "important" things but not other "important" things. And what kind of reflection of society is media anyway if they choose not to report the most "common" crimes in society: the white on white crimes?
I'm sure sensationalism plays a part, but there is no "culture of fear," and there is no grand conspiracy to frighten the American people with something that isn't there, either. Hell, Moore contradicts himself in that manner, as well. He talks about how we're too afraid of everything, and then proceeds to list the things we really should be afraid of. Huh?
Well, I myself think that Moore is a bit too much on the "conspiratorian" (new word?) side for my taste. I think the american gun fetishism has a lot more to do with the problem. But that is just me drawing different coclusions from the facts than him. But the fear plays a part, I'm sure. If there wasn't any fear there wouldn't be any segregation. And if there wasn't any segregation we wouldn't be talking about white, hispanic or black crime in the first place.
I don't see how this is in any way a response to what I've said. You're just stating Glassner's position again, which I am already familiar with.
Well, let's put it this way. I see your response as a justification of a commercially oriented media that thrives on cheap sensationalism in an attempt to appeal to the thrill-seeking masses. I see Glassner's position as a criticism of the mainstream sensationalist media and an appeal for more responsible journalism in the media, perhaps more in the vein of NPR.
Private Joker
09-17-03, 10:43 PM
talk about an arrogant, preachy director using scripted crap. He made some good points here and there (many of which were exagerrated) and i left the movie theater hating guns but once i heard that it was scripted and the figures were exaggerated i wanted to shoot moore for betraying my trust. And dont read his book, its all about what he wants u to think, which is to think exactly like he does.
Karl Childers
09-18-03, 12:54 AM
Pidzilla, Django:
Instead of parsing Yoda to death with this hair-splitting nonsense, why can't you just address my excerpt that comes from the www.bowlingfortruth.com website?
Let me post it again. Please try to explain how Michael Moore can make the claims that he does in regards to America being overly fearful, yet he emphasizes-- or tries to emphasize-- the myriad problems that make America violent and a place to be feared.
Moore claims that excessive coverage of gun violence by the media makes Americans scared of each other and therefore more violent. This circular argument doesn't make any sense either. On the one hand, Moore has made an entire film purporting to investigate why the U.S. has the highest rate of gun violence in the developed world. He then attempts to answer the question by theorizing that the media provides too much coverage of gun violence, causing citizens to fear each other. But now wait just a darn second here -- If gun violence is really so bad, shouldn't the media be covering it and don't citizens have something to be afraid of? Or on the other hand -- if the media is indeed over-covering the issue and America is safer than we think, why did Moore make this film?
---Richard Bushnell, http://www.bowlingfortruth.com
Care to explain this????
I think what Moore is alleging (and rightfully so) is that because the media thrives on sensationalism, motivated by profit and saleability, it paints a distorted picture of American life in the minds of the public and fosters paranoia as a result. I guess the corrollary is to call for more responsible journalism that more accurately represents the world we live in, as opposed to exaggerating the representation of the violence in the world by blowing it out of proportion by covering it excessively.
Karl Childers
09-18-03, 03:38 AM
I think what Moore is alleging (and rightfully so) is that because the media thrives on sensationalism, motivated by profit and saleability, it paints a distorted picture of American life in the minds of the public and fosters paranoia as a result. I guess the corrollary is to call for more responsible journalism that more accurately represents the world we live in, as opposed to exaggerating the representation of the violence in the world by blowing it out of proportion by covering it excessively.
Then in other words what Moore is saying is that violence and palpable "reason to fear" are blown out of proportion and that the media goes overboard in their presentation of the news???
If that is the case, then why does Moore overstate the fact that America is the most violent nation in the developed world and..........????
Get what I'm saying? It's a ridiculous circular argument and perhaps the simplest quandary one can raise against him and his entire foolish lying bull crap. Michael Moore is 100% bull crap and if you believe a shred of what he says you are foolish.
I'm not on here railing against Moore and his utter tripe for my health; I do it to save your ideological soul.
Listen to the truth. The truth is out there, people.
What Michael Moore is saying is really very simple and very valid. The fact is that the news media these days paints a very distorted picture of the world because it sensationalizes the news and tends to blow some news stories out of proportion through excessive coverage while completely ignoring and omitting others. It represents the world as a relentlessly violent place, which contributes to fostering paranoia in the minds of the people at large, resulting in engendering the violence it sensationalizes. This is in no way circular--it is a fact that the news media thrives on sensationalism as opposed to responsible journalism. It is also a fact that this tendency distorts the public perception of the world and fosters violence in certain sectors of society. I think you are unnecessarily complicating what Michael Moore is saying and ignoring the very simple facts that he presents us with. In fact, the so-called distortions that you allege Michael Moore is guilty of in his movie is really Michael Moore parodying exactly the sort of thing one sees all too often in the news--the selective editing of footage, the omission of certain news items in favor of others, biased and distorted coverage, etc.--all this is only too common in the media. The trouble is that it escapes the awareness of most of us. If you see this sort of thing in the film, you see it all the more on TV all the time. Again, Michael Moore makes a pertinent, valid point, even through the so-called distortions and errors in his own film, pointing to the same practice in the mainstream news media.
Piddzilla
09-18-03, 05:43 AM
talk about an arrogant, preachy director using scripted crap. He made some good points here and there (many of which were exagerrated) and i left the movie theater hating guns but once i heard that it was scripted and the figures were exaggerated i wanted to shoot moore for betraying my trust. And dont read his book, its all about what he wants u to think, which is to think exactly like he does.
Well, it's not exactly the bible but...
Who did you think he wanted you to think like? Heston?
Care to explain this????
Sure.
Michael Moore has observed that americans are killing each other off with guns at a much higher rate than any other country. Since there are a lot of other countries with liberal gun laws this can't be the only problem so Moore looks for answers elsewhere. This is where the concept of fear comes in. He claims that the media (and the government too, I suppose) is feeding on people's fear of other people. White people's fear of blacks, black people's fear of whites, heterosexual people's fear of homosexuals, rich people's fear of poor people and so on. So instead of giving the public an accurate image of reality the media produces programs that dwell on sensationalistic and violent "news". And this makes people stay afraid of each other instead of putting them closer together, i.e. it reinforces segregation. Conservatism at its best. You don't have to agree with Moore but he certainly isn't that hard to comprehend.
And to answer this really clever question (who is this moran?): "But now wait just a darn second here -- If gun violence is really so bad, shouldn't the media be covering it and don't citizens have something to be afraid of?"
Gun violence is NOT bad. For business, that is. And the media rather cover what the citizens are afraid of than the fact that they are afraid. It looks better on tv. This guy apparantly thinks that media is not at all interested in selling single copies and attracting viewers.
Over to the next brilliant statement: "Or on the other hand -- if the media is indeed over-covering the issue and America is safer than we think, why did Moore make this film?"
This guy obviously isn't a journalist himself. Or is he? Nothing surprises me anymore. Media isn't "over-covering" the fact that americans are killing each other with guns more than any other people in the world. Media is "over-covering" specific murders and in unnecessary detail. Simple as that.
What did you say the name of the site was? Bowling for truth? :rolleyes:
Ok, Karl. I have explained this to you. Now please show me where exactly in my posts the hair-splitting occured! And I think Yoda is quite allright with the fact that I am responding to his posts.
Piddzilla
09-18-03, 05:46 AM
Oh, and by the way....
Right on, Django! :yup:
Elaborate please. What is it that is a general principle?
For the reasons I've already elaborated on. Gun murder is very rare in England, and consequently, when a gun murder occurs, it's given a lot of media attention. Do you believe them to be a fear-mongering society like us? It's common sense that when an event is very rare (yet still significant; no one cares about the world's largest ant), it's worth reporting. That's what news is: a combination of rarity and significance. A violent murder amidst an otherwise dropping rate fits the bill.
What I am basically saying is that it is for some reason more news-value in hispanics killing each other than whites killing each other. This is what Michael Moore is putting the finger on in his movie. You say that it makes perfect sense because of the fact that hispanics killing each other are more "ucommon" and therefore it has a bigger news-value. And why is this a perfectly sensible principle? To me it sounds absolutely nuts and your defense of it very absurd.
You can say it is "absurd" or "absolutely nuts," but you'll have to either proceed (or preface) with some other argument to demonstrate how. So far, you haven't.
Do you honestly believe that media has chosen to focus on hispanics killing each other instead of whites killing each other because it is more "uncommon"?
I don't recall Moore citing evidence that the media focuses on Hispanic-related violence. All I recall is Moore stating that he thinks the media is causing us to be frightened of black men, and citing two or three examples.
:rolleyes: That is not the issue. The issue is that media is focusing on one thing but not on something else. Why is that? And listen to what you are saying: "I don't see no compelling argument as for why the rate drop should be the lead story". Why not? Why is the fact that someone is being murdered worthy being a lead story but the good news that the murder rate is going down NOT worthy of being a lead story?
You asked why the dropping rate can't be the lead story. So I told you exactly why it can't:
"Besides: what are they going to do? Lead with the same story every night? "The murder rate is still low"? That's not news."
Your reply?
":rolleyes: That is not the issue."
Of course it's the issue! It's a simple, direct answer to your question, unless you think "Generalissimo Francisco Franco is still dead" is news, too.
Do you think the fact that news programs is very sensitive to how many people that are watching them have something to do with it? They are not that different from programs like Cops for example. They are more entertainment oriented than information oriented. That's why I always prefer news programs on the public service channels because you know that they are not dependent on the size of the audience (i.e. the money for the commercials) for their survival.
Bleh. The public service channels I flip through here are awful. Not surprising, considering that the people who produce them generally have no financial incentive to make them useful and/or interesting.
That is a complete different issue. That is making news out of something that isn't news because of the fact that you lack real news. I have never claimed that has anything to do with sensationalism. You have to fill the paper with something. And don't tell me what my logic makes people on a local newspaper... I might as well tell you that your logic makes hispanics look like murderous monkeys. Which I am sure you don't think they are.
Of course I don't. But your comparison makes no sense, because I don't have any chain of logic which suggests that Hispanics are "murderous monkeys" if applied to another situation. Your logic, on the other hand, if applied to a small-town newspaper, makes them sensationalists.
Your only response is that it's a "different issue." But why? Under which principle have you determined that it is reasonable to apply your logic in one argument, but not the other? And why is it that every time I answer any question of yours (or ask one, for that matter), you always come back with "that's not the issue!" or "this is completely different!"? I don't mean to be accusatory, but it seems to me you fall back on those an awful lot.
First of all I am talking about two different things:
1. The fact that media is obviously covering white crime and colored crime differently and in a way that risks pointing out minorities as more violent then the white majority when that is simply not true. That is wrong, at least if you ask me. The rate drop just illustrates the point that there is just as much crime going on in white areas but the reporters ignore those crimes. That is wrong, at least if you ask me. If a murder of an unknown hispanic man is worth reporting, then the murder of an unknown white man is equally worth reporting. Michael Moore is simply asking the question why it isn't so.
See above. What makes you say that it isn't so? I don't recall Moore presenting any statistics or solid evidence on the matter. And, frankly, the last time I looked at murder rates, minority murders were disporportionately higher than rates among whites. I don't know what conclusions to draw from that, but for now I'm simply inquiring as to where you're coming up with all these claims.
2. The issue of sensationalism. Sensationailsm to me is to wallow in events that it makes absolutely no difference whatsoever if the readers know about or not. I am not saying that a murder is not supposed to be reported, but is it really necessary for the readers to know how many bones in the body that were broken or for how far away from the body parts of the brain was found? Is this page one stuff? Yes, but should it be? It doesn't concern anybody but the family and friends of the victim and I am sure they could do without the attention. If a public or official person is murdered the media however has a responsibility to inform the public.
You're advocating that the news should not report on the manner in which a person died? :skeptical:
Well, I recall hearing that and I thought that was what this discussion was about. He says it in the movie.
Refresh my memory. I don't recall him saying it, and even if he did, I sure don't recall him supporting it with anything.
I think the media didn't report it because they either ignored it or simply didn't know about it. And has it ever crossed your mind that someone actually is deciding what is news and what is not news everyday and decides what you get to take part of? It is not like the news shown on tv was all the news there were that particulary day. And I think that if you check out the media companies surveys on what news that attracts the most viewers, I am sure that violent murders in the ghetto has a top position on the list. So, that's what they feed you.
I think they should report the rate drop and draw their own conclusions from it. Not just go on like things haven't changed at all the last decade or so.
"Didn't know about it"? Right. And Dubya's gonna "forget" to run for re-election.
Why do you act as if no one reported the dropping rate? I've heard about it several times, yet you're insinuating that all major American news outlets completely ignored it, leading with slasher-style murder cases instead. That isn't the case at all.
The media is oh so much more than the reflection of our society, Yoda. At the same time it is nothing else than a reflection of the people working on that specific news station or newspaper. Media is probably the most powerful force in our society after the government and the military. As I said, they control what people get to see and hear about and what they don't get to see and hear about. There are some journalistic ethics (or at least there should be) that should be followed. And the question is whether or not it is following good journalism ethics when you report some "important" things but not other "important" things. And what kind of reflection of society is media anyway if they choose not to report the most "common" crimes in society: the white on white crimes?
Assuming, for the sake of argument, that white on white crime is the most common and that the media is deliberately ignoring it, then that would reflect very poorly on our society. It would tell us that most of us are white (not bad), but that most of us also had an exaggerated fear of minorities (bad).
That said, it seems to me you're contradicting yourself. When you accuse the media of caring only about making money, etc, you cannot turn around and claim that they're not merely a reflection of the society they occupy, because if viewership is their primary concern, then they're doing nothing more than broadcasting what people want to see.
Well, I myself think that Moore is a bit too much on the "conspiratorian" (new word?) side for my taste. I think the american gun fetishism has a lot more to do with the problem. But that is just me drawing different coclusions from the facts than him. But the fear plays a part, I'm sure. If there wasn't any fear there wouldn't be any segregation. And if there wasn't any segregation we wouldn't be talking about white, hispanic or black crime in the first place.
True.
Well, let's put it this way. I see your response as a justification of a commercially oriented media that thrives on cheap sensationalism in an attempt to appeal to the thrill-seeking masses. I see Glassner's position as a criticism of the mainstream sensationalist media and an appeal for more responsible journalism in the media, perhaps more in the vein of NPR.
