'Bowling for Columbine' a lie -- really?

[Victor Danilchenko]

An open response to the critics who allege that Michael Moore's 'Bowling for Columbine' is deceptive:

http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2003/8/12/171427/607

[Mr Manifesto]

Moore's second hypothesis is that America's foreign policy may contribute to the belief that violence is an appropriate means to solve conflicts, a hypothesis which is shared by many sociologists and psychologists. Children who grow up in war-torn regions are known for having similar views -- war is perceived as a normal part of existence, violence as a natural way to solve disputes. In a weaker sense, the same message is projected to American children, who grow up being told that it is not acceptable to be violent to one another, but who simultaneously have to endure corporal punishment and media messages about how "the enemies of freedom" are punished. Moore's film was made before the dead bodies of Qusay and Uday Hussein were paraded on national TV. Americans were gloating (http://www.nicedoggie.net/archives/002585.html) over this demented corpse show:


"They squealed like little piggies too, so you'll have to make do with 'oink, oink, squeeeeeeeallll' for their last words. That goes for your grandson Mustafa too, by the way. Still think (expletive deleted) with the U.S. was a good idea, Sammy?"

Mustafa was 14 years when he was killed. Americans cheer the killing of children, yet wonder why their own children grow up to be more violent than those in other nations. It is paradoxical notions like this one which Moore's film seeks to address.


What a sick little country America has become.

[corplinx]

I don't think Bowling for Columbine needs a rebuttal. I just think it needs to be classified as an editorial type of movie and not a documentary.

I had zero problems with it. Sure, I thought some of Moore's BS was over the line, deceptive, etc, but the movie is extremely well done, funny, sad, and original.

Its a great film but maybe not a great documentary.

[Mike B.]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto


What a sick little country America has become.

The fact that the article quotes an internet post from an extremeist site makes me wonder about their agenda.

Anyone can find bizzare posts on the internet.

The whole point of that site too is to complain that the mainstream media was not gloating over the corpses.

So it kind of goes against the thesis.

I am not surprised you bought it completely because it fits right into your worldview.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto

"They squealed like little piggies too, so you'll have to make do with 'oink, oink, squeeeeeeeallll' for their last words. That goes for your grandson Mustafa too, by the way. Still think (expletive deleted) with the U.S. was a good idea, Sammy?"

Mustafa was 14 years when he was killed. Americans cheer the killing of children, yet wonder why their own children grow up to be more violent than those in other nations. It is paradoxical notions like this one which Moore's film seeks to address.

What a sick little country America has become. Anecdoatal. Is it so hard to be critical? Is thought over emotion even possible?

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by RandFan
Anecdoatal. Is it so hard to be critical? Is thought over emotion even possible?

You mean like the criticism in general of Moore's movie?

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto


You mean like the criticism in general of Moore's movie? So, if I understand you right, you are saying criticism of Moore or his movie is justification to think irrationally?

[Zep]

I think I have repeated my own assertions from OUTSIDE the USA that Moore's contentions in Bowling For Columbine struck a chord of recognition of a major "personality issue" in US society. Sure, Moore may have exaggerated and dramatised for effect - recognised as part of the story process.

But let me assure you all, generally, Moore's views as expressed in Bowling For Columbine have significant currency outside the USA, and have done for some time. I think posters like Fool and similar would probably add their weight to this opinion.

The basis and rationality of these views is certainly open to question, however the ongoing propensity for "gunplay" as a solution to social problems, both foreign and domestic, does reinforce the situation in our minds.

Please be assured, though, that the USA is not seen as the only or worst "gun-unsafe" location by a long chalk. There are other places in the world that are considered pretty much as war zones, whereas the USA is not...yet.

[Checkmite]

Moore had a message to send with Columbine, and Lord knows he sent it - at least, the message got across (whether you agree with it or not). But then, many other movies have messages to convey, and do just as good a job. So the whole "message" thing is neither novel nor truly all that noteworthy.

The only problem I have with Columbine is that material was invented. I speak specifically of Heston's NRA speech, where (in actuality) Moore borrowed small sound bites from several different NRA functions and created a whole new speech out of them. Now, I'm certainly no NRA member and won't defend that organization's views as opposed to Moore's, but this is unacceptable and should disqualify the film as a "documentary". It also leaves the question - what other bits and pieces of the film are actually invented?

[JAR]

Victor Danilchenko, what I find particularly funny about the logic of that guy who wrote the "Bowling for Columbine" apologetic article is his logic behind the NRA meeting, where Moore combined footage of Charlton Heston from two different speeches.

The guy argues that what Moore did there was okay because Moore never specifically said that the pieces of footage were from the same speeches.

According to that logic, when one is doing a documentary, one can combine footage from different incidents in a misleading way without ever revealing in the documentary that the footage is combined, and as long as one never specifically says that the combined footage is from the same incidents, one hasn't done anything wrong.

[KelvinG]

Originally posted by JAR

According to that logic, when one is doing a documentary, one can combine footage from different incidents in a misleading way without ever revealing in the documentary that the footage is combined, and as long as one never specifically says that the combined footage is from the same incidents, one hasn't done anything wrong.

You just summed up one kind of technique that is used all the time in documentaries to manipulate reality.
The idea that an edited, often scripted (loosely albeit) work of media can be a totally accurate depiction of reality is silly.
All documentaries take liberties with the truth, some just do it more than others.
Does that mean that it is right? Well, probably not, but good luck tracking down a documentary that is a complete, 100% accurate portrayal of reality. There is no such thing.

[KelvinG]

Originally posted by corplinx
I don't think Bowling for Columbine needs a rebuttal. I just think it needs to be classified as an editorial type of movie and not a documentary.

I had zero problems with it. Sure, I thought some of Moore's BS was over the line, deceptive, etc, but the movie is extremely well done, funny, sad, and original.

Its a great film but maybe not a great documentary.

I don't think I could have said it better, Corplinx.

[JAR]

There's a thing that's been around for a while called the "history is myth" logic. Michael Moore's documentaries fall under this logic.

As we all know, there is no such thing as hard evidence. Evidence is reliable to varying degrees, but it never can be said to be totally reliable. As long as one can come up with what Randi referred to as the "most unlikely scenarios", anything can be true.

Some people take the concept of there being no hard evidence to extremes. They argue that we never actually know what happened in the past, and because of that we are no longer obligated to be accurate in our portrayal of it. These people argue from there that we should portray the past in the most moral way.

Thus we have movements such as Afro-Centrism. Some consider it immoral to think that civilization came from non-blacks, because such a belief will ruin the self-esteem of black children and such a belief could be used to justify racial persecution of blacks. Thus they feel we should portray people of negroid stock as being as influential as possible, because in that way we'll give black children lots of confidence in themselves and prevent the growth of non-black supremacist movements.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by corplinx
I don't think Bowling for Columbine needs a rebuttal. I just think it needs to be classified as an editorial type of movie and not a documentary.

I had zero problems with it. Sure, I thought some of Moore's BS was over the line, deceptive, etc, but the movie is extremely well done, funny, sad, and original.

Its a great film but maybe not a great documentary.

Of course as someone said recently - "Anyone who believes documentaries are totally unbiased is either childishly naive or criminally stupid"

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by RandFan
Anecdoatal. Is it so hard to be critical? Is thought over emotion even possible?

Okay, I've had a bit more time to think about my statement and it was a little on the hot side. I'm tired of people glorifying death and war. I'll try to stick to the actual issues.

[JAR]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
[snip]
I'm tired of people glorifying death and war.
[snip]
I think your referring to when war is glorified and people dying or being maimed in it is glorified. People glorify it by saying that these people died or were maimed for a good cause. Of course, those people who die in a war get nothing out of it except death. That's why I want the U.S. military to remain volunteer. When people say a dead or maimed person who was forced to fight for a cause that he or she didn't believe in had died or was maimed for a good cause, then people are being really shallow.

If that's the type of glorification you're talking about, I'm tired of it too.

[Zep]

If my memory serves me right, I recall that Moore said that Heston trotted out the same speech, pretty much word for word, at EVERY NRA meeting. So the combination of footage of the two locations was probably more to obtain the best quality film rather than to invent a new message from parts.

I note that Heston is/was a movie actor and is more than used to wording out the script regardless of the reality of the situation. Personally, I don't like Heston at all - he's a complete dolt who is lost in a celluloid unreality, but Moore I concede could be a bit pushy if crossed.

[subgenius]

Good, reasonable (though differing), and civil posts: 4 stars, good beat, and easy to dance to.
Haven't seen the movie yet, I cry too much lately anyway.
Agree with the comment about Charleton. Sad that they used a senile fool as their shill. Exploitative, short sighted, and not helpful to an intelligent discussion of their agenda.
Shows a lack of depth to the position?

[KelvinG]

Originally posted by subgenius
Good, reasonable (though differing), and civil posts: 4 stars, good beat, and easy to dance to.


My god, you're right subgenius. When was the last time a Michael Moore thread (or any thread in the politics forum) didn't turn into an exercise in name calling.

Will this ever happen again?

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by KelvinG


My god, you're right subgenius. When was the last time a Michael Moore thread (or any thread in the politics forum) didn't turn into an exercise in name calling.

Will this ever happen again?

Shut up you twit.

[subgenius]

Originally posted by The Central Scrutinizer


Shut up you twit.
Should have known it was too good to be true.;)

[Blarg]

http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html
http://www.spinsanity.org/post.html?2002_11_24_archive.html#85712328
http://www.moorewatch.com
http://reason.com/hod/bd101802.shtml
http://www.enterstageright.com/arch...02columbine.htm
http://www.reason.com/0301/co.bd.rant.shtml
http://www.moviemartyr.com/2002/bowlingforcolumbine.htm
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/movie...owling18q.shtml
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Conte...01/831ojymx.asp
http://www.snopes.com/rumors/flight.htm
http://www.leftwatch.com/articles/2002/000117.html

[John Harrison]

If my memory serves me right, I recall that Moore said that Heston trotted out the same speech, pretty much word for word, at EVERY NRA meeting. So the combination of footage of the two locations was probably more to obtain the best quality film rather than to invent a new message from parts.

Sounds like crap to me. If the first sentence from a speech in one locale is fine quality wise, why would he need to cobble together bits of the same speech from other venues? Did the recording suddenly drop out? I doubt it. This is probably as reliable as his "evidence" that buying ammunition is easier in Canada than in the US.

[Nie Trink Wasser]

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/flight.htm

Claim: Two days after September 11 -- while all other planes were grounded -- a secret flight arranged by George W. Bush flew Osama bin Laden's relatives out of the USA.

Status: False.

How Michael Moore could have spun all of this into the tale he now spouts is beyond us. Yet spout it he does, as in this excerpt from a 2 January 2002 interview with Al D'Amato and Alan Colmes of the FOX Network:


Why don't we look at the connections between the Bush family and Saudi Arabia, why this country will not really go after where the money probably came from? Why did this country allow the bin Laden jet?
Let me ask you this, Al. Why did this country allow the bin Laden family, two days after -- two days after September 11 — to fly around America and pick up all the bin Laden relatives, about 24 of them, and take them to Europe? Not a single one of them was interrogated by the FBI. Do you think, if your brother was accused of killing somebody, and they couldn't find him, that they might come and talk to you, maybe ask you a few questions? 5

The sum total of the evidence Moore cites is a 30 September 2001 New York Times article, most of which negates what he claims:


In his first interview since the attacks, Saudi Ambassador Bandar bin Sultan, also said that private planes carrying the kingdom's deputy defense minister and the governor of Mecca, both members of the royal family, were grounded and initially caught up in the F.B.I. dragnet. Both planes, one jumbo jet carrying 100 family members, and the other 40, were eventually allowed to leave when airports reopened and passports were checked.3
Note that these planes were grounded, they were "caught up in the F.B.I. dragnet," and they were not allowed to leave until "airports reopened and passports were checked." This is hardly evidence of "secret flights" taking off "two days" after the attacks "over the objections of the FBI."

Moore seems to have fixated on a single sentence in that article:


The young members of the bin Laden clan were driven or flown under F.B.I. supervision to a secret assembly point in Texas and then to Washington from where they left the country on a private charter plane when airports reopened three days after the attacks.1
Note that this is a single-source item, that it is wrong about the date on which the flight it describes took place, and that even if it were literally true, it still belies Moore's claim that bin Laden family members were ferried out of the country before the FBI had a chance to question them — as do other news accounts:


Dozens of Saudi citizens were flown back to Saudi Arabia at their government's expense, while the bin Ladens are believed to have paid their own way, according to a Saudi diplomat. All of those who took up the Saudi government's offer to fly home were reportedly questioned by the FBI before being allowed to board the flights.4
So, to summarize:


No flights took bin Laden family members out of the USA "two days" after the September 11 attacks. The flights Moore decries took place a week after the attacks, and they left only after the FAA had allowed regular passenger air travel to resume.

