A Bowling for Columbine Review

→ in
Tools    





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

Originally Posted by Yoda
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.

Originally Posted by Yoda
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"

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



Originally Posted by Golgot
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
Originally Posted by Golgot
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.



Originally Posted by Golgot
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?


Originally Posted by Golgot
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.


Originally Posted by Golgot
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.


Originally Posted by Golgot
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.


Originally Posted by Golgot
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.


Originally Posted by Golgot
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.



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

Originally Posted by Yoda
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!

Originally Posted by Yoda
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

Originally Posted by Yoda
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.

Originally Posted by Yoda
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.)

Originally Posted by Yoda
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



Originally Posted by Yoda
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



Originally Posted by Golgot
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
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…
__________________
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)




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.
__________________
You're not hopeless...



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.



Originally Posted by Karl Childers
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.



Django's Avatar
BANNED
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 .

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.



Originally Posted by Django
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 .

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…



there's a frog in my snake oil
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 )

Originally Posted by Karl Childers
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)



Originally Posted by Karl Childers
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.


Originally Posted by Karl Childers
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.



Originally Posted by Golgot
(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.



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



I am having a nervous breakdance
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
__________________
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.



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.



there's a frog in my snake oil
Originally Posted by Henry The Kid

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)

Originally Posted by Henry The Kid
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 )

Originally Posted by Henry The Kid
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.



Originally Posted by Golgot
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…

Originally Posted by Golgot
]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…



Django's Avatar
BANNED
Originally Posted by Caitlyn
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.
__________________
Health is the greatest gift, contentment the greatest wealth, faithfulness the best relationship.
Buddha



I am having a nervous breakdance
Originally Posted by Caitlyn
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.



I am having a nervous breakdance
Originally Posted by nebbit
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.
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??

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.