Again, you're ignoring everything that's being said. You're merely stating that you agree with Glassner's conclusion, without doing anything to address the flaws in his thinking.
I'm kinda stunned at how often you read a sentence or two, and then launch into another re-hashed speech which fails to address the issues at hand. Editorializing is only half the discussion, bud. At some point you have to stop pontificating and start answering some questions.
What Michael Moore is saying is really very simple and very valid. The fact is that the news media these days paints a very distorted picture of the world because it sensationalizes the news and tends to blow some news stories out of proportion through excessive coverage while completely ignoring and omitting others. It represents the world as a relentlessly violent place, which contributes to fostering paranoia in the minds of the people at large, resulting in engendering the violence it sensationalizes. This is in no way circular--it is a fact that the news media thrives on sensationalism as opposed to responsible journalism. It is also a fact that this tendency distorts the public perception of the world and fosters violence in certain sectors of society. I think you are unnecessarily complicating what Michael Moore is saying and ignoring the very simple facts that he presents us with. In fact, the so-called distortions that you allege Michael Moore is guilty of in his movie is really Michael Moore parodying exactly the sort of thing one sees all too often in the news--the selective editing of footage, the omission of certain news items in favor of others, biased and distorted coverage, etc.--all this is only too common in the media. The trouble is that it escapes the awareness of most of us. If you see this sort of thing in the film, you see it all the more on TV all the time. Again, Michael Moore makes a pertinent, valid point, even through the so-called distortions and errors in his own film, pointing to the same practice in the mainstream news media.
What? He uses deceptive practices to PARODY of deceptive practices? You've got to be kidding me. That's subtle to the point of futility.
Karl Childers
09-18-03, 01:55 PM
Since Pidd and Django are backslapping each other, I will do the same with Yoda, whether he appreciates it or not.
You da Man, Yoda.
This guy's smart as a whip and I'm glad we're on the same side. :)
To our joking-soldier: I think avoiding something just coz it paints a picture heavy-handidly (to counter-balance certain other heavy-handed/biased perspectives) is foolish to be honest. Use your own judgement while viewing or reading any of Moore's works and you can diffuse much of the melodrama [EDIT: incidently - who/what was scripted??]. And underneath he does often unearth some very interesting facts - especially in the book. You have to watch his spins, but you have to watch everyone's spins. Even Karl's accidental ones....
So Karl:
I think the contradiction is not as simple as your source is suggesting. Moore seems to be saying these things in the media increase fear/violence:
-over-representation of certain types of crime (in gorey detail possibly - which can also add to desensitisation as well, leading to an increased potential for perpetuating such acts in some people, and a lethargy about combating the causes in others, IMO). Such glorified and rarified scenes, taken from the patchwork of life-aggression, just titilate and horrify the senses, without providing much grounds for addressing the issues. It's the over-reporting of one-off-extra-freaky cases and other extreme acts etc that he's getting at i think.
-under-representation of consistant/norm crimes which, though they would increase fear by their presence, they would also motivate mass feeling that something must be done, both in their own lives and socially. (i.e. if you were confronted with such things constantly you would be forced to ask the question "why" eventually - and address it)
So what he's talking about is the WAY the violence is presented to us.
But i don't expect you to even address these differences as your head is so stuck in the everything-about-Moore-is-wrong/i-know-what's-right mental-territory.
Since Pidd and Django are backslapping each other, I will do the same with Yoda, whether he appreciates it or not.
You da Man, Yoda.
This guy's smart as a whip and I'm glad we're on the same side. :)
I don't know many smart whips ;) But Yods is indeed a sharp tool :) Now, what he chooses to cut down down to size, or prise the lids off is another matter.
Like, it seems to me that there's some reasons why reporting of slow news is both desirable (i'm sure he might agree), and even feasible (not so sure here ;)) [and indeed reasons why only reporting anomaly or specialist trends alone could negatively affect public perspectives and social responses]. It's about my only defence/understanding of Moore's presentation-vs-reality fear-generation-conundrum.
i.e.
Slow news has social-benefits (which one day might get pencilled in to working practice in a practical way :rolleyes: : praying-smilie : ;)), and could even become more attention-grabbing/popularist if coupled with/lead by people's current thoughts on the matter, and their experiences. Plus: reporting of any/all trends over time (not just rises/drops at the moment), is news-worthy, yet also at least lends an alternative perspective with which to analyse the phenomenon. Periodic reporting of static cases would be welcome too (reality checks ;)).
Presenting an all round picture, from the consistant to the fluctuating/changing, increases speculation about the CAUSES of trends. And although equally liable to increase fear, it is more likely to produce positive social action too methinks (rather than apathy-fear)
I get the impression their IS a climate of fear in america, but not living there, it's hard to assess exact causes and whether it's changeable. Certainly the government have helped this climate of fear with their rhetoric in recent years IMO. So glad Bushy has FINALLY announced Saddam has no demonstrable link to 9/11. Now if he'd just stop claiming he has current links to al Qaeda, which british intelligence says is just absolutely not the case.)
What do our american pals think then? IS there a climate of fear in your country? And if so, why?
r3port3r66
09-21-03, 03:25 PM
The "fear" for me is that our government has gone to many lengths to decieve us and perpetuate fear. I mean c'mon the Terror Alert System...what a joke. I don't know if Yoda would agree with me, but any smart person knows that the TAS does nothing more than frighten most citizens into taping their windows shut and buying batteries-- remember Y2K? What's more is that I think the TAS was put into place simply to give the US public a sense that they are being told the truth. Now, I'm not saying that EVERY government secret should be revealed(even though we have the RIGHT to know everything), but I just wish the people at the White House would start addressing the public as if they were educated adults, not small children. That said, I know that if you were to poll Mainstreet USA, alot of people wouldn't be able to tell you who our vice-president is, but who's fault is that? It seems that our private schools, and their programs get sacraficed when there is any sort of budget problem. That's why I think private schools and home schooling is the best way to educate your young ones. In this day and age critical thinking is a valued asset, and you just can't practice that skill at a public school anymore. It's almost as if our (current) government wants to keep students dumb because when they issue budget cuts, public schools programs are the first casualty. And private schools are so darn expensive that only the rich can attend. And which government party do you think is the wealthiest in our society? Now that scares me.
Wow. Some worrying stuff in there. Tho i don't have a clue what this TAS thing is (and why it provokes those reactions! Or were you joking and comparing it to people "duck and covering" in cold-war days etc??)
Or Y2K! Year 2 Thousand? What does it stand for?
As for schooling - the big thing i'd say about communal schooling being important is: being in an environment of your peers, and others of greater and lesser "power"/authority (i.e. older/younger kids, teachers etc etc), is one of the most vital learning processes involved in school. All the lessons you learn from interactions with others are more important for general survival than the information taught in the classroom, i reckon.
Now coz there are loads of ways the school structure, aims and society can go bad, and perpetuate their faults in the students etc, i can see why what you're saying is appealing. And if it was set up so our kids still got out and played with others (and maybe got taught at other people's houses?? People we respected maybe? There could be a whole trade in it ;) Austruck trying to get Gracie tutored by Copolla or something? ;))
The problems are: Who's got the time teach their kids? And not everyone's suited to teaching it seems (horse for courses - or at least, meals on wheels: y'see, we can all be guru figures to teach what we do well, but dangling people's heads in all-purpose dells takes a bit of practice ;)).
Gotta admit tho - i'm happy this government over here does seem to believe in the idea of "opportunity of access" at least - which basically means a fair amount of money for schools for example (while doing the opposite for Unis at the mo it seems, but there you go ;)) [the money is of course being used badly, and policy is controlled too centrally, - but there aren't too many industry-sponsored text books or tv-shows just yet ;)]
Tell all about the governmental (and/or media) fearmongering tho ;)
Caitlyn
09-22-03, 11:55 AM
The "fear" for me is that our government has gone to many lengths to decieve us and perpetuate fear. I mean c'mon the Terror Alert System...what a joke. I don't know if Yoda would agree with me, but any smart person knows that the TAS does nothing more than frighten most citizens into taping their windows shut and buying batteries-- remember Y2K? What's more is that I think the TAS was put into place simply to give the US public a sense that they are being told the truth.
In all honesty, I don’t think Homeland Security set out to deceive or scare the general public with their warning system… you have to remember, in so many ways, they were/are as new to this war on terror as the American public is so it is a learning process for them as well… but they are slowly working out the kinks and not jumping at every bit of suspicious chatter they hear… I personally look at it like this… had there been some type of warning system in place on 9/11, the people in the second tower might have realized something more then an accident could be taking place and started evacuating before the second plane hit…as it was, many of them were told to stay at their desks… and they did…
And as far as the duct tape… sure it was a little silly and I think the majority of people realized that… but then you have that group of people who needed something to latch on to as a security blanket… so to me, if a roll of duct tape makes them feel safe, its not that harmful and there are over 100 uses for duct tape so it’s not even a waste of money… ;)
Erm, sorry, but what was/is TAS? Some sort of listening-in policy?? And where does the happy-making duct tape come in??
:confused:
Caitlyn
09-22-03, 12:17 PM
Erm, sorry, but what was/is TAS? Some sort of listening-in policy?? And where does the happy-making duct tape come in??
:confused:
TAS is a color coded terror alert system designed by Homeland Security to alert the American public to possible terrorist attacks…
Green = Low
Yellow = Elevated
Orange = High
Red = Severe
The duct tape episode basically came about when Homeland was trying to explain to the public about biological and chemical attacks… and people, being people, demanded to know what they could do to keep themselves safe… hence the plastic window sheeting taped with duct tape over windows advice… I really don't even know anyone who actually bought duct tape and plastic but I did hear some of the stores sold out...
Lordy! Over here it'd be clingfilm and cellotape selling out ;) Nah, i see how that can happen. Where is the current TAS status displayed tho? How do you know? Has it ever gone off green? Who communicates the status?
I think in theory london/england is on Yellow alert (i just can't imagine wales or scotland getting the full-on terrorist treatment. They're all green ;)). But "elevated" for most of us just means mooching around as normal. Not going near dodgy packages is a norm from IRA high-points, and is about all you can do anyway :Shrug: (loads of neglected items have been blown up over the years by bomb squads. My mate lost a stereo that way once i think)
Caitlyn
09-22-03, 12:37 PM
Lordy! Over here it'd be clingfilm and cellotape selling out ;) Nah, i see how that can happen. Where is the current TAS status displayed tho? How do you know? Has it ever gone off green? Who communicates the status?
I think in theory london/england is on Yellow alert (i just can't imagine wales or scotland getting the full-on terrorist treatment. They're all green ;)). But "elevated" for most of us just means mooching around as normal. Not going near dodgy packages is a norm from IRA high-points, and is about all you can do anyway :Shrug: (loads of neglected items have been blown up over the years by bomb squads. My mate lost a stereo that way once i think)
I think the alert level has been raised to orange 4 times since it was first enacted but it stays on yellow the majority of the time… and news programs mainly keep the public aware of the alert level…
To me it’s a damned if you do and damned if you don’t situation…after 9/11 the public was up in arms because they thought there should have been some kind of warning… and now that there is a warning system in place… if they elevate the warning and nothing happens, the public gets mad about that…
Seems a slightly strange system, and a confusing one by the looks of it. On one hand, i don't know what people expect to see happen. On the other, i don't know how they're expected to react to the gradiated changes. There's not much you can do in any case - so what's the point? If on orange you were supposed to be looking out for some specific thing - and on red you'd know there was an attack going on (so evacuate buildings if appropriate etc etc) ... then that might make a bit of sense. Otherwise it does seem a bit like a hysteria meter more than anything else. (useful in an emergency, but not very constructive before - to say the least)
r3port3r66
09-22-03, 01:02 PM
I personally look at it like this… had there been some type of warning system in place on 9/11, the people in the second tower might have realized something more then an accident could be taking place and started evacuating before the second plane hit…as it was, many of them were told to stay at their desks… and they did…
This is a very good point Cait'. One of which I hadn't thought about.
Still, if the TAS is elevated, it causes one to become concerned; the publics first reaction to an elevated status is usually fear. But I think that terrorism is now an American reality--we all know that-- it can happen anywhere, anytime--without a warning. If that's true then the threat of any terroristic activity could happen if the alert is low or high. If it's cloudy outside, take an umbrella--you don't need a weatherman to confirm it might rain.
I'll try to get to some of the points raised shortly. For now, though, I felt compelled to mention that our friend Django, after having decried a perceived "abuse" of the reputation system via undeserved disapproval, gave me negative reputation for my last post in this thread (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showpost.php?p=111278&postcount=128), which contained respectful arguments and nary a rude or pointless comment.
I hope at this point it's abundantly clear that we're not dealing with an honest, consistent person.
r3port3r66
09-23-03, 01:12 AM
Crystal.
I'll try to get to some of the points raised shortly. For now, though, I felt compelled to mention that our friend Django, after having decried a perceived "abuse" of the reputation system via undeserved disapproval, gave me negative reputation for my last post in this thread (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showpost.php?p=111278&postcount=128), which contained respectful arguments and nary a rude or pointless comment.
I hope at this point it's abundantly clear that we're not dealing with an honest, consistent person.
Oh, right! Mr. Fastidious Advocate of Rhetorical Trivialities (FART for short) is back in business!
Just to set the record straight, it was in reprisal to the second baseless negative reputation point you gave me (that I know of) for this post (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=111377#post111377).
:p :D
Piddzilla
09-23-03, 07:43 AM
For the reasons I've already elaborated on. Gun murder is very rare in England, and consequently, when a gun murder occurs, it's given a lot of media attention. Do you believe them to be a fear-mongering society like us? It's common sense that when an event is very rare (yet still significant; no one cares about the world's largest ant), it's worth reporting. That's what news is: a combination of rarity and significance. A violent murder amidst an otherwise dropping rate fits the bill.
First of all, a gun murder in England might be "rare" compared to America. What makes you think that a newspaper or a newschannel in England cover news ruled by what is rare and not rare in America? Don't you think that they care more about what goes on in their own country?
Please, stick to the subject. Let me ask you again: Do you honestly believe that the reason to why american media covers non-white violence more is because it is "rare" compared to white violence?