Bin Laden family members were not allowed to slip out of the USA "over the objections of the FBI" or before the FBI had an opportunity to "interrogate" them, as nearly every news account of these flights mentions that the FBI questioned the departing Saudis, grounded their planes, and supervised their departures.

The flights which carried bin Laden family members back to Saudi Arabia were not "secret," as the press reported on them within days of their occurrence. (One could hardly expect that either the U.S. or the Saudi government was going to provide the world with advance notice about the departure of planes carrying people who had good reason to fear for their lives.)
Of course it was reasonable for the members of the bin Laden family to fear retaliation and to seek the asylum of their own country, especially in those first dark weeks following the attacks when Americans were frustrated about having no one within their grasp whom they could punish for the horrors visited upon New York and Washington: just consider the September 16 stabbing of a 20-year-old Saudi man who was studying at Boston University, an assault the police and the community believed had been motivated merely by the victim's nationality. And of course it was reasonable that the Saudi goverment would be concerned for their safety, and that the U.S. government would allow them to travel to a more safe location once it was feasible for them to do so.

Some folks play fast and loose with the facts when they've an axe to grind, however, and in Moore's case his axe is "the dastardly Republicans and how they're responsible for every ill ever visited upon the USA." In this case, inventing a bin Laden jet that secretly flew out of the country while the rest of us were barred from the skies, and peopling it with folks who were spirited out of the FBI's grasp by a U.S. president intent upon paying back some unnamed (but darkly hinted at) favor, is a handy way of reinforcing the stereotype of Republicans as callous and greedy politicians whose paramount values involve money, not people.

[subgenius]

Originally posted by John Harrison


Sounds like crap to me. If the first sentence from a speech in one locale is fine quality wise, why would he need to cobble together bits of the same speech from other venues? Did the recording suddenly drop out? I doubt it. This is probably as reliable as his "evidence" that buying ammunition is easier in Canada than in the US.
Ever make a movie? Not as simple as you think.
In any event what do you think he put in there specifically that did not actually come out of Charleton's mouth, or was out of context or whatever it is you think was unfair?

[subgenius]

Wonder why they were allowed to leave at all.
Wonder what those interviews found.
One or more of the hijackers' contact did meet with the Saudi family in Houston while they were meeting with Bush shortly after 9-11. He was allowed to leave. This is contained in the portions of the 9-11 report Bush won't let be released (as widely reported).
Wonder why.
Not suggesting anything.
Just wanting answers.

[JAR]

Originally posted by KelvinG
You just summed up one kind of technique that is used all the time in documentaries to manipulate reality.
The idea that an edited, often scripted (loosely albeit) work of media can be a totally accurate depiction of reality is silly.
All documentaries take liberties with the truth, some just do it more than others.
Does that mean that it is right? Well, probably not, but good luck tracking down a documentary that is a complete, 100% accurate portrayal of reality. There is no such thing.
That is true. Combining footage is sort of forgivable as long as it is not used to change history.

One person who has been criticized for combining footage is Crocodile Hunter. I remember reading about it on a site about 3 or 4 years ago. I don't know if he still does it.

[John Harrison]

Originally posted by subgenius
Ever make a movie?

No.

Not as simple as you think.

I'm sorry, where did I say that it was simple?

In any event what do you think he put in there specifically that did not actually come out of Charleton's mouth, or was out of context or whatever it is you think was unfair?

I'll refer you to this website: http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html , my point is specifically explained in number 2 (A and B).

I have yet to see evidence that the clips from his movie were from one identical speech, given at different venues, but Moore had to use different bits because all of the recordings had various sound/video problems. Feel free to cite away. Until then I remain unconvinced.

[subgenius]

Originally posted by John Harrison


No.



I'm sorry, where did I say that it was simple?



I'll refer you to this website: http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html , my point is specifically explained in number 2 (A and B).

I have yet to see evidence that the clips from his movie were from one identical speech, given at different venues, but Moore had to use different bits because all of the recordings had various sound/video problems. Feel free to cite away. Until then I remain unconvinced.
Too hard to splain it yoursef?

[John Harrison]

No, it's just explained a bit better there. The short story is that Moore took bits from different speeches at different times to make it look like the NRA decided to have pro-gun rallies right after shootings in Colorado and Michigan. They didn't.

Are you finding it too hard to address the discussion, or would you just prefer to make sarcastic remarks?

[Cleopatra]

Thanks for starting this thread Victor.

I saw the film twice because I was a bit shocked by it and since in my country we have started to discuss the issue of gun ownership it has caused a lot of discussions here and people quote this film a lot, something that I find completely wrong( I mean, I think that it's wrong to make comparisons between a tiny country and a huge country with immense differences in cultural background, based on a film).

I'd like to know how true it is. I am following this thread with great interest.

[Lothian]

I only recently got round to watching the film. From comments about it that I had previously seen on this site I was expecting Moore to come to the conclusion that it was the high availability of guns that caused the problems in America and that he would advocate a gun ban.

I was therefore quite surprised that he did not come this conclusion at all.

Yes, some people didn’t come across too well. Ok, we saw an edited film as opposed to a real time documentary, but leaving that aside.

Moore obviously cares about the problem and looks in the film for the cause of the problem and for solutions. I see far too much effort by people trying to defend or attack Moore. Were they to put his same effort put into looking for the causes or for solutions it would be time more constructively spent.

There is unfortunately very little comment about the conclusions in the film. The reason America has its gun problem Moore concludes is that Americans are frightened, this fear is perpetuated by those with the vested interests as well as by the media’s coverage and presentation of events ?

Is he right ? I certainly notice in posts by some of those in America that they appear to have more of a fear than those outside. How do those that have travelled or spent time in and out of America feel the media’s presentation of news, events and issues in America differs from that elsewhere. Does he have a case ?

[Victor Danilchenko]

Cleopatra

I'd like to know how true it is. I am following this thread with great interest.the thing to remember, Cleaopatra, is that BfC does not indict gun ownership per se, but rather the culture that enables the high violence levels. Israel is one of the examples of countries which have no problems with high gun availability -- along with Switzeland and Finland. BfC indicts USA gun culture, not the high gun availability.

So be careful what conclusions you get from the film and this thread.

[JAR]

Originally posted by Zep
Personally, I don't like Heston at all - he's a complete dolt who is lost in a celluloid unreality, but Moore I concede could be a bit pushy if crossed.
How could you not like Chuck?

[RichardR]

Victor, the author of article you reference is either a credulous fool or is only interested in pro-Moore spin. One of my very pro-Michael Moore friends was so embarrassed by the exposes of Moore's lies that he was motivated to write a letter to Moore to ask him to be less deceptive in future. Columbine was a highly devious deceptive film.

Originally posted by subgenius
Ever make a movie? Not as simple as you think. Moore seems to find it relatively simple to make movies to deceive. But then he is a professional film maker.

Originally posted by subgenius
In any event what do you think he put in there specifically that did not actually come out of Charleton's mouth, or was out of context or whatever it is you think was unfair? What was dishonest was that the first speech Heston is shown giving, is actually a mix of two speeches, namely the one given in Denver, and another given a year later in Charlotte. In addition, the Denver speech is aggressively edited to remove conciliatory references and to make it sound like Heston didn’t care about the shooting. Editing tricks cover the joins. The effect is to change the meaning of Heston’s speech.

What was dishonest was also that the second speech given at an NRA rally in Flint, that Moore strongly and deliberately leads you to believe took place within 48 hours of the shooting, actually took place at an unrelated election rally eight months later. (One of many that Heston attended around this time.)

These three things, if represented honestly, would have completely changed the impression given of the NRA, and of how Heston was portrayed in his interview with Moore.

Look at these details, and references:

Firstly, read in the Denver local paper (http://www.boulderdailycamera.com/shooting/22gunsleg2.html) what Moore didn’t tell you, namely that this meeting was required by law, and that it had been significantly scaled back:
The National Rifle Association on Wednesday dramatically scaled back events it will host during its annual convention to be held in Denver next week.

"The tragedy in Littleton last Tuesday calls upon us to take steps, along with dozens of other planned public events, to modify our schedule to show our profound sympathy and respect for the families and communities in the Denver Area in their time of great loss," NRA President Charlton Heston and Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre said in a prepared statement.

The NRA convention originally was scheduled to last all day April 30 and May 1 and 2, with exhibits by nearly 300 gun dealers and others ranging from Glock Inc. and Soldier of Fortune to the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation.

The group instead will hold its annual meeting of members at 10 a.m. May 1 at the state's Convention Center, "as required by New York not-for-profit statutes which govern our bylaws," Heston and LaPierre's release said. Association officials on Wednesday said they would not conduct any "festive" events.
In addition, the actual Denver speech started with a moment of silence for the Columbine victims, according to the Denver “Rocky Mountain News”: (http://www.insidedenver.com/drmn/election/article/0,1299,DRMN_36_1499075,00.html):

The most recent time Charlton Heston was in Denver, he opened the National Rifle Association meeting with a moment of silence.

It was May 1999, two weeks after the Columbine High School tragedy.
Moore doesn’t mention any of this. His record of the Denver meeting starts with the commentary: “just 10 days after the Columbine mass murders, Heston came to Denver and held a large pro-gun rally”, and shows Heston raising a rifle, and with him speaking the words "From my cold dead hands!" Moore neglects to say that this is from Heston’s May 2000 speech (exactly a year later), given in Charlotte, NC. Read the NRA transcript (http://www.nrahq.org/transcripts/hestonam.asp) of that speech: which I have corroborated from independent sources.

Having replaced the actual “a moment of silence” with a different year’s "From my cold dead hands!", Moore inserts a lengthy commentary as misdirection, and then cuts to the actual speech given in 1999. (He needs this lengthy misdirection because Heston is now wearing a different suit, shirt and tie.)

Frankly, anyone who says "in reality, it is quite obvious that he does it to separate the introduction of Heston from his speech in Denver", (like the author of the article referenced by Victor), is biased beyond any reason. Moore does this deliberately and cynically.

Moore then heavily edits the 1999 speech to change its meaning. Here is the NRE transcript of Heston's May 1999 speech (http://www.nrahq.org/transcripts/denver_open.asp) given in Denver, that I have also corroborated from independent sources.

I have quoted the whole speech. But I have put in bold and underlined, the extracts that Moore shows in his film. The other words are all omitted, See the conciliatory remarks that have been omitted. See if you think the meaning has been altered.

Good morning.

I want to welcome you to this abbreviated annual gathering of the National Rifle Association. Thank you for coming and thank you for supporting your organization.

I also want to applaud your courage in coming here today. of course, you have a right to be here.

As you know, we've canceled the festivities and fellowship we normally enjoy at our annual gatherings. This decision has perplexed a few and inconvenienced thousands. I apologize for that.

But it's fitting and proper that we should do this ... because NRA members are, above all, Americans. That means whatever our differences, we are respectful of one another and we stand united, especially in adversity.

Wellington Webb, the Mayor of Denver, sent me a message: "Don't come here. We don't want you here."

I say to the Mayor, "I volunteered for the war they wanted me to attend when I was 18 years old. Since then, I've run small errands for my country from Nigeria to Vietnam." I know many of you could say the same. But the Mayor said, "Don't come."

I'm sorry for that. I'm sorry for the newspaper ads saying the same thing. "Don't come here." This is our country. As Americans we are free to travel wherever we wish in our broad land. They say we'll create a media distraction. But we were preceded here by hundreds of intrusive news crews.

They say we'll create political distraction. But it has not been the NRA pressing for political advantage, calling press conferences to propose vast packages of new legislation.

They say, "Don't come here." I guess what saddens me most is how it suggests complicity. It implies that you and I and eighty million honest gun owners are somehow to blame, that we don't care as much as they, or that we don't deserve to be as shocked and horrified as every other soul in America mourning for the people of Littleton.

"Don't come here." That's offensive. It's also absurd, because we live here.

There are thousands of NRA members in Denver and tens upon tens of thousands in the state of Colorado.

NRA members labor in Denver's factories, populate Denver's faculties, run Denver corporations, play on Colorado sports teams, work in media across the front range, parent and teach and coach Denver's children, attend Denver's churches, and proudly represent Denver in uniform on the world's oceans and in the skies over Kosovo at this very moment.

NRA members are in City Hall, Fort Carson, NORAD, the Air Force Academy and the Olympic Training Center.

And yes, NRA members are surely among the police and fire and SWAT team heroes who risked their lives to rescue the students of Columbine from evil, mindless executioners.

"Don't come here?" We are already here. This community is our home. Every community in America is our home. We are a 128-year-old fixture of mainstream America. The Second Amendment ethic of lawful, responsible firearm ownership spans the broadest cross-section of American life imaginable.

So we have the same right as all other citizens to be here ... to help shoulder the grief ... to share our sorrow ... and to offer our respectful, reasoned voice to the national discourse that has erupted around this tragedy.

