A Bowling for Columbine Review

→ in
Tools    





there's a frog in my snake oil
Originally Posted by 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.
Not if you're intent on sticking to your rationale no-matter-what anyway

Originally Posted by Karl Childers
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)

Originally Posted by Karl Childers
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.

Originally Posted by Karl Childers
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.

Originally Posted by Karl Childers
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.

[quote=Karl Childers]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.

Originally Posted by 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.


Originally Posted by Karl Childers
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

Originally Posted by Karl Childers
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.


Originally Posted by Karl Childers
[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?



Originally Posted by Karl Childers
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.




Originally Posted by Karl Childers
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.

Originally Posted by Karl Childers
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

Originally Posted by Karl Childers
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?

Originally Posted by Karl Childers
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
__________________
Virtual Reality chatter on a movie site? Got endless amounts of it here. Reviews over here



Originally Posted by Karl Childers
Thanks, Nebbit.


By the way, your avatar is cute.
Cute like me
__________________
Health is the greatest gift, contentment the greatest wealth, faithfulness the best relationship.
Buddha



Originally Posted by Golgot

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

Heh. I would.
__________________
You're not hopeless...



[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.



there's a frog in my snake oil
Originally Posted by MMooreFan
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



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.

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.

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.


Here is a link you and your uninformed buddies can visit. It might do you some good.

http://www.changethatsrightnow.com/p...1603&SDID=1431



there's a frog in my snake oil
Originally Posted by Karl Childers

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".

Originally Posted by Karl Childers
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 )

Originally Posted by Karl Childers
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

Originally Posted by Karl Childers
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

Originally Posted by Karl Childers
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?

Originally Posted by Richard Dreyfuss & Karl Childers

I can only say I wish all the liberals and all the conservatives I knew had the class and forbearance he has.



there's a frog in my snake oil
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.



Originally Posted by Golgot
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.


Originally Posted by Golgot
-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…
__________________
You never know what is enough, until you know what is more than enough.
~William Blake ~

AiSv Nv wa do hi ya do...
(Walk in Peace)




there's a frog in my snake oil
Originally Posted by Caitlyn
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?



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.
__________________
"Taking my gun away because I might shoot someone is like cutting my tongue out because I might yell `Fire!' in a crowded theater." --Peter Venetoklis



Originally Posted by Karl Childers
.

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.



I am having a nervous breakdance
Originally Posted by Karl Childers
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...
__________________
The novelist does not long to see the lion eat grass. He realizes that one and the same God created the wolf and the lamb, then smiled, "seeing that his work was good".

--------

They had temporarily escaped the factories, the warehouses, the slaughterhouses, the car washes - they'd be back in captivity the next day but
now they were out - they were wild with freedom. They weren't thinking about the slavery of poverty. Or the slavery of welfare and food stamps. The rest of us would be all right until the poor learned how to make atom bombs in their basements.



there's a frog in my snake oil
Originally Posted by Karl Childers
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 ) 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.

Originally Posted by Karl Childers
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?

Originally Posted by Karl Childers
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]



Originally Posted by Karl Childers
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.

Originally Posted by Karl Childers
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



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.



there's a frog in my snake oil
says the man who misquotes or just doesn't understand my argument. Get your over-alls back on percentage-painter



there's a frog in my snake oil
Originally Posted by Piddzilla
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



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.



Originally Posted by Karl Childers
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.






Originally Posted by MMooreFan
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.