If you decide to reply "yes" to the question above: If they do not cover white violence as much as non-white violence. Does not that have to mean that white violence is more "rare" in the eyes of the audience? Becuase if we are taking this rare/not rare approach it is what's shown on tv that is important (well, that is what the whole discussion is about). How many murders have you witnessed? How many "white" murders compared to "non-white"? Which kind of murder is more "rare" to you than the other?
And Yoda, I have allready told you that I am not sure what I think about Moore's "fear theory". I think fear plays a part in this madness, but don't think that Moore's words and mine are the exact same. I have not called anyone "fearmonger".
You can say it is "absurd" or "absolutely nuts," but you'll have to either proceed (or preface) with some other argument to demonstrate how. So far, you haven't.
What is wrong with a rethorical question?
Do you honestly believe that media has chosen to focus on hispanics killing each other instead of whites killing each other because it is more "uncommon"?
There was an argument at the end of the paragraph.
I don't recall Moore citing evidence that the media focuses on Hispanic-related violence. All I recall is Moore stating that he thinks the media is causing us to be frightened of black men, and citing two or three examples.
Maybe I am mixing it up because I used Moore as a reference in a paper I wrote about how Joel Schumacher portraits hispanic men in Falling Down. Let's be a bit politically incorrect here and bundle hispanics and african americans together and simply call them "non-whites" from now on to be on the safe side. Now, let me rephrase my question to you.
Do you honestly believe that media has chosen to focus on non-whites killing each other instead of whites killing each other because it is more "uncommon"?
You said that media is nothing but a reflection of the people, i.e. society. That is true in one way. At least it should be that way. But if the majority of the audience is white (because the majority of the american people is white, right?) then why isn't the news a reflection of that? When you are engaging in reporting about all the funny stuff that the minorities are doing you are not engaging in good journalism but in bad journalism, a sort of journalism that is called sensationalism.
You asked why the dropping rate can't be the lead story. So I told you exactly why it can't:
"Besides: what are they going to do? Lead with the same story every night? "The murder rate is still low"? That's not news."
Your reply?
":rolleyes: That is not the issue."
Of course it's the issue! It's a simple, direct answer to your question, unless you think "Generalissimo Francisco Franco is still dead" is news, too.
Oh, that was my reply?
Let's go back for a while....
:rolleyes: That is not the issue. The issue is that media is focusing on one thing but not on something else. Why is that? And listen to what you are saying: "I don't see no compelling argument as for why the rate drop should be the lead story". Why not? Why is the fact that someone is being murdered worthy being a lead story but the good news that the murder rate is going down NOT worthy of being a lead story? Do you think the fact that news programs is very sensitive to how many people that are watching them have something to do with it? They are not that different from programs like Cops for example. They are more entertainment oriented than information oriented. That's why I always prefer news programs on the public service channels because you know that they are not dependent on the size of the audience (i.e. the money for the commercials) for their survival.
That was my reply.
When I said it was not the issue I thought it was pretty obvious that I meant that I don't think that the reporters should sit and tell us that "the murder rate is dropping" night after night. Of course not. However, I don't understand why those news are not worthy of being a lead story. Are the news too good perhaps? That news are sure more valuable to the people to know about then the fact that someone they didn't even know has been decapitated.
What I am saying is, and what you choose to not focus on in this discussion, is that the news channels and papers should change the way they report news because the way they do it now, it transmits a distorted image of reality to the audience.
Bleh. The public service channels I flip through here are awful. Not surprising, considering that the people who produce them generally have no financial incentive to make them useful and/or interesting.
The public service channels here are also the best channels. There are news programs on the other commercial channels too, but their ratings aren't even close to the 7:30 and 9 o'clock news on the two public service channels. The reporters and news anchors working on the public channels' news programs are among the most respected journalists in the country. Because people trust them. And that is because we know that the producers don't have no "financial incentive" when they bring us the news. How they operate their news program is very strictly laid down by law and regulations. And I am not talking about how much they earn but about the content of the news programs.
This is rather a question about our different systems though and not so much about good or bad journalistics. On the other hand, independence from commercialism and the government is the number one ingredient in the recipe for good news.
Of course I don't. But your comparison makes no sense, because I don't have any chain of logic which suggests that Hispanics are "murderous monkeys" if applied to another situation. Your logic, on the other hand, if applied to a small-town newspaper, makes them sensationalists.
No it doesn't, Yoda, because I had never even mentioned "a small-town newspaper" before you started with your analogies again.
Your only response is that it's a "different issue." But why? Under which principle have you determined that it is reasonable to apply your logic in one argument, but not the other? And why is it that every time I answer any question of yours (or ask one, for that matter), you always come back with "that's not the issue!" or "this is completely different!"? I don't mean to be accusatory, but it seems to me you fall back on those an awful lot.
Ok, and you don't answer my questions and you constantly ignore my responds to you.
If a murder occurs in a town with 100 citizens, then that is news no matter how you turn it around. If that is not on the front page on their little paper (if they have one) they must have a very sleepy chief editor. Ok, so why is this such big news? Well, first of all. Yes, you are right IT IS UNCOMMON!!! Something new and awful has happened in their little town. And also, and more important, they all most certainly knew or had some kind of relationship to the victim.
If a murder occurs in New York, that is probably not big news no matter how you turn it. If it is a non-public, unknown person that the audience has no relationship to whatsoever (except for the relatives and friends) then there is no reason to blow it up. To use your logic for a while, not even the fact that the victim is black or hispanic and that the murder rate is dropping among these groups are reason to blow it up. There is no reason to not report the murder, it should be reported. But there is no reason to speculate or be sensastionalistic about it.
You dismiss the fact that murder rate is dropping when I talk about it, and you dismiss it as something with low news value, or no news value at all. But the next second you use it as a good argument for your logic. "Murder rates are dropping and making murders more uncommon = NEWS!". And you think media covered it to a lesser [edit]extent before the rates went down and when it was more "common"?
See above. What makes you say that it isn't so? I don't recall Moore presenting any statistics or solid evidence on the matter. And, frankly, the last time I looked at murder rates, minority murders were disporportionately higher than rates among whites. I don't know what conclusions to draw from that, but for now I'm simply inquiring as to where you're coming up with all these claims.
I haven't looked at any statistics whatsoever. I am talking as if what Michael Moore said in the movie, that media are not doing their job very well, is true. It should not be important though whether or not he's got his facts straight or not because you have allready accepted his and mine arguemts as being true. You haven't really questioned "the evidence" until now. You have rather been taking the position of someone who has accepted "the evidence" that Moore is giving us and now you are defending the media's behaviour rather than doing anything to dismiss the evidence. I am simply going with what Moore said. It is not up to me to prove to you that he is right. If you don't believe him or his "evidence" than you are the one that will have to prove him wrong. Not me to prove him right.
You're advocating that the news should not report on the manner in which a person died? :skeptical:
No. That is not what I'm advocating. Nothing in my words supports your statement above.
Refresh my memory. I don't recall him saying it, and even if he did, I sure don't recall him supporting it with anything.
Apparantly I need a transcript here and I don't have one and I don't even have a copy of the film around. Why don't you refresh my memory and tell me what was really said in that interview he made with that reporter and tell me what that discussion really was about if it wasn't about what I have claimed so far. As I said before, why is it up to me produce the sources of Michael Moore's facts to you? If you think he has done something fishy with the statistics, which he might have - I don't know, then show that to me!
"Didn't know about it"? Right. And Dubya's gonna "forget" to run for re-election.
:confused:
The reporter that Moore intreviewed didn't seem to be that familiar with what Moore presented to him. If it was, what you suspect it is, erronous facts and figures, the reporter would have pointed that out if he was indeed familiar with the true facts.
Why do you act as if no one reported the dropping rate? I've heard about it several times, yet you're insinuating that all major American news outlets completely ignored it, leading with slasher-style murder cases instead. That isn't the case at all.
If there is a dropping rate and the media is continuing to cover crime and violence the way they have done before they knew about the dropping rate, what is that if not ignorance?
Once again, I am not talking about wanting the "dropping rate" be the headline news day after day. I am talking about a need for different approach on how to produce and sell news from the media's part.
Assuming, for the sake of argument, that white on white crime is the most common and that the media is deliberately ignoring it, then that would reflect very poorly on our society. It would tell us that most of us are white (not bad), but that most of us also had an exaggerated fear of minorities (bad).
That said, it seems to me you're contradicting yourself. When you accuse the media of caring only about making money, etc, you cannot turn around and claim that they're not merely a reflection of the society they occupy, because if viewership is their primary concern, then they're doing nothing more than broadcasting what people want to see.
That is the most common argument among the commercial channels and their supporters: "We are just giving the people what they want to see". That is not true. What they really are doing is showing the people what gives the them the highest viewing rates. And that is different. If one story caught the intrest of 20% of the viewers, and that making it the number one thing that people saw during that time, that means that 80% still chose to see something else. What are the companies doing? They are constantly working to increase those 20% to 30%. Then to 40% and so on and they are not satisfied until they reach 100%. That is how capitalism works (and I am not anti-capitalism before you start with that one). They are creating a demand. They don't care if what they show to the viewers are valuable for them or not as long as they don't change the channel.
How do they do this? They fill their "news programs" with stories that are similar to that one that gave them 20% of the viewers attention. So when they have reached 100% it means that they have one type of stories: sensationalistic stories, and all the other types of news has been deleted from the broadcasting companies' agendas. Is this giving the audience what they want or is it trying to monopolize on the news market by keeping the audience ignorant? Is the job of a journalist really to give the audience what they want??? Do you honestly think that a news channel should stop reporting about news that don't render extremely high veiwing rates? Is that healthy news broadcasting in a democracy? Is a couple of gigantic news broadcasting corporation controlling 100% of the market your idea of healthy competition? That sounds more like the Soviet Union than USA to me.
True.
Thank you.
Oh, right! Mr. Fastidious Advocate of Rhetorical Trash (FART for short) is back in business!
Just to set the record straight, it was in reprisal to the second baseless negative reputation point you gave me (that I know of)
:p :D
I don't beleive you did it because you thought it was Yoda, it may have been me. :scream:
The Silver Bullet
09-26-03, 09:22 PM
How to Deal with the Lies and the Lying Liars When They Lie about Bowling for Columbine (http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/wackoattacko/)
by Michael Moore
Do with it what you will, people.
It is now about organized groups going full blast trying to discredit me by knowingly making up lies and repeating them over and over in the hopes that people will believe them – and, then, stop listening to me.
Oh, that it would be so easy!
Fortunately, they are so wound up in their anger and hatred that they have ended up discrediting themselves.
It sounds like Django wrote it.
The best part was when he took on the guy on CNN who was addressing the mistruths in Bowling with this:Except they failed to tell their viewers who he really was: a contributing editor of Gun Week Magazine.
CNN saw no need to inform the viewers that their "expert"-- who has made a career out of opposing any form of gun control–has a vested interest in convincing the public that "Bowling for Columbine" is a horribly rotten movie.
Ad Hominem perhaps? A bit, but also... ummmm... ad hominem.
Mary Loquacious
09-26-03, 10:39 PM
It sounds like Django wrote it.
It kinda does, doesn't it? It's the exclamation point usage that clicked the similarities for me.
However...
The best part was when he took on the guy on CNN who was addressing the mistruths in Bowling with this:
Ad Hominem perhaps? A bit, but also... ummmm... ad hominem.
But this wasn't Moore's rebuttal of the criticisms about Bowling for Columbine, which the CNN guy no doubt cited--this was the introduction to his rebuttal.
Piddzilla
09-26-03, 11:11 PM
How to Deal with the Lies and the Lying Liars When They Lie about Bowling for Columbine (http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/wackoattacko/)
by Michael Moore
Do with it what you will, people.
Right on, Silver Bullet!!
Right on, Silver Bullet!!
Everytime someone mocks Django, a homosexual Indian gets his Visa.
The Silver Bullet
09-26-03, 11:28 PM
Right on, Silver Bullet!!
I am not agreeing or disagreeing with anything Moore has written. Just providing the link.
As I said, do with it what you will.
Mary Loquacious
09-26-03, 11:34 PM
Just providing the link.
I'm glad you did. I'd been looking for something like that on his Web page, but it simply hadn't been posted yet.
So, thank you. And right on.
As I said, do with it what you will.
What if I want to marry it? Or make it my robot slave?
But this wasn't Moore's rebuttal of the criticisms about Bowling for Columbine, which the CNN guy no doubt cited--this was the introduction to his rebuttal.
I wasn't suggesting that this was his only rebuttal, but merely that it was a tad overdone and a bit reactionary of him.
Mary Loquacious
09-26-03, 11:45 PM
I wasn't suggesting that this was his only rebuttal, but merely that it was a tad overdone and a bit reactionary of him.
But consider the source. "Overdone" is Moore's middle name. :D
I love him, but it's true.
NOTE: This post has been edited for both your edification and your children's children.
Piddzilla
09-26-03, 11:52 PM
But consider the source. "Overdone" and "reactionary" are Moore's two middle names. :D
I love him, but it's true.
Michael Moore reactionary?? :confused:
Mary Loquacious
09-27-03, 12:22 AM
Michael Moore reactionary?? :confused:
Erm. I had my terminology mixed up. :blush: Sorry 'bout that. Those responsible for this mistake have been sacked, and their posts edited.
Hmm, some interestingly sane points from our passionate pontiff of anti-armament. A lot of stuff i suspected but was too liberal and wishy washy to defend to the hilt. Like the lies that claimed he lied about...
-the gun purchase that did happen, and on one day.
-the fact that the missile firm was not misrepresented really (and indeed, that they are involved in the type of space program that the New American Century lot are pushing i.e. total domination of the skies, as it were. The fact that they helped in Afghanistan and Iraq with guidance satellites is both good [for civillian deaths - tho of course all those guided missiles hitting Saudi Arabia and the still high civilian casualities etc suggests it's no way near as civilised as is frequently made out] ...and bad, if you don't think that either war was handled well, or even for the right reasons. The freaky bit is the announced intention to be able to strike any country at any time via future/current space technologies, that this company facilitates. This is one of Moore's broad themes about external aggression.)