One more thing. Our words and our behavior will be scrutinized more than ever this morning. Those who are hostile toward us will lie in wait to seize on a soundbite out of context, ever searching for an embarrassing moment to ridicule us. So let us be mindful ... the eyes of the nation are upon us today.
Moore ends with Heston’s closing remarks from a different speech he made at the end of the day. All the joins are hidden with clever editing - cutting to other scenes and back to the speech again, and so on - with Moore’s commentary as misdirection. It is clearly deliberate.

Following Denver, Moore moves on to Kayla Rolland, the little girl from Flint who was shot at her school, and whose picture Moore left at Heston’s home at the end of the movie. After covering the shooting, Moore momentarily displays a rostrum camera shot that quickly highlights and magnifies the words “within 48 hours”, and simultaneously comments: "Just as he did after the Columbine shooting, Charlton Heston showed up in Flint, to have a big pro-gun rally". You are meant to think the NRA meeting took place within 48 hours of the shooting, although Moore is careful not to actually say that.

Due to this subliminal messaging, the audience now thinks the meeting took place 48 hours after the shooting, and the next thing you hear is Heston’s spoken words "From my cold dead hands!" again. But this time it’s without the visual. Actually the speech was eight months later, and there is no evidence Heston actually spoke the "cold dead hands" words.

Again, only a totally pro-Moore biased reviewer would say "the reason the sentence is highlighted is not to deceive the viewer into believing that Heston hurried to Flint to immediately hold a rally there (as will become quite obvious), but simply to highlight the first mention of the name "Kayla Rolland" in the text".

This was beyond having an agenda. It was plain lying.

[RandFan]

I found the editorial and interesting addition to the discussion. I think the author is clearly as biased as any of Moore's critics.

On your webpage, you state that "Moore's resolution is questionable. After all, early in the movie he discards the possibility that playing violent video games and watching violent flicks can cause violence -- because Canadians like, and Japanese positively love, those. If violent movies and violent videogames cannot cause violence -- then how can newscasts about violence do so?" [/b] Poor logic. Violence is a complex problem. Selective comparisons i.e. Canadians & Japanese vs. Americans cannot answer the question since there are SO many other and contradictory variables.

Guns have always been readily available while video games and the violence that is the subject of the discussion are relatively new. In fact both seem to have chronological correlation.

This is a faulty generalization. If, as Moore implies (although never states as fact), video games and violent movies are relatively harmless, it does not logically follow that all types of media presentation are harmless. Odd that the author makes such an accusation after making such an egregious one himself.

There is a huge difference, for example, between playing a game like "Quake" and listening to a radio broadcast that tells you that your family will be killed unless you take action to kill others now. Hold on there sparky, where the hell are you going? First the American Academy of Pediatrics (www.aap.org), the American Medical Association (www.aap.org), and the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry (www.aacap.org) issued an unprecedented statement (http://www.aap.org/policy/re0109.html) condemning media violence as harmful to children. The statement is based on more than 1,000 research studies over three decades which linked media violence to aggressive actions.

Now don't get me wrong, I'm not in support of censorship and I have questions regarding these studies but you are making an argument based on specious reasoning without ANY objective evidence that is countered by many experts.

Obviously, media propaganda can incite people to kill. Interactive fiction like video games, on the other hand, presents violence in a narrative context, which may very well desensitize participants to said violence, but no causative link has ever been proven. Arguable, and I am inclined to believe that many of the experts are wrong. But then...

Moore's hypothesis (which apparently comes at least in part from the book "Culture of Fear" by Barry Glassner, also advertised on Moore's website) is that the constant bombardment with messages of fear can incite paranoia, which itself can lead to violent acts. This is consistent with the kind of media-incited violence described above, and in no relationship whatsoever to the theory of video game or music incited violence. It is no surprise, however, that US (and European) media do not question their own propaganda of fear. NO OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE CITED!. Odd that the author criticizes and then makes a ridiculous unsubstantiated argument (ok, it's Moore's argument) based on selective observation and selective choosing which variables to consider and which to not to consider.

Bottom line: It is demonstrable that Moore is biased and lacks any serious objectivity. This doesn't make Moore wrong but it does call into question his credibility (the same can be said of many of Moore's critics).

Whatever Moore's and the author's hypothesis are, they are contradicted by a significant body of objective evidence and the only thing that I can see that is offered to refute this evidence is specious reasoning.

I think video games, the news, movies, poverty, etc., play a part in contributing to violence. Attempting to pare down the variables by comparing our culture to others is wrongheaded without the crtical exmaination needed to justify such comparisons. At the very least Moore and his apologists need to admit that they argue with little or no objective evidence.

[Zep]

Originally posted by JAR
How could you not like Chuck? I could not like him like this!

[Tony]

Originally posted by Zep
I could not like him like this!


How dare he stand up for hit rights!! :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[Zep]

Randfan, you make interesting and significant comments about Moore and his ability and motives for making the film, but you have missed the point on what this discussion is about.

Put simply, Moore has simply enumerated accurately the attitudes of many people and countries OUTSIDE the USA with regard to the issues to do with the USA's gun culture. In general, yes, there are other countries with similar gun ownership policies, densities and usages, etc, but outside of some ongoing recalcitrant banana republics and known war zones, the situation is that the USA has a reliable reputation for having higher rates of gun-related injuries and deaths than most other first-world countries. Moore has not invented this scenario, and indeed he has not sheeted the blame home to any of the usual suspects either.

However Moore HAS held up a mirror, and some people are not prepared for and do not like what they have seen. And let me assure you that this situation is not new to us out here - it is something we have known about and discussed for many decades. It is literally part of our folklore: "When you travel to America, watch out for the guns". Sorta like, "don't drink the water in Egypt". And it is people like Heston and the NRA that reinforce this folklore, not alleviate it.

Of course, those of us with enough brains do realise that the vast majority of Americans do not prowl their country with guns drawn looking to shoot at anything that moves, a la OK Corral. Some of them spend time on skeptic BB's instead...:D

[RandFan]

Originally posted by RichardR
This was beyond having an agenda. It was plain lying. Richard, I can't thank you enough for providing the transcript.

Heston
One more thing. Our words and our behavior will be scrutinized more than ever this morning. Those who are hostile toward us will lie in wait to seize on a soundbite out of context, ever searching for an embarrassing moment to ridicule us. So let us be mindful ... the eyes of the nation are upon us today. Heston's words were quite prophetic.

Heston
They say we'll create a media distraction. But we were preceded here by hundreds of intrusive news crews. Yes, it is quite clear. Moore didn't just create something that took licence for artistic purposes. He lied.

[John Harrison]

However Moore HAS held up a mirror, and some people are not prepared for and do not like what they have seen. And let me assure you that this situation is not new to us out here - it is something we have known about and discussed for many decades. It is literally part of our folklore: "When you travel to America, watch out for the guns". Sorta like, "don't drink the water in Egypt". And it is people like Heston and the NRA that reinforce this folklore, not alleviate it.

Translation: We've already made up our minds. Don't try and confuse us with any facts.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Zep
I could not like him like this! This is exactly how I like him. An individual who is willing to stand up for what he believes to be right and not cower to the wishes of those who do not have our best interests at heart. Others would say SIT DOWN AND SHUT UP!

Chuck, and I support his sentiment say NO! We will not sit down or shut up. We (members of the NRA) represent citizens from around the nation. Many if not the vast majority of us are honest, hard working civic minded individuals who obey the law and work for a better nation. We are not wackos but patriotic citizens are willing to fight for our rights such as free speech, freedom of association, and yes the right to keep and bear arms. View us how you will, that is your prerogative. I would advise however that you not underestimate us.

I realize that there are many throughout the world who do not like us or our politics. Tough! Since the beginning of our nation we have been fiercely independent, ignoring the conventional wisdom of others. (see de Tocqueville) I'm prepared to respect your views, ideology and culture as long as you are prepared to respect mine.

Our forefathers were not willing to abandon principles to please the rest of the world. On the contrary they were willing to die for them. The world is bereft of such spirit. The critics and nay saysers mock and deride such seemingly simplistic notions like patriotism thus sucking the wind out of the sails of many throughout the world who would hold such ideals.

What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death! I'm sure that there were those then and even today who would mock Henry. That is fine. We don't live to please all people.

[Zep]

Originally posted by John Harrison
Translation: We've already made up our minds. Don't try and confuse us with any facts. Nope, we're not a stupid hick-town like you seem to think we are. It's more like: I wonder if that nice guy realises himself he has REALLY bad BO?

[Tricky]

Certainly it is possible to portray American's devotion to guns as "fiercly independant", but it is like the old game of "I-You-He", where the same position is stated in different ways, e.g.

I am true to my principals.
You are unwilling to listen to reason.
He is a stubborn jackass.

If you want to call it being "fiercly independant", then go right ahead. Do not be surprised, however, if others in the world (and in the US) perceive you as the strident, violent charicature that the NRA sometimes appears to be. If Moore forces us to look at that image, then that is a good thing. He may be just as overstated and "cartoonish" as the NRA that he rails against, but it is by looking at the extremes that we realize where the middle lies.

Even though I proudly call myself a liberal, I don't care for Moore's work. He is too angry and too sure of himself. I don't like extremists on either end. But I recognize their importance. If he, as Zep suggests, holds us up to a mirror, then we should take a look, even if we don't like what we see. That is what others see, and we should be aware of it.

For some reason, I am reminded of a bit of doggeral, though I can't remember the author, regarding our "fierce independance".

Some say the moon is made of stone.
I say it's made of cheese.
For I am an American
And I say what I damn please.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Zep
Randfan, you make interesting and significant comments about Moore and his ability and motives for making the film, but you have missed the point on what this discussion is about. Hmmm... let me look, 'Bowling for Columbine' a lie -- really?[/b] I would say that I am not off topic.

Put simply, Moore has simply enumerated accurately the attitudes of many people and countries OUTSIDE the USA with regard to the issues to do with the USA's gun culture. If you don't care about my attitude why should I care about yours?

In general, yes, there are other countries with similar gun ownership policies, densities and usages, etc, but outside of some ongoing recalcitrant banana republics and known war zones, the situation is that the USA has a reliable reputation for having higher rates of gun-related injuries and deaths than most other first-world countries. Assuming that is true, so what? For the last time. To the extent that our gun-related injuries and deaths are higher is a result of many complex variables. Experts don't agree as to all of the root causes or even the relative significance of those variables.

Comparative Homicide Rates (http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvinco.html)

South Africa, 75.30
Colombia 64.60
Estonia 28.21
Brazil 19.04
Mexico 17.58
Philippines 16.20
Taiwan1 8.12
N. Ireland 6.09
United States 5.70
Argentina 4.51
Hungary 3.53
Finland3 3.24
Portugal 2.98 1.28
Mauritius 2.35
Israel 2.32

Moore has not invented this scenario... Ok, but how do lies and distortions clarify the issue?

...and indeed he has not sheeted the blame home to any of the usual suspects either. I'm at a loss. I'm unfamiliar with your use of the word "sheeted".

If I understand you correctly you are saying that Moore isn't "laying the blame" on any of the usual suspects, right? If so then aren't guns one of the "usual suspects"? They are in America.

However Moore HAS held up a mirror, and some people are not prepared for and do not like what they have seen. I'm not certain as to the value of a distorted image. I know that I don't like seeing the facts mischaracterized.

And let me assure you that this situation is not new to us out here - it is something we have known about and discussed for many decades. It is literally part of our folklore: "When you travel to America, watch out for the guns". Sorta like, "don't drink the water in Egypt". And it is people like Heston and the NRA that reinforce this folklore, not alleviate it. So, other's misconceptions and reliance on rumor and speculation are cause for lying and misrepresentation on the part of Moore?

Forgive me but I know this is NOT the point that you are trying to make but it is the point that is coming across to me. I don't mean to make a straw man just to clarify how I am taking the argument.

Of course, those of us with enough brains do realize that the vast majority of Americans do not prowl their country with guns drawn looking to shoot at anything that moves, a la OK Corral. Some of them spend time on skeptic BB's instead...:D Thank you. We (Americans who support the second amendment) could do a better job.

Then again Michael Moore could do a better job and not feed the misconceptions by creating documentaries that rely on deception.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Tricky
That is what others see, and we should be aware of it.



But why should we care if other chooses to wallow in ignorance?

If Australians really see Americans as Moore portrayed them, and Moore had to lie and distort facts to come verify such a view, isn’t that a harsher indictment on Australians and Moore?

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Tony

But why should we care if other chooses to wallow in ignorance?

If Australians really see Americans as Moore portrayed them, and Moore had to lie and distort facts to come verify such a view, isn’t that a harsher indictment on Australians and Moore?
Because we should care about our international image. It is very important in forging relationships and alliances. If the only image people see of Americans is the Rush Limbaugh version, then that is what they will believe. If Australians (why did you pick them?) see that not all Americans buy into the gun culture, then we will not be regarded so harshly. I would prefer that our image be sculpted from the middle, where it truly lies, but extremists make news. That is simply the way things work. If the only thing others notice about us is the extremists, then I prefer that we have extremists on both ends. Smart people will realize that they are not representative of the majority.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Tricky
Certainly it is possible to portray American's devotion to guns as "fiercly independant", but it is like the old game of "I-You-He", where the same position is stated in different ways, e.g.

I am true to my principals.
You are unwilling to listen to reason.
He is a stubborn jackass. Hi Tricky,

I am not making such an argument. I can be true to my principles and not think the other person is a jackass. I am saying that the fact that I am "fiercly independant" does not make me wrong nor is it an indictment of me in anyway.

If you want to call it being "fiercly independant", then go right ahead. Do not be surprised, however, if others in the world (and in the US) perceive you as the strident, violent charicature that the NRA sometimes appears to be. As I have said, we could do a better job. However I don't chose to live my life to please others.

Odd that others would expect me to live to please them when they don't live to please me.

Thanks RandFan.

[PogoPedant]

If I understand you correctly you are saying that Moore isn't "laying the blame" on any of the usual suspects, right? If so then aren't guns one of the "usual suspects"? They are in America.
I cannot stress this enough:

Michael Moore did not blame guns.

Bowling for Colombine is not an anti-gun movie.

Regardless of quality of the movie, the arguments, and the jokes, Bowling for Colombine cannot be said to attack gun-ownership. Why do pro-gunners belive that?

[Tony]

Originally posted by Tricky

Because we should care about our international image. It is very important in forging relationships and alliances. If the only image people see of Americans is the Rush Limbaugh version, then that is what they will believe. If Australians (why did you pick them?) see that not all Americans buy into the gun culture, then we will not be regarded so harshly. I would prefer that our image be sculpted from the middle, where it truly lies, but extremists make news. That is simply the way things work. If the only thing others notice about us is the extremists, then I prefer that we have extremists on both ends. Smart people will realize that they are not representative of the majority.



I understand your point, but the problem is one of perception not reality. If others perceive Americans as one way, when in reality they are another, doesn’t the problem lie with the person making the erroneous perception?


If Australians (why did you pick them?)

Zep is from austrailia.

Zep

And let me assure you that this situation is not new to us out here - it is something we have known about and discussed for many decades. It is literally part of our folklore: "When you travel to America, watch out for the guns".

[RandFan]

Originally posted by PogoPedant

I cannot stress this enough:

Michael Moore did not blame guns.

Bowling for Colombine is not an anti-gun movie.

Regardless of quality of the movie, the arguments, and the jokes, Bowling for Colombine cannot be said to attack gun-ownership. Why do pro-gunners belive that? Come on, why the footage? Why the focus on Heston? Why focus so much on the NRA? Moore does not need to say that he is anti-gun. Editing his "documentary" in such a way that was not flattering to those who are fighting for 2nd amendment rights is clearly making a statement about that organization and what it stands for. Moore has made no secret of his disdain for guns and his support for gun control.

I suppose if someone who had a racist background made a similar documentary deriding and mocking Martin Luther King Jr. while he spoke out for civil rights you would argue that such a movie was not anti-civil rights?.

Your claim is rather silly.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Tricky
If you want to call it being "fiercly independant", then go right ahead. Do not be surprised, however, if others in the world (and in the US) perceive you as the strident, violent charicature that the NRA sometimes appears to be. BTW and FWIW I present my hall of fame (shame to some I suppose) of "fiercely independents".

Lenny Bruce
Rosa Parks
John T. Scopes
Branch Rickey
Framers of the US Constitution
Lech Welesa
Steven Biko
Richard Boyle
Hunter S. Thompson

I'm sorry the list is short but it is late and I have to go to bed. I have many such heroes but my mind is failing me at the moment.

In any event, these individuals did not worry what others "thought" about them. They did what they thought was correct. Diplomacy and foreign relations are important but I wouldn't sell my independence to garner acceptance from anyone. It's a false economy IMO. Thank god the aforementioned were unwilling to sell their independence for acceptance.

[Zep]

Originally posted by Tricky
Because we should care about our international image. It is very important in forging relationships and alliances. If the only image people see of Americans is the Rush Limbaugh version, then that is what they will believe. If Australians (why did you pick them?) see that not all Americans buy into the gun culture, then we will not be regarded so harshly. I would prefer that our image be sculpted from the middle, where it truly lies, but extremists make news. That is simply the way things work. If the only thing others notice about us is the extremists, then I prefer that we have extremists on both ends. Smart people will realize that they are not representative of the majority. Very well said, Tricky, and this is exactly where I was coming from.

Tony: If Australians really see Americans as Moore portrayed them, and Moore had to lie and distort facts to come verify such a view, isn’t that a harsher indictment on Australians and Moore? Moore is a relative newcomer on the scene in this regard, and when we viewed that movie we found ourselves simply ticking off all the points we have been trying to make for years. Maybe Moore exaggerated, I grant you, but I don't think he missed the point or lied.

Randfan: Come on, why the footage? Why the focus on Heston? Why focus so much on the NRA? Moore does not need to say that he is anti-gun. Editing his "documentary" in such a way that was not flattering to those who are fighting for 2nd amendment rights is clearly making a statement about that organization and what it stands for. Moore has made no secret of his disdain for guns and his support for gun control. Because Heston is the embodiment of the NRA and its very public figurehead (maybe if he wasn't, things might be different).

And I don't agree Moore is anti-gun at all. He is a life-member of the NRA, in the film he is given and accepts a new gun (by a bank!), and he buys weaponry openly across the counter (in Canada, I recall), he shoots with the Michigan Militia, etc, etc. I don't recall him actively taking an anti-gun stance. Do you have proof of this, beyond the fact that his film portrays gun-culture in a poor light?

Also, it is an ongoing fallacy to equate "gun-control" with an "anti-gun" stance. They are not equivalent, and one does not lead to the other as many non-US countries can attest, and I do not advocate any no-guns stance. Such a black-and-white attitude does really not become you!

Also, Randfan, you might check out your own list of various country's homicide rates. Australia AND Canada are way off the bottom of this list - why is that?

[Tony]

Originally posted by Zep


Also, it is an ongoing fallacy to equate "gun-control" with an "anti-gun" stance. They are not equivalent, and one does not lead to the other as many non-US countries can attest.



I disagree, they are equivilant, "gun-control" is a precursor to a complete ban.

[JAR]

Originally posted by Zep
It is literally part of our folklore: "When you travel to America, watch out for the guns".
Where I live, that is true. But, where I live, it's not the middle class and upper class people who obtained guns legally that you have to worry about, but rather the lower class non-white people who obtained guns illegally that you have to worry about.

[Lothian]

Originally posted by JAR

Where I live, that is true. But, where I live, it's not the middle class and upper class people who obtained guns legally that you have to worry about, but rather the lower class non-white people who obtained guns illegally that you have to worry about. You mean the whites in America are frightened of being attacked by blacks and hispanics with guns. I saw a film recently which looked at this issue, it was called 'Bowling for Columbine'. You should watch it.

[Zep]

Originally posted by Tony
I disagree, they are equivilant, "gun-control" is a precursor to a complete ban. *SNORT!* Slippery-slope argument, and a fallacy.

Australia started out with more guns than it has now, and has implemented gun-control to a large extent today. Yet we still have lots of legal guns about and they are not going away, nor do we want them to go away. The debate here is about the balance of gun-control versus the potential harm, NOT if guns should be banned. This is just ONE example to show that you are just plain wrong.

Stop thinking what CAN'T be done - it CAN be done, and has.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Zep
*SNORT!* Slippery-slope argument, and a fallacy.

Australia started out with more guns than it has now, and has implemented gun-control to a large extent today. Yet we still have lots of legal guns about and they are not going away, nor do we want them to go away. The debate here is about the balance of gun-control versus the potential harm, NOT if guns should be banned. This is just ONE example to show that you are just plain wrong.

Stop thinking what CAN'T be done - it CAN be done, and has.

You're wrong, gun control advocates have gone on record saying that a complete gun ban is the ultimate goal.

"We'll take one step at a time, and the first is necessarily ... given the political realities ... very modest. We'll have to start working again to strengthen the law, and then again to strengthen the next law and again and again. Our ultimate goal, total control of handguns, is going to take time. The first problem is to make possession of all handguns and ammunition (with a few exceptions) totally illegal."
--Peter Shields, founder of Handgun Control Inc., New Yorker Magazine, June 26, 1976

"If I could've gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them...'Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in,' I would have done it."
-- Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA)

"We must get rid of all the guns."
--Sarah Brady, Handgun Control, Inc. on the Phil Donahue Show, September 1994

"Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is only a step. The prohibition of private firearms is the goal."
-- Janet Reno, US Attorney General

"We can't be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans."
-- Bill Clinton, President of the United States in USA Today, March 11, 1993

I think this one is pretty interesting:

"The governments of Europe are afraid to trust the people with arms. If they did, the people would certainly shake off the yoke of tyranny, as America did."
-- James Madison

[Zep]

Originally posted by JAR
Where I live, that is true. But, where I live, it's not the middle class and upper class people who obtained guns legally that you have to worry about, but rather the lower class non-white people who obtained guns illegally that you have to worry about. I won't enter into the "which socio-economic group has the guns" debate because that is something I do not know enough detail about to make valid comment. Perhaps if I lived in the USA I would know more.

But your comment shows that the situation remains: I would still have to "worry about" various people across the US having guns - I just wouldn't know who by sight. Here in Oz, we don't have that worry - guns are not a regular part of our culture and do not enter our thinking at all. So we have to make a concious decision, on visiting the USA, to note that there IS a prevalent gun-culture and adjust ourselves accordingly, however we choose to do that. One option is simply to NOT visit the USA in the first place...

[Zep]

Originally posted by Tony
You're wrong, gun control advocates have gone on record saying that a complete gun ban is the ultimate goal.

*SIGH*

"We'll take one step at a time, and the first is necessarily ... given the political realities ... very modest. We'll have to start working again to strengthen the law, and then again to strengthen the next law and again and again. Our ultimate goal, total control of handguns, is going to take time. The first problem is to make possession of all handguns and ammunition (with a few exceptions) totally illegal."
--Peter Shields, founder of Handgun Control Inc., New Yorker Magazine, June 26, 1976

You can't read? And handguns ARE banned here. See how worried I am about that?? :rolleyes:

"If I could've gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them...'Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in,' I would have done it."
-- Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA)

Selective edit, and so what?

"We must get rid of all the guns."
--Sarah Brady, Handgun Control, Inc. on the Phil Donahue Show, September 1994

Phil Donahue???!! Now THERE'S a credible program! *snort*

"Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is only a step. The prohibition of private firearms is the goal."
-- Janet Reno, US Attorney General

Quoted from? Context?

"We can't be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans."
-- Bill Clinton, President of the United States in USA Today, March 11, 1993

Quoted from? Context?

I think this one is pretty interesting:

"The governments of Europe are afraid to trust the people with arms. If they did, the people would certainly shake off the yoke of tyranny, as America did."
-- James Madison

Did you see Columbine? Have you the slightest understanding of European history?
And each and every quote from an American. Have you no thoughts that extend outside the boundaries of your own country? Does nothing that happens outside the USA seem relevant to you? Please look up "xenophobia".

[Tony]

Originally posted by Zep

But your comment shows that the situation remains: I would still have to "worry about" various people across the US having guns - I just wouldn't know who by sight.

It depends on where you go, in So. Cal, a bastion of "liberalism" and authoritarian leftism (where they have strict gun control btw), gun crime and gang violence is almost an epidemic.

Other places are a lot safer. And other places are even safer than that.

[Tony]

We'll take one step at a time, and the first is necessarily ... given the political realities ... very modest. We'll have to start working again to strengthen the law, and then again to strengthen the next law and again and again. Our ultimate goal, total control of handguns, is going to take time. The first problem is to make possession of all handguns and ammunition (with a few exceptions) totally illegal."
--Peter Shields, founder of Handgun Control Inc., New Yorker Magazine, June 26, 1976

I can read, but it seems you can't. Othwise you wouldnt have glossed over this.

And handguns ARE banned here. See how worried I am about that??

You willing gave up a right you didnt want, it's a cowardly act.

And each and every quote from an American.

We are speaking in the context of american politics.

Have you no thoughts that extend outside the boundaries of your own country?

See above.

Please look up "xenophobia".

I should say the same to you, you have shown yourself to be a bigot a few times in this thread.

Zep
And let me assure you that this situation is not new to us out here - it is something we have known about and discussed for many decades.

You still hold on to this distorted view after it was shown that moore's film was full of lies.

[Zep]

Originally posted by Tony
It depends on where you go, in So. Cal, a bastion of "liberalism" and authoritarian leftism (where they have strict gun control btw), gun crime and gang violence is almost an epidemic.

Other places are a lot safer. And other places are even safer than that. I can accept what you say, but the situation still remains that SOMEWHERE in the USA this sort of thing DOES happen. Here in Oz we do NOT have severe problems with gun-crimes, and we DO have "gun control".