-Heston said what was presented, 10 days after Columbine (and a lot more according to Moore. The fact that alternate footage was used to project the feel of what was said, using the same dialogue, is not deception. It's valid artistic licence. )
This is the point - those that are strongly anti this film have made up more lies than Moore acheived - in fact i'm not sure he's "lied" at all (indeed, he hasn't even manipulated to the extent that those deriding him have. He's been a lot better researched too :)).
It's Moore's interpretations we should be looking at. It's a huge shame, as he says, that those who oppose his views don't engage in the arguments, but just try to shout him and others down. Yet more bad news for democracy (Moore constantly needing external funding to get his projects made is another - considering the extent of his fan base etc)
So i'm glad this thread has moved mainly towards discussing topics like: gun laws, the current state/nature of fear and violence, and indeed, spin in society. Let's stick to those (tho if some of Moore's deriders would like to admit they were over the top, that would be fine ;))
How to Deal with the Lies and the Lying Liars When They Lie about Bowling for Columbine (http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/wackoattacko/)
by Michael Moore
Do with it what you will, people.
I found this statement from the article to be very telling:
So, faced with a thoroughly truthful and honest film, those who object to the film's political points are left with the choice of debating us on the issues in the film – or resorting to character assassination. They have chosen the latter. What a sad place to be.
All too true, in my opinion.
Everytime someone mocks Django, a homosexual Indian gets his Visa.
Hmm... let me see, Yoda isn't racist or prejudiced? Yoda isn't biased? Yoda hasn't been engaging in maligning me or undermining my image? This is addressed to Sir Toose, by the way, who wanted more evidence of Yoda's racism. This isn't the first of similar prejudicial comments he has made.
Pretty sad, Yoda.
If I were to repay you in kind, I might, perhaps, allege that Yoda is a sheep-loving redneck with his head up his ass, but I'd rather not descend to that moronic level of discourse.
Right on, Silver Bullet!!
Way to go, Piddzilla!
Hmm... let me see, Yoda isn't racist or prejudiced? Yoda isn't biased? Yoda hasn't been engaging in maligning me or undermining my image? This is addressed to Sir Toose, by the way, who wanted more evidence of Yoda's racism. This isn't the first of similar prejudicial comments he has made.Congratulations, you've successfully proved that I've referred to you as an Indian. Now if you can show us how identifying someone's race makes them a racist, you might have a point. Way to ignore most of what Toose said, too, by the way.
Say, didn't you refer to me (and others) as being "Anglo-Saxon"? Gee, by your logic, wouldn't that make you racist, too?
Hmm, some interestingly sane points from our passionate pontiff of anti-armament. A lot of stuff i suspected but was too liberal and wishy washy to defend to the hilt. Like the lies that claimed he lied about...
-the gun purchase that did happen, and on one day.
-the fact that the missile firm was not misrepresented really (and indeed, that they are involved in the type of space program that the New American Century lot are pushing i.e. total domination of the skies, as it were. The fact that they helped in Afghanistan and Iraq with guidance satellites is both good [for civillian deaths - tho of course all those guided missiles hitting Saudi Arabia and the still high civilian casualities etc suggests it's no way near as civilised as is frequently made out] ...and bad, if you don't think that either war was handled well, or even for the right reasons. The freaky bit is the announced intention to be able to strike any country at any time via future/current space technologies, that this company facilitates. This is one of Moore's broad themes about external aggression.)
-Heston said what was presented, 10 days after Columbine (and a lot more according to Moore. The fact that alternate footage was used to project the feel of what was said, using the same dialogue, is not deception. It's valid artistic licence. )
This is the point - those that are strongly anti this film have made up more lies than Moore acheived - in fact i'm not sure he's "lied" at all (indeed, he hasn't even manipulated to the extent that those deriding him have. He's been a lot better researched too :)).
It's Moore's interpretations we should be looking at. It's a huge shame, as he says, that those who oppose his views don't engage in the arguments, but just try to shout him and others down. Yet more bad news for democracy (Moore constantly needing external funding to get his projects made is another - considering the extent of his fan base etc)
So i'm glad this thread has moved mainly towards discussing topics like: gun laws, the current state/nature of fear and violence, and indeed, spin in society. Let's stick to those (tho if some of Moore's deriders would like to admit they were over the top, that would be fine ;))
I was very impressed by the way he handled those three allegations made about him and the credibility of his film--basically shooting them down. I was also impressed by this statement:
I can guarantee to you, without equivocation, that every fact in my movie is true. Three teams of fact-checkers and two groups of lawyers went through it with a fine tooth comb to make sure that every statement of fact is indeed an indisputable fact. Trust me, no film company would ever release a film like this without putting it through the most vigorous vetting process possible. The sheer power and threat of the NRA is reason enough to strike fear in any movie studio or theater chain. The NRA will go after you without mercy if they think there's half a chance of destroying you. That's why we don't have better gun laws in this country – every member of Congress is scared to death of them.
Well, guess what. Total number of lawsuits to date against me or my film by the NRA? NONE. That's right, zero. And don't forget for a second that if they could have shut this film down on a technicality they would have. But they didn't and they can't – because the film is factually solid and above reproach. In fact, we have not been sued by any individual or group over the statements made in "Bowling for Columbine?" Why is that? Because everything we say is true – and the things that are our opinion, we say so and leave it up to the viewer to decide if our point of view is correct or not for each of them.
Congratulations, you've successfully proved that I've referred to you as an Indian. Now if you can show us how identifying someone's race makes them a racist, you might have a point. Way to ignore most of what Toose said, too, by the way.
Say, didn't you refer to me (and others) as being "Anglo-Saxon"? Gee, by your logic, wouldn't that make you racist, too?
I'm assuming here that you are not deliberately acting as thick-headed as you appear right now--that you are, in fact, that thick-headed. In any case, the fact is that you have used the term "Indian" in a derogatory context. That is racist. I am proud of my ethnicity. That's precisely why I wince when thick-headed morons like you make it out to be something derogatory or offensive. Fact is, Yoda, I see you as a rather obnoxious character who doesn't hesitate to resort to some form of offensive racist slander, however subtle the attempt (though not necessarily the result), whenever the opportunity presents itself.
I'm assuming here that you are not intentionally being as thick-headed as you appear right now--that you are, in fact, that thick-headed. In any case, the fact is that you have used the term "Indian" in a derogatory context. That is racist. I am proud of my ethnicity. That's precisely why I wince when thick-headed morons like you make it out to be something derogatory or offensive. Fact is, Yoda, I see you as a rather obnoxious character who doesn't hesitate to resort to some form of offensive racist slander, however subtle the attempt (though not necessarily the result), whenever the opportunity presents itself.Your mistake is assuming that because I'm making fun of you, and have mentioned your race, that I'm therefore making fun of you because of your race. I'm not. I couldn't care less what your race is; if you were English, I'd have used that adjective instead. We argued for months before I even knew you were Indian. How do you reconcile this? How do you reconcile my friendship with Cait and r66?
Pull your head out. The race card is a desperate one, and you're playing it every hand.
If I were to repay you in kind, I might, perhaps, allege that Yoda is a sheep-loving redneck with his head up his ass, but I'd rather not descend to that moronic level of discourse.
Then why did you? :rolleyes:
Your mistake is assuming that because I'm making fun of you, and have mentioned your race, that I'm therefore making fun of you because of your race. I'm not. I couldn't care less what your race is; if you were English, I'd have used that adjective instead. We argued for months before I even knew you were Indian. How do you reconcile this? How do you reconcile my friendship with Cait and r66?
Pull your head out. The race card is a desperate one, and you're playing it every hand.
Hardly a desperate ploy. It happens to be a measured statement based on months of observation of the kinds of things you have said on numerous occasions.
Your friendship with Caitlyn is easy to explain--you both share similar political points of view. As for r66, I have no idea. Perhaps one could chalk that down to one of those bizarre self-contradictions that one occasionally sees in even the most hardened of KKK-ers. (Not that I would make such an allegation about you! Heaven forbid! :rolleyes: )
Anyway, at this point, I'm in too much of a good mood to get into yet another argument with you, Yoda! Tomorrow, I'm heading to LA and the beach, where I expect to be for the next few months! So who has time to waste arguing with the likes of you when the sun, sand, surf and beautiful babes in skimpy swimwear beckon? Not me!
Then why did you? :rolleyes:
Did I? Oh, sorry! :D
Your friendship with Caitlyn is easy to explain--you both share similar political points of view. As for r66, I have no idea. Perhaps one could chalk that down to one of those bizarre self-contradictions that one occasionally sees in even the most hardened of KKK-ers. (Not that I would make such an allegation about you! Heaven forbid! :rolleyes: )
I don't know about you, but I've never heard of a racist whose hatred vanishes when they find out the other person once voted for the same guy. Anyway, your non-answer in regards to Tim is vintage you: you don't have an explanation, so you just shrug and go on believing it.
And what of the (conveniently ignored) fact that, by the time I knew you were Indian, you'd already alienated me and half the community? Just a grand coincidence, I suppose. It's funny how little rationality can be found in your rationalizing.
r3port3r66
09-28-03, 03:01 AM
As for r66, I have no idea. Perhaps one could chalk that down to one of those bizarre self-contradictions that one occasionally sees in even the most hardened of KKK-ers. (Not that I would make such an allegation about you! Heaven forbid! )
Ok Django, that really makes no sense. If Yoda likes me-- a minority--then he could like you too--a minority--based on your logic. The fact is I like Yoda, otherwise I'd log out forever.
I don't know about you, but I've never heard of a racist whose hatred vanishes when they find out the other person once voted for the same guy. Anyway, your non-answer in regards to Tim is vintage you: you don't have an explanation, so you just shrug and go on believing it.
Well, I have heard of KKKers claiming that they have personal friendships with people of differing ethnicities, the reason being that such people are unable to equate personal interactions with their generalized antagonism towards a race or community. The one is a generalized hatred, the other is a specific hatred, and the two are not necessarily connected. I believe this is a pretty common occurrence.
And what of the (conveniently ignored) fact that, by the time I knew you were Indian, you'd already alienated me and half the community? Just a grand coincidence, I suppose. It's funny how little rationality can be found in your rationalizing.
I find that hard to believe, as I clearly stated my ethnicity in my very first post in the forum. As for my supposed alienation of half the forum community, again, you disregard the fact that initially, I was enjoying the support and sympathy of most of the community, that is until you initiated your ongoing campaign to malign and discredit me by any means at your disposal, thereby marginalizing my presence in the forum and distancing me from the affections of most everyone in here. It's hard to remain sympathetic towards a person when somebody else is hard at work maligning them, distorting every word they say, hassling them unnecessarily, editing their posts, rigging popularity polls and reputation point systems against them and generally going out of the way to make them unpopular. So your allegations don't hold ground.
Anyway, like I said, I really don't have the time or inclination for any more of this, so from this point on, I'm just going to ignore what you say, Yoda!
Adios! :cool: :D
Ok Django, that really makes no sense. If Yoda likes me-- a minority--then he could like you too--a minority--based on your logic. The fact is I like Yoda, otherwise I'd log out forever.
R66, feel free to like Yoda. I don't say that his liking you necessarily implies that he should like me. All I'm saying that whatever his reason for not liking me, racism is a part of it. Besides, I know of people who like one ethnic group but dislike another. So, I suggest, Yoda has no problem with your ethnicity, but he apparently has a problem with mine.
I find that hard to believe, as I clearly stated my ethnicity in my very first post in the forum. As for my supposed alienation of half the forum community, again, you disregard the fact that initially, I was enjoying the support and sympathy of most of the community, that is until you initiated your ongoing campaign to malign and discredit me by any means at your disposal, thereby marginalizing my presence in the forum and distancing me from the affections of most everyone in here.I didn't read your first post in this forum. The fact that I never even mentioned or acknowledged your race until several months after you started posting here (and months after we'd starting clashing) supports this.
This is aside from the fact that, even if we were to assume that I were a staunch racist, it wouldn't change or invalidate the myriad of complaints against you. Yelling "racism!" is not a retort...it is a diversion.
It's hard to remain sympathetic towards a person when somebody else is hard at work maligning them, distorting every word they say, hassling them unnecessarily, editing their posts, rigging popularity polls and reputation point systems against them and generally going out of the way to make them unpopular. So your allegations don't hold ground.2,000 members, all of varying racial and political backgrounds, and I just arbitrarily picked you to sabotage. Now that's rationalizing.
I've been asking you for roughly 3 months to demonstrate how I could have possibly rigged that poll, and you've given nary an answer. To do so, I would have to have more or less imitated a dozen different members here. None of them have made any complaint about their votes being incorrectly tallied. Counterpoint?
r3port3r66
09-28-03, 03:35 AM
I want you to post the precise point--the exact post-- at which you thought Yoda was a racist.
Caitlyn
09-29-03, 01:42 PM
I found out something rather interesting (or at least I thought it was) about the way the UK and US count homicides… apparently the UK take their stats from each court case… removing those cases that receive a lesser charge or are determined to be an accident or in self-defense making their numbers as low as possible… By contrast, the US lists every homicide as a murder… even if the case isn’t prosecuted or proceeds on a lesser charge which makes their numbers as high as possible…
Golgot, do you have any info on this?
I found out something rather interesting (or at least I thought it was) about the way the UK and US count homicides… apparently the UK take their stats from each court case… removing those cases that receive a lesser charge or are determined to be an accident or in self-defense making their numbers as low as possible… By contrast, the US lists every homicide as a murder… even if the case isn’t prosecuted or proceeds on a lesser charge which makes their numbers as high as possible…
Golgot, do you have any info on this?
Basically no :)
But that is interesting. Tho no big surprise. The only "global" thing i know about british crime stats as a whole is that they are often wildly inaccurate (especially when used to assess the country as a whole, or when analysing trends). This is due to two main things: wildly different measurement and analysis techniques and criteria being used, even in same-crime analysis, across the country/police-depts. And changes in data-gathering and measurement/analysis criteria over the years (and these last ones seem to have political motivations behind them time to time).
If the murder analysis is as you describe, it could be that this is a law-definition thing, and therefore it could well be consistant nation-wide. Looks like for you guys homicide=murder, and for us the different categories are segregated, with murder only being the definition in cases of proven intent etc.
That would make a fair old difference (i've always thought the brit stats were probably a bit higher than they appeared). However, i suspect there's still higher percentile "homicide" rate in the US. I'll have a look for any investigations that have taken all this into account.