Yes, we have gang violence. Yes, people get shot. But not at what we consider the frightening rate that happens in the USA.

And we have a federal government that is further to the right than Genghis Kahn that supports this stance. Go figure.

Conclusion: Moore was not lying. Exaggerating, quite possibly, but not lying.

And here's a thought to work on for a bit: A previous poster mentioned the figure of ~29,000 US citizens being killed by guns each year. If it was Al Quaeda who was killing them, what would be the national response to that?

[Zep]

Originally posted by Tony
We'll take one step at a time, and the first is necessarily ... given the political realities ... very modest. We'll have to start working again to strengthen the law, and then again to strengthen the next law and again and again. Our ultimate goal, total control of handguns, is going to take time. The first problem is to make possession of all handguns and ammunition (with a few exceptions) totally illegal."
--Peter Shields, founder of Handgun Control Inc., New Yorker Magazine, June 26, 1976

I can read, but it seems you can't. Othwise you wouldnt have glossed over this.

"...(with a few exceptions)..." Like the police, customs staff, registered security guards, bank staff, etc. Welcome to Australia!

And handguns ARE banned here. See how worried I am about that??

You willing gave up a right you didnt want, it's a cowardly act.

Name-calling. High quality argument... We CHOSE to do so for the good of the whole community, not to piss off the gun owners. And Australia has no constitutional mention of arming citizens. For us, gun ownership is an earned priviledge, not a freebie granted by ancient law.

And each and every quote from an American.

We are speaking in the context of american politics.

Ah. Way more limiting context. But Moore's film has been shown world-wide, and you do realise that American politics does affect other countries, don't you?

Have you no thoughts that extend outside the boundaries of your own country?

Please look up "xenophobia".

I should say the same to you, you have shown yourself to be a bigot a few times in this thread.

Oh? Am I bigoted in some way? Would that be bigoted AGAINST seeing all US citizens, some of whom I know personally as excellent people and very good friends, being shot at by constitutionally protected morons? Even against YOU being shot at indiscriminately? OK, I'm a bigot.



You still hold on to this distorted view after it was shown that moore's film was full of lies.

Nope. I agreed earlier that Moore may well have exaggerated some stuff for dramatic effect, but I doubt he concocted the chilling Columbine High security camera stuff, or wrote the answers for the Michigan Militia, or forced the bank to give him a free gun, or set up a fake Canadian gun store, etc, etc. And have you looked at the NRA website?

[Tony]

Name-calling. High quality argument... .

Its not name calling to call a duck a duck

We CHOSE to do so for the good of the whole community...

Are the guns gone? Are people still getting killed? If so, then gun control hasnt done much good.

For us, gun ownership is an earned priviledge, not a freebie granted by ancient law

For us, gun ownership is an individual right, not a priviledge that can be yanked away at the whim of totalitarian government or cowardly public.


Way more limiting context.

Please explain how its relevant to quote a non-american figure when speaking about a movie made about america and american issues.

But Moore's film has been shown world-wide, and you do realise that American politics does affect other countries, don't you?

Yes I realize that, but I dont care enough to hand over my rights because the cowards of the world fear american "gun-culture". Honestly, I think its funny, it reminds me of the old people that always fear teenagers.

Would that be bigoted AGAINST seeing all US citizens, some of whom I know personally as excellent people and very good friends, being shot at by constitutionally protected morons?

:roll: :roll: Constitutionally protected morons?

The constitution doesnt grant me the right to shoot an innocent person.

Even against YOU being shot at indiscriminately?

Thanks for your concern, but I can assure you, I am in no immediate danger. I have never been shot at indiscriminately, or for that matter, I have never been in a public setting in which someone has discharged a fire arm. It just doesnt happen that often in normal american society.

honest question, Do you think that guns are constantly going off in america and everyone is in immediate danger of being shot?

And have you looked at the NRA website?

Many times, its a great website. In fact, I have been thinking about joining the NRA.

[Zep]

Hi Tony.

We are obviously going round in circles, which gets us nowhere. And clearly you have rationalised your position to yourself already, reality be buggered, and will consider no arguments to the contrary. There are none so blind as those that will not see.

As for me not be an American, you do realise that the people on the outside of a burning house have a much better view of it than the people on the inside?

And maybe you have never been near any public shooting so far. That's good - one in 250 million is better than none. But do spare a thought for the 29,000 Americans last year alone who were killed by guns, and also the hundreds of thousands more who were merely injured by guns. Then please tell me by what standard you think that situation is acceptable.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Zep


We are obviously going round in circles, which gets us nowhere. And clearly you have rationalised your position to yourself already, reality be buggered, and will consider no arguments to the contrary.


I wouldnt consider an argument advocating restrictions on free-speech either.

As for me not be an American, you do realise that the people on the outside of a burning house have a much better view of it than the people on the inside?

False analogy.

But do spare a thought for the 29,000 Americans last year alone who were killed by guns, and also the hundreds of thousands more who were merely injured by guns.

I do, just like I care about the greater number of people that were killed in automobile accidents.

Then please tell me by what standard you think that situation is acceptable.

The amount of deaths doesnt matter, at least not enought for me to willingly surrender my rights.

[Zep]

Originally posted by Tony
But do spare a thought for the 29,000 Americans last year alone who were killed by guns, and also the hundreds of thousands more who were merely injured by guns.

I do, just like I care about the greater number of people that were killed in automobile accidents.

Sidestep noted.

Then please tell me by what standard you think that situation is acceptable.

The amount of deaths doesn't matter, at least not enough for me to willingly surrender my rights.Then this rate of carnage IS acceptable to you. I have to admire your cojones, and may I quote you on this in future?

[Tony]

Originally posted by Zep
Then this rate of carnage IS acceptable to you. I have to admire your cojones, and may I quote you on this in future?

What carnage? You obviously have a very distorted idea of the situation in the US if you use such a word to describe it.

And you’re forgetting that the areas of the US with the most "carnage" are also the places with the most intrusive gun laws.

But yeah this rate of "carnage" is acceptable, and yes you can quote me. :)

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Zep
Moore is a relative newcomer on the scene in this regard, and when we viewed that movie we found ourselves simply ticking off all the points we have been trying to make for years. Maybe Moore exaggerated, I grant you, but I don't think he missed the point or lied. Please, what points?

Because Heston is the embodiment of the NRA and its very public figurehead (maybe if he wasn't, things might be different). So? You haven't answered the question. If the movie isn't "anti-gun" then why focus on the NRA?

And I don't agree Moore is anti-gun at all. He is a life-member of the NRA... Oh come on!!! If Moore is a member it is for cynical purposes

...in the film he is given and accepts a new gun (by a bank!), and he buys weaponry openly across the counter (in Canada, I recall), he shoots with the Michigan Militia, etc, etc. I don't recall him actively taking an anti-gun stance. Do you know what mockery and irony are? Again, come on! Moore didn't get the gun from the bank because he wanted a gun. It was to mock the bank. He doesn't want to plunk targets with the Michigan Militia any more than he wants to hang out or talk with Roger Smith (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/6301691687/102-7212224-4482517?v=glance)

Do you have proof of this, beyond the fact that his film portrays gun-culture in a poor light? While Moore has not called for the banning of all guns he has repeatedly called for the banning of handguns.

Moore said he supports banning all handguns just minutes before stating, "I don't think, ultimately, getting rid of the guns will be the answer." It's not the answer but Moore want's them banned anyway. How would you characterize Moore's stance?

Moore
"Handguns have to go...Easy access to guns by a species that often responds irrationally and with intense emotions is a lethal combination." I will concede that Moore does not call for the banning of all guns. Is there any time where Moore, the card carrying "NRA member", defends guns or advocates gun rights, the 2nd amendment?

The only thing that comes across from Moore is that guns are bad.

Also, it is an ongoing fallacy to equate "gun-control" with an "anti-gun" stance. They are not equivalent, and one does not lead to the other as many non-US countries can attest, and I do not advocate any no-guns stance. Such a black-and-white attitude does really not become you! I don't whish to pretend that Moore is something other than what he is. I judge Moore by the totality of his contributions and I have never heard or seen him defend the 2nd amendment, which is the foundation of the NRA.

Also, Randfan, you might check out your own list of various countries’ homicide rates. Australia AND Canada are way off the bottom of this list... Misses the point by miles.

How many times must I state the facts? Crime and violence are complex problems. The variables that America has are different than Canada's and Australia's. And America is much lower than other countries.

- why is that? I don't have all of the answers. I wish I did.

What are your reasons for the difference?

[Tricky]

Gracious, Tony, you certainly do see a lot of "ducks" out there.
Originally posted by Tony --to Sundog, 3/31/03

Good, now leave me alone coward. (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=402200&highlight=coward#post402200)
Originally posted by Tony - to Eos of Eons, 8/11/03
You're just a coward and sniveling crybaby that can’t handle it when someone dares insults you or your lifestyle. (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870044761&highlight=coward#post1870044761)
Originally posted by Tony to ---Kashyapa 4/17/03
Your goal of "total world peace" is not admirable or nobel. It is weak and cowardly, and I have zero respect for people like you. (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=426600&highlight=cowardly#post426600)
...and most recently
Originally posted by Tony - to Zep 8/18/03
You willing gave up a right you didnt want, it's a cowardly act. (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870053393&highlight=cowardly#post1870053393)

I realize you have strong feelings, Tony, but labeling those who disagree with you as cowards does not make you come across as the voice of reason you imagine yourself to be.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Zep
...And clearly you have rationalised your position to yourself already... As if you haven’t.

...reality be buggered... What reality? The one that fits YOUR world view?

...and will consider no arguments to the contrary. There are none so blind as those that will not see. Oh yes, you are so enlightened. Please forgive us for being so blind. I don't see you moving from your exalted position of knowledge.

And maybe you have never been near any public shooting so far. That's good - one in 250 million is better than none. But do spare a thought for the 29,000 Americans last year alone who were killed by guns, and also the hundreds of thousands more who were merely injured by guns. Then please tell me by what standard you think that situation is acceptable. And this prove what? People die by guns therefore what? The population of the United States is nearing 300,000,000. We have an unprecedented number of immigrants from all over the world. (I know, Heston was mocked for mentioning this fact). We have many variables that contribute to ALL homicides including high homicide rates for stabbing. Guns are not the root cause of these problems.

You are focusing on one aspect, one variable of a very complex problem. I don't know what your argument is but when you get around to making it I'm reasonably certain it will be fallacious.

Would you mind making one? Perhaps you would answer some questions?

Are guns the cause of our problems?

Moore has said that banning handguns is NOT a solution, do you agree with him?

If banning handguns will not solve the problem of high gun related homicides then how will any gun control solve the high homicide rates?

How do we lower our gun related homicide rate?

How do we lower our stabbing related homicide rate?

[Tony]

Originally posted by Tricky

I realize you have strong feelings, Tony, but labeling those who disagree with you as cowards does not make you come across as the voice of reason you imagine yourself to be.


My poor Tricky, this is a mistake you make all to often. I call someone a name, or advocate the murder of someone and I can always rely on you to mistake my beef with that person as mere disagreement.

You and I disagree on many things, have I called you a coward?

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Tony

My poor Tricky, this is a mistake you make all to often. I call someone a name, or advocate the murder of someone and I can always rely on you to mistake my beef with that person as mere disagreement.
Yep. I won't let you get away with a damn thing. It's almost like living at home again, eh?:p

Originally posted by Tony

You and I disagree on many things, have I called you a coward?
No, to your credit, you have yet not bestowed me with that appellation. I like to think it is becase I am such a nice guy!:nope:

[JAR]

Originally posted by Zep
But your comment shows that the situation remains: I would still have to "worry about" various people across the US having guns - I just wouldn't know who by sight.
So you think that no guns should be in the U.S.?

[Zep]

OK, seems I have stirred up a few "2nd Ammendment" folks again! Whoopee!

First, thanks for the heads-up on name-calling and other derisory stuff, Tricky, but it bothers me not at all. It seems this appears when rational argument can't be found and used...

Next, it appears that some of the posters here think that since I'm not a US citizen or even resident that my views on guns and legislation thereto are somehow inferior to theirs, or that I'm in no position to comment on US "internal politics". If you don't wish to learn from the successes and failures of other countries that have similar governments, lifestyles, technological backgrounds, attitudes to law and order, issues with immigration, even shared borders, etc, etc, then don't. *shrug*

Next, my own stance of guns and gun-control has been quite clearly and openly stated above, but let me summarise: YES to access to guns by citizens for legitimate purposes, YES to adequate legal controls and training, YES to the military and other necessary services having firearms (der). I do not agree with US proponents for banning of all guns. Don't put words in my mouth in future.