November 10, 2003
Gun scanner on streets by Christmas
By Stewart Tendler
Scotland Yard’s scanner for detecting concealed weapons being carried by criminals on the streets could be in service before Christmas, Sir John Stevens, the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, said.
As reported in The Times on Saturday, the scanner surveys the harmless radiation given off by the human body and metal, plastic or ceramic objects hidden under clothes.
Interviewed on BBC One’s Breakfast with Frost programme yesterday, Sir John said: “It is a quantum leap in how we deal with this type of crime.” He said he believed that the rise in gun crime could be halted in the long term. In London the number of black-on-black shootings had been drastically reduced this year.
Aha, not to worry. Robocop is here ;) [no more carrying my ceramic gnome collection around then]
Sir Toose
11-14-03, 09:57 AM
I finally put aside my personal distaste for Moore and watched this film.
All opinion aside on his regard for the craft of film-making, I thought the content was decent and thought provoking. That section that talks about the 6 year old shooting the other one nearly had my friends in a fist fight (one is ultra conservative, the other is middle of the road).
My own personal take is this: Guns are not the problem, further gun laws will not help. The motive to kill each other is what is troubling, the METHOD which is represented by the gun is not as compelling to me.
The problem is a basic disregard for human life in this country. Also, we are teabags steeped in negativity.
I viewed with new eyes the news reports (which are ALL bad news until you get to the weather), commercials, etc and found that Moore does have a point in saying that fear is is ingrained in us via television. This certainly doesn't affect ALL of the population as the film would have one believe, but I believe it does have an effect on some.
I haven't actually drawn any other conclusions yet, I'm still thinking. This alone is evidence to me of the quality of the content.
Disneyscks
11-14-03, 09:07 PM
Moore doesnt have to try to get you to believe how bad things are.
Ill grant you some of the stuff he did in it was well..... what the media....
the USA's media does. Show you how they want you, but the gun death thing is preety true. We go nuts out here and everyone with one that doesnt use it for hunting is a nutcase. What in the hell do you need a fully automatic rifle for? Not for target practice but to put someone six feet under.
I keep reading comparisons stating numbers of deaths etc between the US and Britain, which are posted by the same person who won't accept comparisons of say Vermont and Dc or NYC and Arizona.
These statements tend to disregard hard evidence due to geographical size. I would take a peep at a world map for a second and notice the ever so tiny island that is Britain compared to the Massive area of the US. Naturally, some of the areas in the US are going to be 'spacious and spread out' in relative comparison to Britain. These countries cannot be compared using these standards, basically rendering this method irrelevant to the argument.
I do however have to side with Golgot on the intent issue, as it cannot be ignored. I lived in Arizona for 17 years in the 70's and 80's and the cities are massive sprawling mecha with many many people. The gun crime rate there is still rather low today, as they have extremely leinient gun contol.
I spent a week in DC this summer and the people on the street seemed to be a lot more ballsy with what they will say/do to the random passer by. These were just my casual observations while I didn't even have this issue in mind.
Also, The british people I have met just seem to be NICER and more courteous than we Americans. I can say that, cause I live here and everyone is rude all the time (I live in Boston currently). This leads me to believe it is a social issue with the country and not the actual guns themselves. This social difference between US and Brit also throw up a flag for me when comparisons are done, there are just to many differences to compare them in any controlled way.
Sedai
Wehey, good on you Toosey. You see that it's a debating-spree more than anything that his Moorishness wants. (good to see you back - have you squeezed a month's study into 2 weeks? ;))
I keep reading comparisons stating numbers of deaths etc between the US and Britain, which are posted by the same person who won't accept comparisons of say Vermont and Dc or NYC and Arizona.
These statements tend to disregard hard evidence due to geographical size. I would take a peep at a world map for a second and notice the ever so tiny island that is Britain compared to the Massive area of the US. Naturally, some of the areas in the US are going to be 'spacious and spread out' in relative comparison to Britain. These countries cannot be compared using these standards, basically rendering this method irrelevant to the argument.
I do however have to side with Golgot on the intent issue, as it cannot be ignored. I lived in Arizona for 17 years in the 70's and 80's and the cities are massive sprawling mecha with many many people. The gun crime rate there is still rather low today, as they have extremely leinient gun contol.
I spent a week in DC this summer and the people on the street seemed to be a lot more ballsy with what they will say/do to the random passer by. These were just my casual observations while I didn't even have this issue in mind.
Also, The british people I have met just seem to be NICER and more courteous than we Americans. I can say that, cause I live here and everyone is rude all the time (I live in Boston currently). This leads me to believe it is a social issue with the country and not the actual guns themselves. This social difference between US and Brit also throw up a flag for me when comparisons are done, there are just to many differences to compare them in any controlled way.
Sedai
Erm, was all of the first bit about my opinions too? In which case, it seems you haven't read all my posts (or those on related Sunfrogs gun thread about the same theme). Basically...
On US vs UK murder-rate comparisons:
There are differences in homicide-reporting, and differences in scale. Never-the-less, the US still seems to have a higher percentage of murder-per-person as it were (incidently, if you have any rigourous analysis/investigation of what the percentile rate is, i'd be interested to see it). My impression is still that, despite all the relevant differences, your murder rate is startlingly high. Accept it.
On Karl's stats and socio-geographical difference:
i feel Karl's comparison's were too vague - for the stats to stand up i need to know what the cultural differences (not just geographic)are between the stated areas. As you point out, people are more aggressive in DC - surely this is a factor that we should consider when judging whether strong gun controls are at the heart of crime there.
That's the point. Basically, despite not being a mathmetician or what have you, i've worked with stats for 18 months, and i do demand a level of rigorosity for them to be convincing - for those that support my opinons, and those that oppose them. How else can i draw any conclusions from them or re-evaluate my opinions??
On British politeness:
As for Brits being more polite than you guys... don't bet on that being a major reason for a lower murder rate (whereas, the micro-cultural differences between a gangland city and a sparse farming community are pertinent). We're an aggressive bunch in many ways as a whole - and it's only the lack of an easy mechanism of death that keeps that murder rate low in my opinion. i.e. Guns aren't prevelant here, and we're going to do everything we can to keep it that way (if the government really starts lording it over us, violently, then i don't think armed rebellion would necessarily lead to a prettier picture anyway - seeing as this right-to-defend seems to be a major pro-gun-argument. Besides, the use on non-lethal weapons would be a more likely form of populace control, which would make it trickier to galvanize an armed response from an armed populace in the first place. Anyway, i won't launch into a big one here, suffice to say that i'm very very happy to be living in a mainly-gun-free society.)
RellioN
04-15-04, 02:19 AM
lol, I love it.
It actually shows how stupid and ignorant you Americans are.
lol, I love it.
It actually shows how stupid and ignorant you Americans are.
Nice! Kind of like how your statement speaks the same of you, as many of the people commenting in this thread aren't American, moron.
RellioN
04-15-04, 11:15 AM
Nice! Kind of like how your statement speaks the same of you, as many of the people commenting in this thread aren't American, moron.
That doesn't really make sence. Why would I be a moron? I was saying that to Americans and with that I did not mean that everyone that's posting here is American!! So I believe you are more of a moron than me.
That doesn't really make sence. Why would I be a moron? I was saying that to Americans and with that I did not mean that everyone that's posting here is American!! So I believe you are more of a moron than me.
I'm guessing you meant sense, of which you apparently have none. Did you have anything of value to add to this community, or did you just sign up to harass people? Your opinion of Americans is your opinion, and that is fine, but the intent of your comment was, clearly, to stir up trouble. Did you have anything to add about Bowling for Columbine?,If you hadn't noticed, this forum for the discussion of films, not lame, racist comments.
RellioN
04-15-04, 01:29 PM
I'm guessing you meant sense, of which you apparently have none. Did you have anything of value to add to this community, or did you just sign up to harass people? Your opinion of Americans is your opinion, and that is fine, but the intent of your comment was, clearly, to stir up trouble. Did you have anything to add about Bowling for Columbine?,If you hadn't noticed, this forum for the discussion of films, not lame, racist comments.
My first language is not english so forgive me if I make a grammar mistake
actually, I registred because I felt I had to say that and I was not to stir up trouble but I did it to see how American people reacted to it and what they had to say about it because we just had a conversation on school about how stupid american people are.
Caitlyn
04-15-04, 01:30 PM
lol, I love it.
It actually shows how stupid and ignorant you Americans are.
In order to group and label all Americans as a whole (which is what your statement implies), you would have had to meet with and interview each individual person who holds an American citizenship… you would also have to produce proof that you, yourself, are indeed even qualified to make such a judgment… thus far, I have seen no evidence of the latter…
However, if you were, in fact, only basing your opinion on the posts in this thread made by Americans… I would remind you, the same measures can and will be applied to you…
Caitlyn
04-15-04, 01:41 PM
actually, I registred because I felt I had to say that and I was not to stir up trouble but I did it to see how American people reacted to it and what they had to say about it because we just had a conversation on school about how stupid american people are.
Only an extremely naïve person would assume they could make a statement like that and not stir up trouble… I suggest, if that was your only purpose in joining a forum about movies, you take your opinions elsewhere…
RellioN
04-15-04, 02:57 PM
In order to group and label all Americans as a whole (which is what your statement implies), you would have had to meet with and interview each individual person who holds an American citizenship… you would also have to produce proof that you, yourself, are indeed even qualified to make such a judgment… thus far, I have seen no evidence of the latter…
However, if you were, in fact, only basing your opinion on the posts in this thread made by Americans… I would remind you, the same measures can and will be applied to you…
The movie is my proof, and I talked to American's on the internet enough to know that most of them, in fact, are stupid.
The history of America is also a proof that most of them are stupid and ignorant, and I don't only know that from this movie, but I read a lot of books on American history, articles on the internet and alot more.
The history of America is also a proof that most of them are stupid and ignorant, and I don't only know that from this movie, but I read a lot of books on American history, articles on the internet and alot more.I suppose it is sheer luck, then, that we are the most powerful, influential country in the world.
Sorry, but if anything our history and the success we've enjoyed indicates the opposite of what you say.
we just had a conversation on school about how stupid american people are."Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people."
-- Eleanor Roosevelt
RellioN
04-15-04, 03:44 PM
I suppose it is sheer luck, then, that we are the most powerful, influential country in the world.
Sorry, but if anything our history and the success we've enjoyed indicates the opposite of what you say.
"Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people."
-- Eleanor Roosevelt
:D Just another ignorant foolish American blinded by pride. You just don't get the point do you? Even after seeing this movie?
The entire history of America is stupid. If you knew some of it, you could tell. But my experience with American's is that they don't know their own history.
Lol, without America training Bin Laden, there wouldn't have been a crash in the WTC. It was America that put Saddam in charge in iraq (who actually was a dictator torturing people before, CIA knew that but they did it anyway) and gave him 3 billion dollar to "help". Saddam used that money to hire militia that caused pain and suffering in Iraq. Who knows what else he used the money for. Without America doing all this there wouldn't be a terrorist attack in spain too, and they are planning things in the netherlands also.
It's all America's fault. And what do they do now, they attack Iraq and kill thousands of people that would've be innocent if America hadn't put Saddam in charge. There are also alot of casualties on the side of the allied forces.
But what I see on the video, really exceeds my immagination and made me laugh, young people that go to school not for learning, but for BOWLING!! what do they do on school? BOWLING!! Do you think that's normal?
Revenant
04-15-04, 03:46 PM
Ignorance is the basis of conjecture. RellioN you cannot lump a human condition soley to an entire section of people, to imply stupidity of the entirety of the American population without actively noting down each individiuals I.Q and grounds of common sense, as Caitlyn stated.
That is your ignorance, to band a group without proper understand. Looking up information online and watching movies is different to meeting the individuals in person. This is supposition.
Have a look at the people on here, including the Americans but barring a few (including yourself at this time RellioN), they are intellectual and friendly and open for reasonable debate and theorising. .
I suggest you make amends and appologise for, what is in truth, just an insult, or refrain from further derogatory comments and return to the subject header. I, myself, cannot comment on Moore's Columbine as I have yet to see it, (No conjecture, see. :rolleyes: ) but I do wish to understand it through the comments of those who have.
:D Just another ignorant foolish American blinded by pride. You just don't get the point do you? Even after seeing this movie?
The entire history of America is stupid. If you knew some of it, you could tell. But my experience with American's is that they don't know their own history.Every country has legions of mistakes in its past. That's not a mark of distinction. Our success, however, does distinguish us.
If I can be said to be blinded by pride, I could just as reasonably say that you are blinded by envy. In reality, both accusations are little more than childish cop-outs.
Lol, without America training Bin Laden, there wouldn't have been a crash in the WTC. It was America that put Saddam in charge in iraq (who actually was a dictator torturing people before, CIA knew that but they did it anyway) and gave him 3 billion dollar to "help". Saddam used that money to hire militia that caused pain and suffering in Iraq. Who knows what else he used the money for. Without America doing all this there wouldn't be a terrorist attack in spain too, and they are planning things in the netherlands also.The idea that 9/11 would have been prevented had we not "trained Bin Laden" is completely unsupported. We did not teach him how to hijack planes. Apparently, under your logic, America is the direct cause of anything done by anyone who they gave any kind of support to, ever. Under such a ridiculous standard, every country but those cut off from the rest of the modern world would be judged as guilty.
But what I see on the video, really exceeds my immagination and made me laugh, young people that go to school not for learning, but for BOWLING!! what do they do on school? BOWLING!! Do you think that's normal?Yep, school's for learning. Except in your case, apparently, where it's used to talk about how stupid Americans are.
I don't suspect you see the irony here.
RellioN
04-15-04, 04:39 PM
Ignorance is the basis of conjecture. RellioN you cannot lump a human condition soley to an entire section of people, to imply stupidity of the entirety of the American population without actively noting down each individiuals I.Q and grounds of common sense, as Caitlyn stated.
That is your ignorance, to band a group without proper understand. Looking up information online and watching movies is different to meeting the individuals in person. This is supposition.
Have a look at the people on here, including the Americans but barring a few (including yourself at this time RellioN), they are intellectual and friendly and open for reasonable debate and theorising. .
I suggest you make amends and appologise for, what is in truth, just an insult, or refrain from further derogatory comments and return to the subject header. I, myself, cannot comment on Moore's Columbine as I have yet to see it, (No conjecture, see. :rolleyes: ) but I do wish to understand it through the comments of those who have.
I have met many American's on the internet and my teacher is half American herself, and she spent about 17 years in America. She told us all about American's and I understand how they are. It's not only movies and information online, alot more. I read books not about how stupid American's are, but about history of America, "secret" projects of America (you'll be surprised if you knew how America spends her money)
Every country has legions of mistakes in its past. That's not a mark of distinction. Our success, however, does distinguish us.
If I can be said to be blinded by pride, I could just as reasonably say that you are blinded by envy. In reality, both accusations are little more than childish cop-outs.
What succes? That America actually has the most atom bombs in the world? The biggest army? The biggest navy? oh yeah America is the mightiest in the world. WHAT THE HELL DO THEY NEED ATOM BOMBS FOR!!! to be the mightiest country in the world?
The idea that 9/11 would have been prevented had we not "trained Bin Laden" is completely unsupported. We did not teach him how to hijack planes. Apparently, under your logic, America is the direct cause of anything done by anyone who they gave any kind of support to, ever. Under such a ridiculous standard, every country but those cut off from the rest of the modern world would be judged as guilty.
I agree with you the WTC crash thing is unsupported but the Saddam thing is real. Face it. And why would the other modern country's be guilty for that? They didn't start the whole thing.
Yep, school's for learning. Except in your case, apparently, where it's used to talk about how stupid Americans are.
I don't suspect you see the irony here.
Don't you have anything better to say than that?
And I'm not here to offend anyone but American's seem to catch it as offending, because it is the bitter truth and it damages their pride for america.
I have met many American's on the internet and my teacher is half American herself, and she spent about 17 years in America. She told us all about American's and I understand how they are. It's not only movies and information online, alot more. I read books not about how stupid American's are, but about history of America, "secret" projects of America (you'll be surprised if you knew how America spends her money)
Here you are grouping everyone together again. Do you understand the concepts of individuals and governments? It appears you do not. Also, do you believe everything people tell you? You should do well in the future believing every piece of info that someone decides to spoon feed you. Try thinking for yourself. How do you know the people you talked to on the internet were even American? You don't.
What succes? That America actually has the most atom bombs in the world? The biggest army? The biggest navy? oh yeah America is the mightiest in the world. WHAT THE HELL DO THEY NEED ATOM BOMBS FOR!!! to be the mightiest country in the world?
I think these might be left over from something called the cold war, another bit of history you might want to read up on. Read about the different factions involved, and then think about how America would have faired had we stockpiled catapult and ballista. If you refer to the increased spending on Nukes here in the US, I am not a fan of this plan by any means and will hence exercise my right to vote in this country come November. The whole voting thing is an example of how good this country can be.
I agree with you the WTC crash thing is unsupported but the Saddam thing is real. Face it. And why would the other modern country's be guilty for that? They didn't start the whole thing.
Are you defending the actions of the terrorists on 9/11? You must be if you can't see that they started this by hijacking and slamming airplanes into our cities. Is it that hard for you to see?
And I'm not here to offend anyone but American's seem to catch it as offending, because it is the bitter truth and it damages their pride for america.
It is NOT truth, it is the opinion of some random school kid, you.
That reminds me, I am arguing with an irrational child, I think I'll stop now.
That's it for me on this one folks.
Have at it.
_S
[edit:this thread is swampish, let's get back to the film shall we.]
olujosh
04-29-04, 12:13 PM
"Bowling" is one of the best movies I have seen in a long time. Easily the best documentary, but when you talk about going all out to make a point, you won't find a better person to do that than Michigan's own Michael Moore. And on top of making his point, making the film entertaining, funny, and extremely moving at times. Excellent film.
nl82000
06-17-04, 12:16 AM
Great review. That movie was good and shocking.
Great review. That movie was good and shocking.
Not to mention staged, overblown, and falsified in places.
www.bowlingfortruth.com
Caitlyn
06-18-04, 11:26 AM
Not to mention staged, overblown, and falsified in places.
www.bowlingfortruth.com
:yup:
Garrett
06-18-04, 12:21 PM
Not to mention staged, overblown, and falsified in places.
www.bowlingfortruth.com
I don't like Michael Moore at all... but it's hard to trust a site with arguements just as questionable as the ones Moore makes himself.
I disliked the movie anyway.
Hellraiser
06-18-04, 12:52 PM
http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html
Rebellion is just another example of some foreigner living in some forgettable dirt country feeling insecure over Americas supremacy. He sure loves a film an American made though, regardless of its truth.
Henry The Kid
06-18-04, 02:24 PM
Not to mention staged, overblown, and falsified in places.
www.bowlingfortruth.com
While Moore's tactics are questionable, he sparks debate, and I can't think of anyhting America needs more than to really think about what we're doing in this day and age.
The Heston interview was horrible, I agree, but there were some segments with some undeniable power, especially the refreshingly intelligent Marilyn Manson.
Once again, I don't agree with Michael Moore on the political front, but I think he is a benefit to our evolving knowledge of our actions and their consequences. This movie made quite a few people who are not usually political spark heated debates. And in a nation that is quickly turning toward a completely apathetic view, I do think that is a good thing.
While Moore's tactics are questionable, he sparks debate, and I can't think of anyhting America needs more than to really think about what we're doing in this day and age.
The Heston interview was horrible, I agree, but there were some segments with some undeniable power, especially the refreshingly intelligent Marilyn Manson.
Once again, I don't agree with Michael Moore on the political front, but I think he is a benefit to our evolving knowledge of our actions and their consequences. This movie made quite a few people who are not usually political spark heated debates. And in a nation that is quickly turning toward a completely apathetic view, I do think that is a good thing.I mostly agree, but I do not think absolutely any type of debate is necessarily a good debate. I think we're so desperate for meaningful discourse that we're filing far too much under that heading. Case in point: Bowling for Columbine, which I don't believe really encourages people to start looking into the matter for themselves. I think it's suggesting conclusions far more than it's suggesting debate.
Moore, of course, does not come out and say "here's what I'm getting at," but he's less-than-subtle about his message. Bowling for Columbine may have people talking, but I don't think it's done a whole lot more than get most of the die-hards in each camp to come out and fire more shots (no pun intended) than they normally would. I think the film is designed to get people talking, sure; but it's also designed to get them talking a certain way. Moore has an agenda; I don't believe he's even denied this. And it's not just "hey, let's skip off together and search for the truth." It's much more "I've already done the skipping, and here's the truth."
I mean, honestly, George W. Bush has "sparked" more debate than Michael Moore ever will, but I doubt you would praise him for it.
Ultimately, simply talking about things isn't good enough. We need to talk about them intelligently, and honestly, and Moore's "tactics" are a roadblock to that. His tendency to stretch and skew flies in the face of what I think is the most crucial component in genuine debate: the willingness to concede a point. When you toy with information to make your point, you encourage intellectual dishonesty.
We need less of that, not Moore.
Plus, his voice is one of the most annoying in the world. Seriously.
I mean, honestly, George W. Bush has "sparked" more debate than Michael Moore ever will, but I doubt you would praise him for it.
Ultimately, simply talking about things isn't good enough. We need to talk about them intelligently, and honestly, and Moore's "tactics" are a roadblock to that. His tendency to stretch and skew flies in the face of what I think is the most crucial component in genuine debate: the willingness to concede a point. When you toy with information to make your point, you encourage intellectual dishonesty.
We need less of that, not Moore.
Ideally, i agree. But this isn't an ideal world.
But i'm afraid, by those same tokens, we could say we need a lot less of Bush ;) :p. (And incidently, i think Moore's popularity stems mainly from his opposition to prevelant Bush-like stances). I think the two are as bad as eachother, just coming from different sides.
Bush's admin is now famous for it's lack of "willingness to conceed a point". And their "tendancy to stretch and skew" is basically undeniable. The end result is that there's no debate/negotiation and they spin information into outright misleading representations to defend their stance.
Here are some cases in point:
No Evidence Connecting Iraq to Al Qaeda, 9/11 Panel Says
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A46254-2004Jun16.html
The Bush admin has seized on every chance to give the impression there was link, stopping short of stating it outright. Cheney, for example, pushed the Czech intel (which even they doubted) that there'd been a meeting between a soon-to-be-9-11-hijacker and an Iraqi intelligence officer. Not only did the recent commitee announcement state that that meeting never happened, US intelligence had evidence that contradicted the claim at the time. Cheney however spun it to seem that no other evidence was available.
There are plenty of other examples of over-assertion of intel and neglect of contradictory evidence. This equates to a "here is the truth" attitude comparable to Moore's.
Powell admits flawed report a mistake
http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20040613-070941-9428r.htm
This report suggested 2003 showed a drop in international terrorist activity, when in fact reanalysis by academics showed they'd neglected data and it was actually one of the worst years on record. It was compiled by the CIA, but during a time in which the CIA has clearly came under a lot of pressure. That's why I bring it up (and coz it's an interesting contradiction to Bush claims that terrorism is being tackled effectively). I doubt we'll ever know if pressure was put on the compilers to make this (massive and incredible) statistical slip. Certainly, nobody checked it very carefully (it missed out everything after November. Convenient, considering what a bad month December was).
Case in point: Bowling for Columbine, which I don't believe really encourages people to start looking into the matter for themselves. I think it's suggesting conclusions far more than it's suggesting debate.
Moore, of course, does not come out and say "here's what I'm getting at," but he's less-than-subtle about his message. Bowling for Columbine may have people talking, but I don't think it's done a whole lot more than get most of the die-hards in each camp to come out and fire more shots (no pun intended) than they normally would. I think the film is designed to get people talking, sure; but it's also designed to get them talking a certain way. Moore has an agenda; I don't believe he's even denied this. And it's not just "hey, let's skip off together and search for the truth." It's much more "I've already done the skipping, and here's the truth."
Come on Yods. This whole thread, and several other ones, totally contradict your assertion that debate and inspection can't come from Moore's sensationalising. Ignoring the debate about the accuracy of the film itself, we've talked about numerous potential causes and mitigating factors concerning (gun) violence in society. IE: statistical analysis and accuracy, the efficacy of gun control, regional varience, the media and its role etc etc. Even if stances haven't always changed, details have been unearthed that i'm sure all parties weren't aware of.
Plus, his voice is one of the most annoying in the world. Seriously.
Heheheh. There's one of the real reasons for hating him ;)
Henry The Kid
06-19-04, 01:55 AM
I mostly agree, but I do not think absolutely any type of debate is necessarily a good debate. I think we're so desperate for meaningful discourse that we're filing far too much under that heading. Case in point: Bowling for Columbine, which I don't believe really encourages people to start looking into the matter for themselves. I think it's suggesting conclusions far more than it's suggesting debate.
Moore, of course, does not come out and say "here's what I'm getting at," but he's less-than-subtle about his message. Bowling for Columbine may have people talking, but I don't think it's done a whole lot more than get most of the die-hards in each camp to come out and fire more shots (no pun intended) than they normally would. I think the film is designed to get people talking, sure; but it's also designed to get them talking a certain way. Moore has an agenda; I don't believe he's even denied this. And it's not just "hey, let's skip off together and search for the truth." It's much more "I've already done the skipping, and here's the truth."
I mean, honestly, George W. Bush has "sparked" more debate than Michael Moore ever will, but I doubt you would praise him for it.
Ultimately, simply talking about things isn't good enough. We need to talk about them intelligently, and honestly, and Moore's "tactics" are a roadblock to that. His tendency to stretch and skew flies in the face of what I think is the most crucial component in genuine debate: the willingness to concede a point. When you toy with information to make your point, you encourage intellectual dishonesty.
We need less of that, not Moore.
Plus, his voice is one of the most annoying in the world. Seriously.
Here's how I see the cycle going:
Somewhat uninformed person hears information from Moore -----> This somewhat uninformed person now feels he is super informed and joins in on a debate. He is ridiculed for his ridiculous and easily disprovable facts.---->He does some research of his own.----->He truly chooses what he believes in.
Silly and pointless generalization? It doesn't work like that in all cases, but I think it is reasonable to think this does occur quite frequently.
And, ANY discussion about the actual issues, as opposed to the ridiculous whining about how much Bush sucks is a very good thing.
Hellraiser
06-19-04, 12:56 PM
EVIDENCE CONNECTING IRAQ TO AL QAEDA...
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/nightline/DailyNews/alqaeda_iraq020927.html
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N16532495.htm
http://joatmoaf.typepad.com/i_love_jet_noise/2004/05/iraq_al_qaeda_l.html
Tolstoy
06-19-04, 03:58 PM
I am not going to read over what has and hasn't been discussed because I don't have a couple hours of free time to read all these posts. It is a great testament that Michael Moore is able to ilicit such heated debate regardless of the forum.
I am not a fan of Michael Moore, in fact he is probably the most immoral, hypocritical, and deceiving character in the world today. It's a sad state of affairs when a personality such as himself gets any sort of media hype, let alone being one of the worlds most talked about characters.
Some of the bigger reasons why I am so disgusted with him and imho he should be sent to jail as a traitor to humankind.
He had in his hands footage of Iraqi prisoner abuse in American prisons. Instead of leaking this footage and in effect ending this abuse of Iraqi prisoners he decided to keep it hidden and include it in his new movie. When confronted about why he didnt release this footage to the press, he replied that he had no way of releasing it because he doesn't have his own TV show and he doesn't trust the big media. Any Moore fan who isn't disgusted by this should be ashamed of themselves. He would lead you to believe that it was just out of his extreme paranoia that he let Iraqi prisoners suffer horrible abuses, but it's pretty obvious it all comes down to the money. Theres one thing that he learned in film school -- the cum shot always comes last.
A republican senator (or congressman) from Minnesota after coming out of a vote has a microphone shoved in his face. Of course it is Michael Moore being his usual self and asking his usual stupid questions. "Will you encourage your kids to go to Iraq" The senator politely says that he does have family in Iraq and he is very proud of what they are doing. He asks him to hand out flyers to get public officials to encourage their kids to join the war, and he agrees to do so. Of course the footage in the new movie will not show this and even has some false facts about this issue. Bowling for Columbine 2 I guess.