Next, the "problem" and the "solutions". Sure, guns are a complex problem. I agree - there are a lot of other issues that relate and intertwine with them in America. And sure, there is no easy single answer. I have only said, and I repeat, that at least one other country with similar social issues and problems, when faced with gun-related crimes increasing, has gone down the gun-control route and has had some success. Not total success, but an improvement. But there is way more than just this involved.

Next, Michael Moore. Recently a poster here mentioned the figure of 29,000 people killed by guns in the USA in one year alone, and I surmised there were hundreds of thousands more who get injured by guns. To us here, that is more than startling, it is downright scary. But what is even more scary are comments like those from Tony above that I asked to be allowed to quote: The amount of deaths doesn't matter, at least not enough for me to willingly surrender my rights.This attitude was entirely the point that Moore was trying to make. He was simply asking if, and by what standards, this situation is acceptable. I would simply be asking Tony to indicate how many deaths it WILL take to make you reconsider that position...

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Zep
OK, seems I have stirred up a few "2nd Ammendment" folks again! Whoopee! And we have stirred up a few of the "anti-2nd Amendment" folks.

This says volumes about you and little about the issue or those you are debating with. Your contempt for those with a different opinion is noted.

I get so sick of this rhetoric. "Oooohhh look at me. I'm trying to make a rational argument and the big bad gun types are all stirred up".

Welcome to the world of debate. Discussing the debate rather than the point of the debate does nothing to further your argument.

First, thanks for the heads-up on name-calling and other derisory stuff, Tricky, but it bothers me not at all. It seems this appears when rational argument can't be found and used... Right, you are the only one with any rational argument or points. Why can't you just debate the issue? Why the narrative?

Next, it appears that some of the posters here think that since I'm not a US citizen or even resident that my views on guns and legislation thereto are somehow inferior to theirs, or that I'm in no position to comment on US "internal politics". If you don't wish to learn from the successes and failures of other countries that have similar governments, lifestyles, technological backgrounds, attitudes to law and order, issues with immigration, even shared borders, etc, etc, then don't. *shrug* Shrug all you want but most of us are tired of the smug "we are better than you" or "we know better than you" response to a serious and complex problem.

Next, my own stance of guns and gun-control has been quite clearly and openly stated above, but let me summarise: YES to access to guns by citizens for legitimate purposes, YES to adequate legal controls and training, YES to the military and other necessary services having firearms (der). I do not agree with US proponents for banning of all guns. Don't put words in my mouth in future. Why don't you actually take a stance instead of criticize and point out that other countries have different homicide rates? And YES our rates are higher than some but lower than others. But as I have pointed out time and time again that you are comparing apples and oranges. I have posted the numbers and the links that shows one can make any number of arguments if they want to play games with the numbers. In the end it does not resolve anything.

Next, the "problem" and the "solutions". Sure, guns are a complex problem. I agree - there are a lot of other issues that relate and intertwine with them in America. Guns are NOT the root cause of violence. There are not simply "other" issues there are other far more important issues.

And sure, there is no easy single answer. I have only said, and I repeat, that at least one other country with similar social issues and problems, when faced with gun-related crimes increasing, has gone down the gun-control route and has had some success.(emphasis mine)

And George Burns swore that the reason he lived to be 90 was the cigars. Hey, it worked for him let's all smoke cigars. Why is it so difficult to understand that what works (assuming that it does) for one country might not work for us?

Not total success, but an improvement. But there is way more than just this involved. Can you make a coherent argument why gun control will work in THIS country and take into account the very real differences in socioeconomics and culture?

Next, Michael Moore. Recently a poster here mentioned the figure of 29,000 people killed by guns in the USA in one year alone, and I surmised there were hundreds of thousands more who get injured by guns. I have asked but gotten no answer. I will try again. Therefore what?

To us here, that is more than startling, it is downright scary. But what is even more scary are comments like those from Tony above that I asked to be allowed to quote: Downright scary? Geez, you must be easily scared. What are Tony's words indicative of that is so scary? I wouldn't make the same argument but I don't see how one guys words are scary. I suggest that you hang out at one of the extreme left or right wing sites. I was lurking on some pro-communist site where the were calling for armed rebellion. Take a look at storm front.

This attitude was entirely the point that Moore was trying to make. And he is playing into your fears. It is called demagoguery and we as a nation are not as he portrays us or as others view us. Tony does not represent all Americans. We are very diverse and it is unfair to paint us with such a broad brush.

He was simply asking if, and by what standards, this situation is acceptable. Moore's work is propaganda. It fits with your world view then you that think there is some important message in there. Like all propaganda it has some truth and some distortions. I personally don't accept his thesis. If this makes me "bad" or a "nut" in your eyes or the eyes of a significant portion of the world then fine.

Another question that I have asked over and over again but no one will answer is "why must I live my life to please others when they will not live their lives to please me?"

I would simply be asking Tony to indicate how many deaths it WILL take to make you reconsider that position... A question Tony will have to answer.

If you asked me how many deaths it would take for me to reconsider my position I would say that you would have to prove,

1.) That the deaths and guns have an empirical direct causal relationship.

and

2.) That taking away rights will significantly impact the numbers of gun-related homicides.

[Wayne Grabert]

[Note: I have not read the entire thread, so pardon me if someone already made the point I make below.]

11) Heston's allegedly implied racism. You conclude from Heston's own words that Heston was somehow portrayed as racist. If anything, it is his own failure that he did not clarify what he meant with "having a more mixed ethnicity".

It seemed to me when I watched Bowling for Columbine that Moore's main thesis was that America's gun violence was rooted in its racist history. That is a provocative and plausible idea. It is one with which Charlton Heston apparently agreed.

How do you interpret Heston's comment about mixed ethnicity? Did he mean that we should ship all the blacks to Liberia and the Latinos and Asians back where they (or their ancestors) came from? Or was he alluding to the social problems that have accompanied America's mixed ethnicity? If the latter, then he was agreeing with Moore. If that is true, then the best way to combat gun violence is to combat racism and promote racial tolerance. It doesn't mean that Heston thinks mixed ethnicity is bad; it could mean he thinks that racism is bad.

Heston's answers in the interview were evasive and unhelpful. While this can in part be explained with his age and mental condition, if he is unable to defend the interests of the NRA, he should not be their spokesman. In this case, Hanlon's Razor can be applied to Heston -- he is probably not racist, but incompetent.

[Zep]

Originally posted by RandFan And we have stirred up a few of the "anti-2nd Amendment" folks.

...which is not me, but anyway...

This says volumes about you and little about the issue or those you are debating with. Your contempt for those with a different opinion is noted.

What contempt would that be? I don't consider you contemptible, if it helps you any.

I get so sick of this rhetoric. "Oooohhh look at me. I'm trying to make a rational argument and the big bad gun types are all stirred up".

Umm, nope. We are used to being ignored. And gee, YOU don't sound too calm!! :)

Welcome to the world of debate. Discussing the debate rather than the point of the debate does nothing to further your argument.

Angry people don't read rational arguments too well...

Right, you are the only one with any rational argument or points. Why can't you just debate the issue? Why the narrative?

Gosh! I'm not allowed to state a point of view here?? Big sentences worry you, perhaps?

Shrug all you want but most of us are tired of the smug "we are better than you" or "we know better than you" response to a serious and complex problem.

Words in my mouth again. I have never said we are better than you, or know more than you. But neither should you think you are better than us or know more than us.

Why don't you actually take a stance instead of criticize and point out that other countries have different homicide rates? And YES our rates are higher than some but lower than others.

Because that's already been done.

But as I have pointed out time and time again that you are comparing apples and oranges. I have posted the numbers and the links that shows one can make any number of arguments if they want to play games with the numbers. In the end it does not resolve anything.

I didn't make up the figure of 29,000 US citizens killed by guns each year - that was completely news to me until recently. I accept this figure because they came from TEXASbeast, purportedly a US citizen, who would most likely be more aware of them than I.

And apples and oranges don't enter into it, those are DEAD PEOPLE. Just like dead people anywhere on this planet, but they died in the USA in one year due to guns. Do you have any facts to contradict this? If so, let's see them.

Guns are NOT the root cause of violence. There are not simply "other" issues there are other far more important issues.

(emphasis mine)

I agree with that, pretty much.

And George Burns swore that the reason he lived to be 90 was the cigars. Hey, it worked for him let's all smoke cigars. Why is it so difficult to understand that what works (assuming that it does) for one country might not work for us?

It's not. But...... Why is it so difficult to understand that what works (assuming that it does) for one country might not work for YOU?

Can you make a coherent argument why gun control will work in THIS country and take into account the very real differences in socioeconomics and culture?

No, I can't. Who on earth could? But I CAN offer the results of a country that is similar in many respects to your own.

I have asked but gotten no answer. I will try again. Therefore what?

Does it not raise ANY sense of concern with you that 29,000 of your fellow citizens are being killed by guns each year?

Downright scary? Geez, you must be easily scared. What are Tony's words indicative of that is so scary? I wouldn't make the same argument but I don't see how one guys words are scary. I suggest that you hang out at one of the extreme left or right wing sites. I was lurking on some pro-communist site where the were calling for armed rebellion. Take a look at storm front.

I LIKE staying alive. I imagine of the 29,000, not counting suicides, THEY wanted to stay alive too. And indeed, the loony extremists are out there with their whacky ideas. I know! Let's let them have guns! :rolleyes:

And he is playing into your fears. It is called demagoguery and we as a nation are not as he portrays us or as others view us. Tony does not represent all Americans. We are very diverse and it is unfair to paint us with such a broad brush.

I agree with you on this entirely. Some of Moore's stunts were quite OTT and tacky. And because I travel to the US regularly and know folks there, I'm somewhat aware of the diversity. But that is not what is perceived generally, unfair or otherwise.

Moore's work is propaganda.

You think?? :eek:

It fits with your world view then you that think there is some important message in there.

Not for ME it isn't.

Like all propaganda it has some truth and some distortions. I personally don't accept his thesis. If this makes me "bad" or a "nut" in your eyes or the eyes of a significant portion of the world then fine.

I don't accept it entirely either, and no, I don't see you as that.

Another question that I have asked over and over again but no one will answer is "why must I live my life to please others when they will not live their lives to please me?"

...the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness...isn't it? Sure, why not, as long as you don't infringe on anyone else's pursuit of same.

If you asked me how many deaths it would take for me to reconsider my position I would say that you would have to prove,

1.) That the deaths and guns have an empirical direct causal relationship.

and

2.) That taking away rights will significantly impact the numbers of gun-related homicides.

So is 29,000 per annum not enough yet to draw any conclusions?

[RandFan]

Hey Zep,

Ok, I won't put words in your mouth or characterize you as anything other than what you say you are. Fair enough?

RandFan
I have asked but gotten no answer. I will try again. Therefore what?

Originally posted by Zep
Does it not raise ANY sense of concern with you that 29,000 of your fellow citizens are being killed by guns each year?Yes, but then so does the number of people killed in auto accidents, fires, stabbing, strangulation, etc. What I don't understand is why this issue stands out.

RandFan
And George Burns swore that the reason he lived to be 90 was the cigars. Hey, it worked for him let's all smoke cigars. Why is it so difficult to understand that what works (assuming that it does) for one country might not work for us?

It's not. But...... Why is it so difficult to understand that what works (assuming that it does) for one country might not work for YOU?[/b] I believe the focus on guns distracts from the real root causes of crime and the focus is political and not practical. It is used to advance ideology and not solve real problems.

I LIKE staying alive. I imagine of the 29,000, not counting suicides, THEY wanted to stay alive too. And indeed, the loony extremists are out there with their wacky ideas. I know! Let's let them have guns! And cars and knives and household products that can be turned into bombs.

If someone is truly dangerous to society then taking away his guns will at best reduce his efficiency in killing. I support taking guns away from criminals and the mentally unstable. Of the 29,000 you cite how many died as a result of a "wacky" person with a gun?

So is 29,000 per annum not enough yet to draw any conclusions? I accept the number. I'm skeptical that gun control can significantly reduce that number. Furthermore as I said earlier the gun control issue is a convenient one that allows many to sidestep the real issues of crime and violence.

[Tricky]

A couple of points:

Places that have more guns have more gun violence. This really shouldn't surprise anyone. People who have guns use them. To our credit, we don't use them as noisemakers at wedding celebrations. I don't think having more guns makes us more violent, just that our violent people are more lethal.

The US is a very open society. We prefer not telling people what they can and can't do. As a result, we are not very good at keeping unwanted things out of society. Not guns. Not drugs. Not immigrants. Not sushi.

I think it is a good long-term goal to reduce the number of guns in America, but it is a long term goal. We have try to take keep from criminals, rather than law-abiding citizens. That is a hard thing to do when the law-abiding citizens oppose many things that would help take them away from criminals. Some things have already been started may help, such as background checks, stiffer penalties etc., but these things will not have an overnight effect, and they need to be strengthened. I cannot see why anyone would object to gun registration. Perhaps technology will play a big role, with palm locks and such. But I think that reducing guns, and thereby gun violence is a worthwhile goal, albeit not a simple one.