Many of the inaccuracies, gross misquotes, and misleading information from Bowling for Columbine has probably been discussed. To show the immense idiocy of Michael Moore, on his page where he defends the film against the attacks, he actually says "Far from deliberately editing the film to make Heston look worse, I chose to leave most of this out and not make Heston look as evil as he actually was." He actually expects us to believe this? He has 0 respect for his admirers, which is about the only thing I agree with him on.
In his new film, one of the major points is the link between Bush and Bin Laden and the Saudi Prince. He says that Bush flew the Bin Laden family out of the country after the 9/11 attacks because they have a relationship. To even include this in the film, let alone have it as a focal point of the movie is just beyond retarded. Firstly, it wasn't Bush that flew out the Bin Ladens, it was Clarke (A fellow famous Bush hater) and he said that the decision to fly them out went NO higher than him (a bit different than his testimony which he now is retracting). On RealTV today -- when Leftwing ****tards collide! I'll forgive him for that, since this news didn't come out until recently, but the fact that he doesn't even recognize that the Bin Laden family for the most part are very respectable and moderate and Bin Laden has been disowned by the majority of the family and kicked out of Saudi Arabia is kinda less than you would expect from a man of even minimal intelligence. Of course he would of painted a fair picture if he had all the facts right?
It is with no surprise that extremist states in the Middle east are applauding this film and terrorist networks are promoting its distribution in the middle east. In a time when there is guerilla fighting taking place and american lives are in danger in the middle east against a terrorist enemy (most of these attacks in Iraq are not done by Iraqis, but by terrorist cells setting up their presence in Iraq) it is DISGUSTING that Michael Moore will release a film which puts their lives in danger. It would take twice the man that Michael Moore is (not a small feat physically, but Im talking morally) to raise social awareness while at the same time doing what is right for the country. I am not opposed to him expressing his points of view, but as soon as you start placing american and iraqi lives in the balance, all in the hopes of helping him pay for his posh apartment all the while charging up to 30,000 for one day public appearances, it is disgusting.
There needs to be a Hall-Of-Fame created for witty characters, which starts and ends with Michael Moore. Some of his quotes deserve to be preserved in history as the pinnacle of our society. Plato books shall be burned because all we need are some "Deep thoughts by Michael Moore"
Aside from some quotes you will find of him on anti-Michael Moore sites such as "I like America to some extent.", American were "“the dumbest people on the planet,”, and "“Should such an ignorant people lead the world?"
To get to the true gems, you have to go to the quotes that he is most proud of, quotes he uses in his books and his websites.
Take a look at this gem -- I havent heard an argument like this since grade 1.
"I would like to apologize for referring to George W. Bush as a 'deserter.' What I meant to say is that George W. Bush is a deserter, an election thief, a drunk driver, a WMD liar, and a functional illiterate. And he poops his pants" --Michael Moore
I wrote a lot more earlier, but I had the post disappear on me, so I'll end it at this. I get depressed talking about Michael Moore, so I probably wont be posting anymore in this thread. If you want to challenge me on the facts that I have stated, I'll try to reply.
EVIDENCE CONNECTING IRAQ TO AL QAEDA...
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/nightline/DailyNews/alqaeda_iraq020927.html
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N16532495.htm
http://joatmoaf.typepad.com/i_love_jet_noise/2004/05/iraq_al_qaeda_l.html
The first set of interviews are very interesting. However, these informants seem to have been deemed unreliable, otherwise their testimonies would have had far more political impact by now. As it is, every investigation into these links, so far, has found more evidence demonstrating a failure of the Iraqi regime to come to terms with al qaeda. That is where the weight of reliable evidence seems to lie.
The second one if anything shows the dearth of information the admin has to back up claims that Saddam was an active supporter of al qaeda. Zarqawi?? There's no proof he's anything more than a maverik, and the only thing currently linking him to Iraq is the fact that he seems to be there now. It's not proof of intent on the Saddam's part to work with al qaeda by any means.
As for the third link, i'm afraid it's a laughable source of information. This bombastic blogger actually starts out by claiming Iraqi involvement in the Oklahoma bombing. I mean, talk about blame-all-terrorist-acts-on-the-Iraqis. There are far more obvious perpetrators of terrorist action out there.
If you want to justify the iraq invasion, that's fine. But don't try and do it from such a tenuous, fear-mongering, basis.
It is a great testament that Michael Moore is able to ilicit such heated debate regardless of the forum.
Best thing about him, yes. ;)
He had in his hands footage of Iraqi prisoner abuse in American prisons. Instead of leaking this footage and in effect ending this abuse of Iraqi prisoners he decided to keep it hidden and include it in his new movie.
Very fair point. He should have released it.
In his new film, one of the major points is the link between Bush and Bin Laden and the Saudi Prince. He says that Bush flew the Bin Laden family out of the country after the 9/11 attacks because they have a relationship....
... Firstly, it wasn't Bush that flew out the Bin Ladens, it was Clarke (A fellow famous Bush hater) and he said that the decision to fly them out went NO higher than him (a bit different than his testimony which he now is retracting)....
... but the fact that he doesn't even recognize that the Bin Laden family for the most part are very respectable and moderate and Bin Laden has been disowned by the majority of the family and kicked out of Saudi Arabia is kinda less than you would expect from a man of even minimal intelligence. Of course he would of painted a fair picture if he had all the facts right?
Didn't know about the Clarke link. That'll be an intriguing discussion point.
The Bin Ladens are certainly in no way linked to Osama's actions. I imagine they're influential within the Saudi heirarchy though, which does ally them with a dubious regime.
I think Moore links the them to the Afghanistan pipe (which is an intruiging aspect of the Afhghanistan affair. It is in a very strategic geographical position when it comes to the tussle over access to Central Asian oil and gas). It's just another interesting discussion point concerning the political games that surround large international actions like these modern invasions.
It is with no surprise that extremist states in the Middle east are applauding this film and terrorist networks are promoting its distribution in the middle east. In a time when there is guerilla fighting taking place and american lives are in danger in the middle east against a terrorist enemy (most of these attacks in Iraq are not done by Iraqis, but by terrorist cells setting up their presence in Iraq) it is DISGUSTING that Michael Moore will release a film which puts their lives in danger.
In what way does it put American lives in danger??
Tolstoy
06-19-04, 04:39 PM
I think Moore links the them to the Afghanistan pipe (which is an intruiging aspect of the Afhghanistan affair. It is in a very strategic geographical position when it comes to the tussle over access to Central Asian oil and gas). It's just another interesting discussion point concerning the political games that surround large international actions like these modern invasions.
That theory has basically been debunked --
http://emperors-clothes.com/articles/jared/oil.htm
and an interview with the editor of EC and Barry Lane, manager of public relations for UNOCAL (who were going to build the pipeline)
http://emperors-clothes.com/interviews/lane.htm
Note: Its safe to say Emperors Clother arent very big fans of Bush or american foreign policy. Yet, I have great respect for them for being relatively unbiased, COMPLETELY factual, and usually try to show the context of everything they are reporting.
It just goes to show, that Michael Moore rips off older conspiracy theories, rehashes them, puts a nice animation to it, misquotes a couple people, and it all of a suddenly becomes news again even though it is already proven false. There was an even more interesting link to display this which I unfortunately lost which was from a Liberal watch site and it listed something like 43 different stories about Bush and every single one of them appeared in Moores book with no credit given and almost unchanged.
In what way does it put American lives in danger??
American lives are already in danger. When they see this movie, it is only going to multiply the hatred that these terrorists have against the USA, and it is probably going to replace whatever propaganda ridden stupid POS video they currently use to indoctrinate young prospects. The fact that all of his films are misleading and completely doctored makes this film just as bad as Nazi-propaganda videos.
Very fair point. He should have released it.
Its not only a fair point. It makes him a disgusting human being and immediately discredits any sort of compassion or search for truth that he tries to portray. That ALONE is enough reason for Moore to be lynched. Nice try passing it off as something trivial though. Is there not a law that if you purposely withhold evidence which could be used to stop tortures and execution that you have a legal obligation to do something about it, instead of purposely waiting a couple months (year?) to release it to further your own selfish desires?
That theory has basically been debunked --
http://emperors-clothes.com/articles/jared/oil.htm
and an interview with the editor of EC and Barry Lane, manager of public relations for UNOCAL (who were going to build the pipeline)
http://emperors-clothes.com/interviews/lane.htm
Note: Its safe to say Emperors Clother arent very big fans of Bush or american foreign policy. Yet, I have great respect for them for being relatively unbiased, COMPLETELY factual, and usually try to show the context of everything they are reporting.
They're top notch, i agree.
However, i'm afraid those articles don't debunk the theory that intervention in Afghanistan has political motivations beyond the war on terror, with oil/gas being of central importance. If anything, it actually supports the idea on multiple levels. Most importantly, they posit the idea that there's a move to seize control over Central Asian energy resources with a specific aim of keeping them out of Russian hands.
What it argues against is the "it's all about oil/gas" argument, and i think they're right to do so. It's not all about oil/gas. But they are a major reason for interest in the region.
It's interesting to note though, that his arguments against the pipe's importance to the US ('Empire', as they put it) are flawed. He argues that:
(a) it was US/UN sanctions that prevented Unocal building the pipe.
This is true, but it's understood that this only came about when the Taliban proved so intractable in negotiations (i.e. refusing the imposition of an exiled "king" in a ruling position, and trying to get too much political currency out of their potential role in protecting the pipe)
(b) Invasion makes the area unstable, and makes building the pipe even less likely.
The pipe is now being built (even though things still aren't stable). The obstacle was the ruling body in Afghanistan (Whose origins the 'Emperor' boys delight in pointing out ;))
(c) All arguments based on the oil/gas-dynamic predict an invasion of Iraq. This hasn't happened, therefore the theory looks dubious.
Well, it's happened now ;).
It just goes to show, that Michael Moore rips off older conspiracy theories, rehashes them, puts a nice animation to it, misquotes a couple people, and it all of a suddenly becomes news again even though it is already proven false. There was an even more interesting link to display this which I unfortunately lost which was from a Liberal watch site and it listed something like 43 different stories about Bush and every single one of them appeared in Moores book with no credit given and almost unchanged.
Well, at least we get to debate them. And sometimes it allows the more worthwhile theories to go through rigourous examination, and survive over time, thus proving their worth. The "role of energy sources in the nominally anti-terror invasions" arguements look even stronger now than they did at the time when they were first posited.
American lives are already in danger. When they see this movie, it is only going to multiply the hatred that these terrorists have against the USA, and it is probably going to replace whatever propaganda ridden stupid POS video they currently use to indoctrinate young prospects.
I'm afraid, even without Moore, the Islamic-extremists have plenty of material to get in a froth about and aid recruitment.
For example:
(a) Totally inadvised Bush-admin support for the Uzbekistan regime which tortures and kills demonstrably peaceful muslims. (notice the geographical and energy-related concerns too)
(b) US-centric invasion of Iraq has polarised the terrorism problem further into "Islam-vs-West" territory. This has been the Bush admin's biggest failing for me - their abandonment of "real politic" prior to the invasion. With the inevitable torture and abuses that have followed, all the hatred is aimed at the US.
(c) The shoddy attempts at justification, and the double standards, employed by the coalition, and most notably by the US with Guantanamo and 9-11 assertions etc, have reduced the moral and legal argument for invasion and made the "West" seem even more depraved and untrustworthy to "the Islamic world".
The fact that all of his films are misleading and completely doctored makes this film just as bad as Nazi-propaganda videos.
Well now, for me, you're going too far with the Nazi comment. I'll reserve judgement on how accurate the Farenheit film is, as it is far more concerned with war issues than Columbine was.
Its not only a fair point. It makes him a disgusting human being and immediately discredits any sort of compassion or search for truth that he tries to portray. That ALONE is enough reason for Moore to be lynched. Nice try passing it off as something trivial though. Is there not a law that if you purposely withhold evidence which could be used to stop tortures and execution that you have a legal obligation to do something about it, instead of purposely waiting a couple months (year?) to release it to further your own selfish desires?
I didn't try and pass it off as something trivial. I went out of my way to highlight it. It's a very valid example of Moore's flaws. Unless he was holding on to it at a time when the stories were already emerging it's basically inexcusable.
Nice to see you back in form Gollygosh :D
Nice to see you back in form Gollygosh :D
Had some time on me hands ;)
Had some time on me hands ;)
I've missed you :yup:
I've missed you :yup:
I've missed being around. But i've been dropping in, and seeing your cheeky chirpiness amongst the threads has often cheered up my day ;)
Might even get round to posting about actual films again at some point :rolleyes:
Might even get round to posting about actual films again at some point :rolleyes:
Oh Goodie http://pages.prodigy.net/rogerlori1/emoticons/blob1.gif
Tolstoy
06-19-04, 11:31 PM
Golgot:
I would be interested to see a link which says that the pipeline was being built. From the interview with the UNOCAL official, he made it appear that no american company was interested in the idea and only minimal talk about a Russian company perhaps being interested. He also said it wasnt economic feasible since Pakistan has found other sources for gas since then.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1142572/posts
THere is a link about the Clarke story. And he still insists that they flew them out right after the attacks and they were a danger to produce other terrorist attacks and they werent even interviewed (fact: majority were interviewed, all were deemed by FBI to have NOTHING to do with 9/11, it was for their safety they were removed, and they waited 3 days to fly them out when airlines reopened somewhat).
Golgot:
I would be interested to see a link which says that the pipeline was being built. From the interview with the UNOCAL official, he made it appear that no american company was interested in the idea and only minimal talk about a Russian company perhaps being interested. He also said it wasnt economic feasible since Pakistan has found other sources for gas since then.
Ah, whoops, I was taken in by the intent on behalf of the transporting/providing countries: (this article post-dates the UNOCAL interview):
Central Asia pipeline deal signed
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/2608713.stm
However, a bit more research shows you're right, instability has proved too much of an obstacle and no company is currently willing to take on the project.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/afghan.html
My bad.
Interesting to note tho the continued push to move Caspian/Central Asian resources away from Russia and towards European or Asian countries.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/caspian.html
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1142572/posts
THere is a link about the Clarke story. And he still insists that they flew them out right after the attacks and they were a danger to produce other terrorist attacks and they werent even interviewed (fact: majority were interviewed, all were deemed by FBI to have NOTHING to do with 9/11, it was for their safety they were removed, and they waited 3 days to fly them out when airlines reopened somewhat).
Cheers.
Hellraiser
06-20-04, 01:59 PM
The 911 comission did not say that there was no connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda. In fact they said the exact opposite. However they did say there was no collaberative evidence of the 911 events between Al Qaeda and Iraq.
The 911 comission did not say that there was no connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda. In fact they said the exact opposite. However they did say there was no collaberative evidence of the 911 events between Al Qaeda and Iraq.
They said there was no evidence of a collaborative relationship between Saddam and al Qaeda generally. Not just on 9-11.
While Saddam dispatched a senior Iraqi intelligence official to Sudan to meet bin Laden in 1994, the commission said it had not turned up evidence of a “collaborative relationship”. Indeed, the Iraqi connection to al-Qaeda long suggested by the Bush Administration, and reasserted by Mr Bush and Mr Cheney this week, gained no currency in the report.
“Bin Laden is said to have requested space to establish training camps, as well as assistance in procuring weapons, but Iraq apparently never responded,” the report said.
“There have been reports that contacts between Iraq and al-Qaeda also occurred” after bin Laden moved his operations to Afghanistan in 1996, “but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship”, it added.
One problem is that the administration keeps harping on about contact, which is true, there was contact. But almost all the evidence suggests it involved Osama trying to establish a relationship and Saddam not responding.
Tolstoy
06-20-04, 10:27 PM
Golgot -- I like you :) It's nice to see someone who doesnt fall to so many of these scandal / conspiracy stories but still has a belief in "left-wing" ideals. I am mostly split in foreign affairs, I sincerely hate the left-wing withchunt which imo has completely illegitimized (sp?) their fight against Bush. Unfortunately all you hear are extreme left wing and extreme right wing view points now-a-days.
I know there isnt any connection between Saddam and Osama. Its ludicrous to even think there is one. Much of what Bush has said is a complete lie, and I will admit that. I just take the position that people are retards. Politicians have to lie and have to cheat and make their position acceptable to the lowest common demoninator. I choose to ignore mostly everything that any politician chooses to give as reasons for war because it's obvious that its mostly lies. I am for the war in Iraq because I do sincerely believe that there needs to be changes in the middle east. This war is going to be good for the Iraqi people. From my rough estimates, and those based on UN reports, fewer people died during the war in Iraq, than would have died had Saddam just been in power. The economic sanctions (legitmately) placed upon the country was killing Iraq. Thousands upon millions of people were dying JUST because he was in power. I dont care how they got him out, just that they do. As far as I am concerned, they need to go into Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iran, XXXXXXX as well. There needs to be change in that area, because none of those countries promote any sort of moderation.
Im not for going into any country that doesnt believe int he same sort of ideals as I do, but the middle east in general, and extremist islam IS a threat the the USA. It was proven on 9/11 and in the hundreds of other attacks around the world in every country. Its a plague, and it needs to be stopped. Do you think Saddam did anything to alleviate the growing anti-freedom hatred against the States? Do you think that Syria or Iran are? (Iran I still havent given hope on, they are impressing me on certain issues). Every single bit of instability outside of Africa (they are no threat to anyone) is caused by extremist Islam, regardless where you live. Something needs to be done. (bit of an exaggeration.)
Edit: and golgot, Osama hated Saddam Hussein, it was never that he was looking for his work. Osama actually had religious and ideological principles which he stood for, and I partially respect him, Saddam on the other hand was just a monster.
Tolstoy
06-21-04, 01:21 AM
Central Asia pipeline deal signed
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/2608713.stm
I was originally searching for a link on the emperors-clothes which debunked all the stuff in that article as well.
There should be a couple IMMEDIATE red flags being raised when reading that article.
First... It lists three countries interested in building this pipeline, and among them is Pakistan. Then it lists some countries as potential buyers, and has India as the main source.
Woops. You don't need to be a rocket scientist to know this is a complete pile of ****. The day India buys gas from Pakistan is the day that _______________ (insert anything). I'll try to find the article I was originally searching for, because it basically deals directly with this bbc article.
Its kinda disheartening that they would even run an article like that though, considering anyone who has watched 5 min of news in the past 10 years would realize it is completely far fetched.
Hellraiser
06-23-04, 12:54 PM
Osama actually had religious and ideological principles which he stood for, and I partially respect him, Saddam on the other hand was just a monster.
Good lord. And you think most people are retards. Look in the mirror.
Tolstoy
06-24-04, 10:46 PM
Good lord. And you think most people are retards. Look in the mirror.
First off, I don't remember ever saying that most people are retards.
Secondly, I don't like looking in the mirror because I am a really ugly person, not because I am afraid I will realize I'm a retard.
Thirdly, I said I partially respect him. He grew up in a very privilidged position and could have been relaxing in a 500 bedroom mansion surrounded by virgins covering himself in peanut butter while reading Dog Fancy magazine if he wished. Instead he gave it all up, went to Afghanistan, played a pivotal role in fighting an unwinnable war against the Russians, and has given up all the luxuries his life could have had in exchange for living in caves fighting for something that he believes in. Yes his cause and his actions are deplorable, still compared to Saddam he is a living angel.
Henry The Kid
06-25-04, 12:50 AM
This thread sure went off-topic. One could make the argument that I'm continuing the cycle of off-topicness by making a pointless comment. To that person I say, shut up or you won't see your cat again.
Piddzilla
06-25-04, 08:08 AM
Anyone seen my kitty?
Sir Toose
06-25-04, 08:40 AM
Anyone seen my kitty?
I think you'll always have trouble finding pussy, Piddy.
:D
Piddzilla
06-26-04, 06:38 PM
I think you'll always have trouble finding pussy, Piddy.
:D
As long as you're my dawg..... :)
Hellraiser
06-26-04, 07:13 PM
I just take the position that people are retards.
But in a later email you get upset that I said you thought most people are retards???
And to partially respect bin laden for leaving his palace to run around with his dialisis machine from cave to cave and screaming about jihad is insane.
Golgot and you should read this. An entire novel linking Sadam hussein to bin Laden.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0060746734/qid=1088287756/sr=2-1/ref=sr_2_1/104-7289953-0183138
GeorgeStephanapoulos
07-06-04, 08:39 PM
Hmm... I'm not sure why there isn't a thread entirely devoted to Farenheit 9/11 but I have to say, that movie is surely the most astounding piece of film I have seen in a long, long time. Anyone else care to comment on that brilliant piece of movie-making? George W. Bush stole the show! A true star if there ever was one!
Hmm... I'm not sure why there isn't a thread entirely devoted to Farenheit 9/11
If you go to Maniac's reviews, you will see people are talking about it there :yup:
Silly and pointless generalization? It doesn't work like that in all cases, but I think it is reasonable to think this does occur quite frequently.
And, ANY discussion about the actual issues, as opposed to the ridiculous whining about how much Bush sucks is a very good thing.
Your right but still I thought this thread was about a MOVIE! Discussion is needed and this is quite a rational one, but so many viewpoints and so many concerns are all well and good except we ourselves can't do all that much, what the media feeds to us isn't all that objective either so who is informed......well nobody really it's all speculation. Was bush right in his decisions following 9/11 or wasn't he, I guess after the election we'll see what everyone thinks. cheerio ;)
Stumbled onto an old-ish study that's of interest...
Relationship of US gun culture to violence ill-understood - New Scientist - December 25 2004
"While there is a large body of empirical research on firearms and violence, there is little consensus on even the basic facts about these important policy issues,"
[One] problem is that data on firearm use is not gathered in a way that is useful to policy makers. For example, in places where gun ownership is common, the rate of gun-related suicide is known to be high. But the poor design of studies examining the issue has prevented them showing whether guns increase the overall risk of suicide or whether their absence would simply drive anyone intent on suicide to choose another method. Flawed studies tend to look at rates of gun ownership and suicide, rather than individual details of each death and whether guns were involved.
The overall stats on gun-related-death aren't in dispute tho, according to the article...
The US has the highest rate of firearms-related homicide in the industrialised world. In 2002, almost 30,000 Americans died from firearms injuries - suicide, homicide and unintentional shootings combined - about double the number of people who died from AIDS. Guns are the 12th most common cause of death overall, and second only to road vehicles in deaths caused by injury.
It's just attributing cause-and-effect that is difficult...
"The good news is that the interest in better-quality evidence is there at a national level," he says. "People are realising that without strong science, you are left with rhetoric, romance and assumption."
So basically, as the stats stand, we can't know the best way for gun-ownership to be handled (or not handled).
Yay, i was right... nobody was right ;)
The US has the highest rate of firearms-related homicide in the industrialised world. In 2002, almost 30,000 Americans died from firearms injuries - suicide, homicide and unintentional shootings combined - about double the number of people who died from AIDS. Guns are the 12th most common cause of death overall, and second only to road vehicles in deaths caused by injury
That is sad, 30,000 in one year :(
Karl Childers
01-29-06, 06:33 AM
The overall stats on gun-related-death aren't in dispute tho, according to the article...
The US has the highest rate of firearms-related homicide in the industrialised world. In 2002, almost 30,000 Americans died from firearms injuries - suicide, homicide and unintentional shootings combined - about double the number of people who died from AIDS. Guns are the 12th most common cause of death overall, and second only to road vehicles in deaths caused by injury.
Interesting. The blurb fails to mention that at least half of those deaths were "bad guys" getting shot by law enforcement officers.
But I love statistics. Here are some of my own, courtesy of HISTORY:
The Soviet Union established gun control in 1929. From 1929 to 1953, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Turkey established gun control in 1911. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Germany established gun control in 1938. From 1939 to 1945, 13 million Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals, mentally ill people, and other "mongrelized peoples," unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, 1 million "educated people", unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." -- Thomas Jefferson
Karl Childers
01-29-06, 06:40 AM
That is sad, 30,000 in one year :(
Not as sad as the 120,000-150,000 people killed each yr in the US by incompetent doctors.
No one talks about that, though. :rolleyes:
Interesting. The blurb fails to mention that at least half of those deaths were "bad guys" getting shot by law enforcement officers.
Interesting. Gotta stat to back up that up? ;) (And would those bad guys have been able to be half so bad without guns me wonders - to the point of needing killing rather than locking up?)
But I love statistics. Here are some of my own, courtesy of HISTORY:...
Compelling, i agree.
There are exceptions of course, but on a more modest scale (The UK and most of modern Europe being amongst them etc)
The UK is almost certainly a special case, in that our mainly unarmed police force means the threat of future tyranny is markedly reduced here. We've also got a strong sense of individuality-over-ideology, which has pervaded for centuries, and also undermines the potential for a tyrannous state. (Mind you, all it takes is economic collapse and we'd be reaching for our knives and bats :rolleyes: )
Still, on those grounds, i'll take increased incidences of mugging and house-breaking over increased incidences of fatal crime any day :p
Not as sad as the 120,000-150,000 people killed each yr in the US by incompetent doctors.
No one talks about that, though. :rolleyes:
I'd be willing to wager that competent doctors save a hell of a lot more lives than that.
Not as sad as the 120,000-150,000 people killed each yr in the US by incompetent doctors.
No one talks about that, though. :rolleyes:
Any death is sad :( Unfortunately there are good and bad in all professions, thankfully more are competent than not. :yup:
ecardica
02-14-06, 01:01 AM
Bowling for Columbine is nothing but a doctored mockumentary by Moore. He edited the footage so that his words were coming out of other peoples mouths and it was quite obvious. The whole bank scene in the beginning skipped out on the part where he got an FBI background check. Rest of the movie featured similar editing "mishaps".
Caitlyn
03-02-06, 03:25 PM
Interesting. Gotta stat to back up that up? ;) (And would those bad guys have been able to be half so bad without guns me wonders - to the point of needing killing rather than locking up?)
In 2002, there were 30,242 gun deaths in the U.S...
17,108 suicides (56% of all U.S gun deaths),
11,829 homicides (39% of all U.S gun deaths),
762 unintentional shootings (3% of all U.S gun deaths),
and 300 from legal intervention and 243 from undetermined intent (2% of all U.S gun deaths combined).
Source: CDC mortality report
And we already had the bad guys can always get guns discussion... ;)
Cool :)
Looks like it's more like 1% of gun deaths being 'bad guys getting shot' then, rather than '50%'. I wonder if Karl still likes stats ;)
And we already had the bad guys can always get guns discussion... ;)
Oh yes, my bad. I keep thinking everyone lives on my little island ;)
Caitlyn
03-02-06, 03:43 PM
Cool :)
Looks like it's more like 1% of gun deaths being 'bad guys getting shot' then, rather than '50%'.
Oh, but wait… some of the homicides, unintentional, and undetermined shootings were also bad guys getting shot… it was just not law enforcement doing the shooting that time…
Ay fair play. I was being a little bit facetious ;)
Hard to distinguish the good from the bad, as it were, in all those other cases tho. That's one of the things the 'stats interpretation' report was saying, i'd guess. (IE if the distinctions were readily available, they'd probably turn up on lists like that, for a start).
Karl Childers
08-16-06, 02:46 AM
Just in: Michael Moore is still an idiot. Only difference is that his 15 minutes of fame are up.
Har, har, har.
:D
Vanilla
08-16-06, 04:19 PM
Michael Moore probably isn't the greatest researcher in the world, but I got to give him cudos for releasing the kinds of documentaries that he does. At least he is trying to bring attention to things that are important and controversial. he is being heard, and I applaud it! It is still a free country isn't it?
Karl Childers
08-17-06, 03:49 AM
It is still a free country isn't it?
Huh? Of course. He is free to be an idiot, and I am free to say he is an idiot.
Nice to see you Karl :yup:
JibberJord
08-17-06, 01:26 PM
this movie is sooo sad, i cried like the whole time
Me too, though probably for a very different reason.
Dazed&Confused
09-11-06, 01:13 AM
I've just finished reading the gun crime, USA/UK debate and I feel compelled to voice my opinion on the matter.
As a knee jerk reaction against the terrible Dunblane massacre handguns were outlawed completely. As predicted only criminals have the guns now and they're using them against an unarmed population. All the current laws do is restrict legitimate users of firearms rather than the criminals.
vBulletin® v3.8.0, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.