For the record, I am in favor of trying to keep cars, knives, drugs, cancer and rap musicians from killing people too, but that is not the subject here.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Tricky


Some things have already been started may help, such as background checks, stiffer penalties etc., but these things will not have an overnight effect, and they need to be strengthened.

Since when does the guy selling guns out of the trunk of his car do background checks?

To think that such things help the situation is laughable.


I cannot see why anyone would object to gun registration.

Besides the fact that its unconstitutional...

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Tony

Since when does the guy selling guns out of the trunk of his car do background checks?

To think that such things help the situation is laughable.
I wouldn't expect a person such as you who believes that police should be abolished to buy into the idea of curtailing criminal activity.

Tricky said:
I cannot see why anyone would object to gun registration.
Originally posted by Tony

Besides the fact that its unconstitutional....
Not being the constitutional scholar that you are, could you point out to me the part of the U.S. Constitution that supports this contention? Registration in no way infringes your right to bear arms.

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by Tony

I cannot see why anyone would object to gun registration.

Besides the fact that its unconstitutional...
Gee, I never thought about it that way before. Is registering automobiles also unconstitutional (infringing on our right of free association)? Could you please explain. Thanks.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Zep


It seems this appears when rational argument can't be found and used...



Speak for yourself.

If you don't wish to learn from the successes and failures of other countries that have similar governments, lifestyles, technological backgrounds, attitudes to law and order, issues with immigration, even shared borders, etc, etc, then don't.

More laws and less freedom isnt a success.

Sure, guns are a complex problem.

Accually guns arent a problem, saying this is like saying black people are a problem because they commit most of the crimes.

I agree - there are a lot of other issues that relate and intertwine with them in America. And sure, there is no easy single answer. I have only said, and I repeat, that at least one other country with similar social issues and problems, when faced with gun-related crimes increasing, has gone down the gun-control route and has had some success.

"Success" at the price of individual rights isnt a success.

To us here, that is more than startling, it is downright scary.

Pathetic.

But what is even more scary are comments like those from Tony above that I asked to be allowed to quote:

Are you really scared? Really?

This attitude was entirely the point that Moore was trying to make.

Moore's point was that americans dont give up freedom for security?

I would simply be asking Tony to indicate how many deaths it WILL take to make you reconsider that position...

Didnt I already answer this question? The amount of deaths is irrelevant to the amount of guns. If deaths increase substantially it will be because the social factors that lead to crime will have gotten worse.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Tricky

I wouldn't expect a person such as you who believes that police should be abolished to buy into the idea of curtailing criminal activity.


Not at the price you are asking, no.

Not being the constitutional scholar that you are, could you point out to me the part of the U.S. Constitution that supports this contention? Registration in no way infringes your right to bear arms.

The second amendment itself says the right to bear arms shall not be infringed.

Main Entry: in·fringe
Pronunciation: in-'frinj
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): in·fringed; in·fring·ing
Etymology: Medieval Latin infringere, from Latin, to break, crush, from in- + frangere to break -- more at BREAK
Date: 1533
transitive senses
1 : to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another <infringe a patent>
2 obsolete : DEFEAT, FRUSTRATE
intransitive senses : ENCROACH -- used with on or upon <infringe on our rights>
synonym see TRESPASS
- in·fring·er noun

Regristration encroaches upon my right to own fire-arms.

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by Tony

Regristration encroaches upon my right to own fire-arms.
No, it doesn't. The second amendment provides for regulation.

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Your argument is akin to saying having to file a deed or title is an infringement upon your right to own property.

[Zep]

Originally posted by RandFan
Hey Zep,

Ok, I won't put words in your mouth or characterize you as anything other than what you say you are. Fair enough?

Thanks. I'd shake your hand if I could reach that far.

Yes, but then so does the number of people killed in auto accidents, fires, stabbing, strangulation, etc. What I don't understand is why this issue stands out.

Very true, and equally relevant subjects worthy of discussion. The issue of guns stands out because it is such an obvious bump on the graph.

I believe the focus on guns distracts from the real root causes of crime and the focus is political and not practical. It is used to advance ideology and not solve real problems.

Semi-agreement. I have no political agenda on this issue, just the practical side. To my mind, many gun-related deaths do seem so preventable with just a modicum of change in practices. For example, and it happens here a lot, many deaths and injuries are purely accidental - so would better gun education be an answer? Can't own a firearm without a proper diploma in safety? In the armed forces, you don't get to fire the weaponry until you learn all about how it works and what it can do - a good example.

And cars and knives and household products that can be turned into bombs.

Yep, and this is another issue of growing concern that will need some intelligent thinking to resolve, NOT rhetoric and posturing on the part of politicians.

If someone is truly dangerous to society then taking away his guns will at best reduce his efficiency in killing.

I think this is the point Moore was trying to make. The issue would be to determine (a) IF and HOW someone might be dangerous to society, and (b) WHEN and HOW to separate them from a gun, while retaining their societal and legal rights. I don't have specific answers for those questions re the USA.

I support taking guns away from criminals and the mentally unstable.

Can I suggest that that is a level of gun-control right there. Using the old maxim that an ounce of prevention is better than a pound of cure, what would you think about the notion that criminals who use guns would rate tougher sentences when convicted than those who do not?

Of the 29,000 you cite how many died as a result of a "wacky" person with a gun?

Some, I imagine. More than none. For an exact breakdown you should ask TEXASbeast, who supplied the number in the first place.

I accept the number. I'm skeptical that gun control can significantly reduce that number. Furthermore as I said earlier the gun control issue is a convenient one that allows many to sidestep the real issues of crime and violence.

While it's good to be skeptical, any proof would be in the testing. Maybe you are right - it could have no effect in the US situation.

I don't think anyone here believes that the gun issue is the one and only concern with respect to crime and violence. I agree - finding the root causes of violence are REALLY what is needed, and that is going to be an ongoing and difficult struggle. So in the meantime, perhaps some attempt at at least alleviating the symptoms might be helpful.

[John Harrison]

I cannot see why anyone would object to gun registration.

Please see California's gun ban and subsequent confiscation shortly after a registration law was passed. (specifcally SKS)

Or when Chicago passed a law that firearms owned in the city limits were to be registered, then stopped processing all requests a couple of years later, thereby denying citizens of Chicago the right to own a firearm.

Or the DC laws...Or some in Mass.... ah, what's the point any more. I keep writing about how registration is used to infringe on the law abiding and not for crime control, but nobody seems to listen. :(

[John Harrison]

Originally posted by Zep
For example, and it happens here a lot, many deaths and injuries are purely accidental - so would better gun education be an answer?

In the year 2000 - 776 deaths were accidental out of more than 80 million gun owners. Not exactly a huge problem, is it?j

And from a previous post:
I have only said, and I repeat, that at least one other country with similar social issues and problems, when faced with gun-related crimes increasing, has gone down the gun-control route and has had some success. Not total success, but an improvement. But there is way more than just this involved.

This statement seems to indicate that you think that gun related violence is increasing in the US, when the opposite is true. Just wanted to clear that up.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert

No, it doesn't. The second amendment provides for regulation.

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.



At the time the constitution was written "well regulated" meant well trained.


Your argument is akin to saying having to file a deed or title is an infringement upon your right to own property.

No its not. The two are apples and oranges.

[Zep]

Originally posted by Tony
If you don't wish to learn from the successes and failures of other countries that have similar governments, lifestyles, technological backgrounds, attitudes to law and order, issues with immigration, even shared borders, etc, etc, then don't.

More laws and less freedom isnt a success.

I can walk ANY of the "mean streets" of Sydney, our supposedly most crime-ridden city, any time of the day or night without fear that I will be shot at. Gee, I feel SO less free with all these gun-controls...

Sure, guns are a complex problem.

Accually guns arent a problem, saying this is like saying black people are a problem because they commit most of the crimes.

Per se, they are not a problem, but they DO contribute to making any other problems significantly worse. A street brawl is pretty ugly, but without guns it is just a bunch of busted noses, thwacked skulls, broken bones and cuts and bruises. They heal, people live. WITH guns, it can become a massacre, people die, and it makes nasty global headlines.

I agree - there are a lot of other issues that relate and intertwine with them in America. And sure, there is no easy single answer. I have only said, and I repeat, that at least one other country with similar social issues and problems, when faced with gun-related crimes increasing, has gone down the gun-control route and has had some success.

"Success" at the price of individual rights isnt a success.

See above about my perambulations.

To us here, that is more than startling, it is downright scary.

Pathetic.

OK, I'll use your word for it. To us, it's pathetic. Better?

But what is even more scary are comments like those from Tony above that I asked to be allowed to quote:

Are you really scared? Really?

Scared enough for some of us to not want to visit. Scared enough to worry that if we DO go there that we don't wander down the "wrong" streets at the "wrong" time. Being foreign nationals, we are not allowed carry guns on planes, and we can't buy them when we get there. So, in your terms, we would be defenceless. That's "freedom"?

This attitude was entirely the point that Moore was trying to make.

Moore's point was that americans dont give up freedom for security?

Moore's point was that Americans seem to be killing themselves to retain a political notion of a freedom, not a real freedom. I don't necessarily agree with that view, BTW.

I would simply be asking Tony to indicate how many deaths it WILL take to make you reconsider that position...

Didnt I already answer this question? The amount of deaths is irrelevant to the amount of guns. If deaths increase substantially it will be because the social factors that lead to crime will have gotten worse.

Uh huh. So let the killings continue then, Tony?

[Zep]

Originally posted by John Harrison
In the year 2000 - 776 deaths were accidental out of more than 80 million gun owners. Not exactly a huge problem, is it?

That's about 4-5% of the total gun-related deaths. No, not huge, but it's still 776 people who could probably still be alive but for a little care somewhere.

This statement seems to indicate that you think that gun related violence is increasing in the US, when the opposite is true. Just wanted to clear that up.

I didn't indicate any such thing, and it is encouraging to learn now that it is actually decreasing. The reality is that the US gun-death rate is still 4-5 times higher than here, for whatever reasons we can put our finger on. Sure, other countries are similar or higher rates, and my message would be the same to them. It's a matter of relativities, I suppose.

[Tony]

I can walk ANY of the "mean streets" of Sydney, our supposedly most crime-ridden city, any time of the day or night without fear that I will be shot at. Gee, I feel SO less free with all these gun-controls...

I can do the same in houston as well.

What you feel is irrelevant, the fact remains that you have one less freedom.

Per se, they are not a problem, but they DO contribute to making any other problems significantly worse. A street brawl is pretty ugly, but without guns it is just a bunch of busted noses, thwacked skulls, broken bones and cuts and bruises. They heal, people live. .

I guess knives dont kill, do they?

WITH guns, it can become a massacre, people die, and it makes nasty global headlines

So what?

Scared enough for some of us to not want to visit.

Im sorry some of you are ignorant bigots, but your perceptions are obviously distorted.

Scared enough to worry that if we DO go there that we don't wander down the "wrong" streets at the "wrong" time.

Are there ghettos and bad parts of town in australian cities?

Moore's point was that Americans seem to be killing themselves to retain a political notion of a freedom, not a real freedom. I don't necessarily agree with that view.

Thats his point? Damn, that idiot is dumber than I thought.

Uh huh. So let the killings continue then, Tony?

You assume that people are letting the killings happen right now.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Zep
Thanks. I'd shake your hand if I could reach that far.
Tell ya waht, if you come to TAM I will buy you a fosters, or whatever you drink. :)

Thunderbird....it's American for "getting pissed cheap", mate. :D

Thanks for the discussion. I think I have said all that I want to on the subject.

Now if I can only get a 50cal bmg with sound suppressor.

[John Harrison]

I didn't indicate any such thing, and it is encouraging to learn now that it is actually decreasing.

My mistake. I stand corrected.

[Zep]

Originally posted by Tony
I can walk ANY of the "mean streets" of Sydney, our supposedly most crime-ridden city, any time of the day or night without fear that I will be shot at. Gee, I feel SO less free with all these gun-controls...

I can do the same in houston as well.

And in LA? Or Washington DC? Or New York?

What you feel is irrelevant, the fact remains that you have one less freedom.

I feel pretty free not being shot at. How about you?

Per se, they are not a problem, but they DO contribute to making any other problems significantly worse. A street brawl is pretty ugly, but without guns it is just a bunch of busted noses, thwacked skulls, broken bones and cuts and bruises. They heal, people live. .

I guess knives dont kill, do they?

Very difficult at more than arms-length range or so. And even close up, needs some skill.

WITH guns, it can become a massacre, people die, and it makes nasty global headlines

So what?

Yeah, I guess you are right. Why should YOU care.

Scared enough for some of us to not want to visit.

Im sorry some of you are ignorant bigots, but your perceptions are obviously distorted.

"ignorant bigots"... That's rich, coming from you. Our perceptions come from what you show to us of yourselves and how you act.

Scared enough to worry that if we DO go there that we don't wander down the "wrong" streets at the "wrong" time.

Are there ghettos and bad parts of town in australian cities?

I mentioned the worst ones above, didn't I?

Moore's point was that Americans seem to be killing themselves to retain a political notion of a freedom, not a real freedom. I don't necessarily agree with that view.

Thats his point? Damn, that idiot is dumber than I thought.

Oh, you've been THINKING? I'll send some aspirin.

Moore was simply highlighting an issue in US society that he feels about strongly enough to need immediate and real addressing, and not just more political grandstanding and rhetoric about "constitution" and "freedom".

Uh huh. So let the killings continue then, Tony?

You assume that people are letting the killings happen right now.

There's a serial sniper started up again in Virginia just recently who has killed eight innocent victims so far. You might like to feel blase about their families for a start...

[Zep]

Originally posted by RandFan
Tell ya waht, if you come to TAM I will buy you a fosters, or whatever you drink. :)

Thanks again! I'll have whatever the local beer is - I can get Fosters any time.

Thunderbird....it's American for "getting pissed cheap", mate. :D

Suits me!

Thanks for the discussion. I think I have said all that I want to on the subject.

I'm about dried up too.

Now if I can only get a 50cal bmg with sound suppressor.

Cool toy! What does it weigh? I bet it is a bugger to have to run with... We should get one out on a firing range and see how it goes!

[Tony]

And in LA? Or Washington DC? Or New York?

Depends on the part of town.

I feel pretty free not being shot at. How about you?

Im not being shot at, I thought I told you this already?

Our perceptions come from what you show to us of yourselves and how you act.

No, your perception comes from what you see/read on the news.

I mentioned the worst ones above, didn't I?

You havent mentioned any australian cities.

There's a serial sniper started up again in Virginia just recently who has killed eight innocent victims so far. You might like to feel blase about their families for a start...

You didnt answer the question.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Zep
Originally posted by RandFan
Tell ya waht, if you come to TAM I will buy you a fosters, or whatever you drink.

Thanks again! I'll have whatever the local beer is - I can get Fosters any time. We have a gazilion choices. I don't drink beer because I have a hiatal hernia and the foam builds up in my chest and I think I'm going to explode. Damn painful. My brother in law only drinks micro brew (pumpkin flavor) and my brother mostly drinks Coors. Budwieser is big here but a German friend of mine says the name is ripped off from the real Budwieser and it tastes like piss.

Thunderbird....it's American for "getting pissed cheap", mate.

Suits me! Trust me, you don't want to drink it. I was only kidding. Thunderbird along with Ripple and Boones Farm is for the homeless.

My drink of choice is rum and coke with a splash of grenedine. I also love to layer in a tall shot glass; godiva choclate liquor and buttescotch schnaps or swap spearmint for the butterscotch.

Cool toy! What does it weigh? I bet it is a bugger to have to run with... We should get one out on a firing range and see how it goes! Depends on the make and model but a number of them are suprisingly light for the fire power. Most consist of little more than a barrel and stock. The E.D.M. Arms Windrunner is 35 lbs. (15.7 kilos)

It will put holes in a man hole cover.

They are mostly illegal and scare the bejezus out of law inforcement. I don't have a problem with outlawing bazookas, flame throwers, tanks, howitzers, mortars, and 50cal BMGs.

They are cool though and I would love to fire one.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Blarg
http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html
http://www.spinsanity.org/post.html?2002_11_24_archive.html#85712328
http://www.moorewatch.com
http://reason.com/hod/bd101802.shtml
http://www.enterstageright.com/arch...02columbine.htm
http://www.reason.com/0301/co.bd.rant.shtml
http://www.moviemartyr.com/2002/bowlingforcolumbine.htm
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/movie...owling18q.shtml
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Conte...01/831ojymx.asp
http://www.snopes.com/rumors/flight.htm
http://www.leftwatch.com/articles/2002/000117.html

Thanks Blarg! Welcome to the forum.

Quoted from the Snopes link:
Some folks play fast and loose with the facts when they've an axe to grind, however, and in Moore's case his axe is "the dastardly Republicans and how they're responsible for every ill ever visited upon the USA." In this case, inventing a bin Laden jet that secretly flew out of the country while the rest of us were barred from the skies, and peopling it with folks who were spirited out of the FBI's grasp by a U.S. president intent upon paying back some unnamed (but darkly hinted at) favor, is a handy way of reinforcing the stereotype of Republicans as callous and greedy politicians whose paramount values involve money, not people.

How many half-truths, lies and innuendo can MM pass off as truth?? As long as MM is able to draw breath, the question will never be answered!

-z

[Wolverine]

Moore appeared last night on MSNBC's Buchanan & Press, and was asked questions about the authenticity of the information presented in BFC.

One of his responses (paraphrased, I didn't jot down the exact quote):

"Everything in the film is absolutely correct, and anyone who says otherwise is guilty of libel."

I'll provide the exact quote once the transcript is made available, but I swear his nose grew while he was speaking.

[Zep]

Originally posted by RandFan Depends on the make and model but a number of them are suprisingly light for the fire power. Most consist of little more than a barrel and stock. The E.D.M. Arms Windrunner is 35 lbs. (15.7 kilos)

It will put holes in a man hole cover.

It's got what looks like a sniper scope and a longer than normal barrel plus it is stand-mounted, so I imagine it is designed to be pretty accurate over a decent range. And 50cal would hit pretty hard so it would be a biggish round - not your normal cartridge?

They are mostly illegal and scare the bejezus out of law inforcement. I don't have a problem with outlawing bazookas, flame throwers, tanks, howitzers, mortars, and 50cal BMGs.

After a young chap by the name of Martin Bryant got through playing with a brace of M16's or similar in Tasmania a few years ago, we had a total clamp-down on assault weapons too.

They are cool though and I would love to fire one.

Yep, me too. But I think we are drifting off the topic now. My PM door is open!

[Zep]

Originally posted by Tony
And in LA? Or Washington DC? Or New York?

Depends on the part of town.

Not for me down here it doesn't.

I feel pretty free not being shot at. How about you?

Im not being shot at, I thought I told you this already?

Yes, just you. Of course, the Virginians who were killed weren't being shot at either until the bullets hit them...

Our perceptions come from what you show to us of yourselves and how you act.

No, your perception comes from what you see/read on the news.

You seem to have a retention problem. I thought I explained that I regularly visit the USA, so I have at least a passing acquaintance with the situation first-hand. I have US friends whose views on this subject vary from one side of the spectrum to the other. So I'm not unaware of the issues, but I don't pretend to know them in ultimate detail. But that is not the subject at hand.

I mentioned the worst ones above, didn't I?

You havent mentioned any australian cities.

Of course! Sydney is in Australia. I should have explained that for you. :i: Well, FYI, so is Melbourne, Brisbane, Adelaide, Canberra, Hobart, Perth and Darwin. That's all the state capitals, of which Sydney is considered the most dangerous. Really.

There's a serial sniper started up again in Virginia just recently who has killed eight innocent victims so far. You might like to feel blase about their families for a start...

You didnt answer the question.

Yes I did. OK, let me put it another way. Are you prepared to allow the situation to continue such that another Virginia sniper could start work once this one is caught? Or would you consider that a cure is better than a prevention?

[Tony]

Not for me down here it doesn't.

Simplistic.

Yes, just you. Of course, the Virginians who were killed weren't being shot at either until the bullets hit them...

No, not just me. The majority of americans arent getting shot at.

Yes I did. OK, let me put it another way. Are you prepared to allow the situation to continue such that another Virginia sniper could start work once this one is caught?

How am I letting the situation continue right now? I got news for you, I dont have control over what wackos do.

Or would you consider that a cure is better than a prevention?

A cure is better, if one exists. But like I said, you cant control every wacko.

[Wolverine]

[off-topic rant]

Excuse me -- several of you REALLY need to format your replies so that readers following the thread may follow the debate more easily. Unless you format your replies correctly, it's exceedingly difficult for readers to follow the course of convo/debate.

PLEASE undertake the modest effort to format similarly to this example:

Originally posted by Wolverine
Excuse me -- several of you REALLY need to format your replies so that readers following the thread may follow the debate more easily.

Oh really? Just who do you think you are, you self-righteous bunghole? I can't believe I'd see such comments on a message board devoted to skepticism! :rolleyes: :mad:

Originally posted by Wolverine
Unless you format your replies correctly, it's exceedingly difficult for readers to follow the course of convo/debate.

Please provide evidence that properly formatted posts will positively affect the overall course of discussion on this thread.

...

Ok seriously.... please? Help out your fellow readers. Thanks.

[off-topic rant]

[Tony]

Whats up Wolverine? Hows Austin? My brother is moving up there this weekend, he is starting school @ St. edwards.

[Wolverine]

(example, continued)

Originally posted by Tony
Whats up Wolverine?

Painfully little.

Originally posted by Tony
Hows Austin?

Hot, and slightly humid.

Originally posted by Tony
My brother is moving up there this weekend, he is starting school @ St. edwards.

I'll sleep better knowing this. Thanks for the privileged information.

See how easy this is, folks?

[Tony]

Originally posted by Wolverine


Painfully little.



Sux.

Originally posted by Wolverine
Hot, and slightly humid.


I hear that.


Originally posted by Wolverine
I'll sleep better knowing this. Thanks for the privileged information.

Hey, if there is anything else I can do, dont hesitate to ask.

[Wolverine]

Marvy, I see you're getting the hang of it. Please continue.

[Zep]

OK, Wolverine. Understood. I was just hitting the QUOTE button down-right, and taking it from there.
Tony: The majority of Americans aren't getting shot at.Thank goodness, but (for the umpteenth time) the majority of Americans have a 4-5 times higher chance of being shot at than in a similar country, based on available statistics. And this probability is higher in specific geographic locations and/or situations. I'm just surprised that such a smart, proactive country stands for such an infringement on their lives, but that's just me. Tony: How am I letting the situation continue right now? I got news for you, I dont have control over what wackos do.Well, who does have control over what whackos do? Surely there is some form of identification and management? And what about miscreants (bad guys)? Do they get to keep their guns in jail? Some legislation somewhere... Tony: A cure is better, if one exists.So you would not try to prevent these problems occuring in the first place?

[Wolverine]

Originally posted by Zep
OK, Wolverine. Understood.

:) Thanks.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Zep
OK, Wolverine. Understood. I was just hitting the QUOTE button down-right, and taking it from there.
Thank goodness, but (for the umpteenth time) the majority of Americans have a 4-5 times higher chance of being shot at than in a similar country, based on available statistics. And this probability is higher in specific geographic locations and/or situations. I'm just surprised that such a smart, proactive country stands for such an infringement on their lives, but that's just me.

Perhaps we think that not having access to the guns we want is an even greater infringement?

Originally posted by Zep
Well, who does have control over what whackos do?...

No-one, this isnt a police state (yet). If certain wackos have been shown to be a danger to the general public, they are often put in mental institutions.

Originally posted by Zep
Surely there is some form of identification and management?...

Only if the wacko has been shown to be a danger to the public.

Originally posted by Zep
And what about miscreants (bad guys)? Do they get to keep their guns in jail?

No, criminals dont get to keep guns in jail.

Originally posted by Zep
Some legislation somewhere...

Ample legislation is already in place. Besides, legislation doesnt really have a substantial effect on the black market supply of guns.

Originally posted by Zep
So you would not try to prevent these problems occuring in the first place?

What do you suggest?

Secret police and even more government invasion of privacy?

Banning guns?

Laws are irrelevant is people refuse to follow them.

Crazy people will always do crazy things.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Excuse me -- several of you REALLY need to format your replies so that readers following the thread may follow the debate more easily. Unless you format your replies correctly, it's exceedingly difficult for readers to follow the course of convo/debate.

Quit your bi**hing you whiny a**ed non-thread follower.

[Wolverine]

Originally posted by UnrepentantSinner
Excuse me -- several of you REALLY need to format your replies so that readers following the thread may follow the debate more easily. Unless you format your replies correctly, it's exceedingly difficult for readers to follow the course of convo/debate.

Quit your bi**hing you whiny a**ed non-thread follower.

:D

[Wolverine]

Here's the exact quote I mentioned BTW:

MOORE: Every fact in the film is true. Absolutely every fact in the film is true. And anybody who says otherwise is committing an act of libel.

Full transcript of the segment here (http://www.msnbc.com/news/955443.asp).

[Zep]

Tony, we are in a loop now, plus we are drifting the thread to pathways we have been over before ad infinitum. You have your opinion of the situation, I have mine. I have only offered differing opinions and suggestions based on actual experience.

Back to the topic: While I agree Moore's movie had sections of total tack and completely corny editing, I did agree with the main point - there are serious issues to do with guns in the USA that need some form of addressing. Did he lie? On what I have seen and have been told, in the main I think not. What are the solutions, if any? :con2:

Good luck!