Bowling for Columbine

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Night Stalker: Columbine was an unfortunate tradgedy. Guns were not what caused it though. They were very troubled little boys. They had run ins with the law previously. But guns didn't kill those peole. Psycopaths did.

Please tell me you're joking.

Would the psychopaths with a knife have done that much carnage??????

I have disarmed a person with a knife. Had that person a gun, I would be dead

[Night Stalker]

No I'm not joking ..... or did those guns move themselves into the school and discharge themselves and kill those students? If they did, I'll change my tune and advocate gun control for that is a true threat to humanity.

A common thread that I see with those the rabidly want gun control (other than an incomprehensible need for security over liberty) is a neurotic fear of guns and a woefull lack of respect for other methods of dealing violence.

Don't quote a small part of my arguement, continue the thread. I don't need a gun to create mass destruction. I could use a car (I know, you are against them too), I can use GARDEN SUPPLIES!!! Do we need to out law farming and gardening? Should landscaping be a trade practiced only by vile terrorists?

Although it is nerve racking, there is security provided with Mutually Assured Destruction. I would prefer that such drastic methods were not needed, but many things need to change first. then many Bad Things^TM like War and Crime and Government will disappear, and the tools needed to defend against them may be put down.

[Grojlach]

Originally posted by Yorick: BTW. I notice in your flag about "the experts agree" you've conveniently ignored tyrranical Australia and Britain in your list of nations with gun control.

Or any western European country, for that matter. It's a lot easier living with the knowledge that not just *any* lunatic could get ahold of a gun... It still happens, unfortunately, but not nearly as often as at the other side of the Atlantic.
Of course you can still blame the person and not the gun, but I *do* think guns are the main reason (and if not, at least a symptom) of a harsher, more violent nation where fear is at the center of every day life. Trust me, a pretty much gun-free democracy *does* work. And if firearms had been banned 100 years ago in the US, I'm convinced you wouldn't nearly have the same level of violence as you have today.
It's just that there is so much paranoia and fear boiling underneath that I seriously doubt a gunfree America is even feasible - too many people would *never* agree to hand over their weaponry, even if they *did* realise that it would help to break the current vicious circle of violence into a less violent variant. Sure, it's still possible to kill someone with a lawnmower or any other means, but a) at least it's made harder to do so and b) but I'd rather have someone snap carrying nothing but a haircomb and a wallet than someone carrying around a gun supposedly "for protection and defense purposes only".
You need guns to feel safe? Guess what - I feel a lot safer without the ownership of guns, and it's one of the reasons I'm glad I don't live in a country with a gun-centered tradition as you have. I applaud any attempts to ban or at least seriously restrict the ownership of firearms in the US, but I'm afraid that even if they were to ban guns today, it would still take decades before a Western European-like relatively gunfree situation would be created.

[ 02-28-2004, 03:55 AM: Message edited by: Grojlach ]

[Grojlach]

Originally posted by Oblivion437: quote: Originally posted by Grojlach: "Hated by Non-limousine left"? "Amusing nuisance"? The guy who told you that *does* live in our dimension, right?

Yes, he does, and his entire family works in the broadcasting industry. He's a top moderator over at the Firearmsmod.com forums, and I'm willing to believe him. Sadly, the forums are going through a serious overhaul right now and can't be reached.

[/QUOTE]Ah, and here I thought you were using a biased source. Boy, have I been proven wrong.

[Grojlach]

Originally posted by Night Stalker: No I'm not joking ..... or did those guns move themselves into the school and discharge themselves and kill those students? If they did, I'll change my tune and advocate gun control for that is a true threat to humanity. A common thread that I see with those the rabidly want gun control (other than an incomprehensible need for security over liberty) is a neurotic fear of guns and a woefull lack of respect for other methods of dealing violence. Don't quote a small part of my arguement, continue the thread. I don't need a gun to create mass destruction. I could use a car (I know, you are against them too), I can use GARDEN SUPPLIES!!! Do we need to out law farming and gardening? Should landscaping be a trade practiced only by vile terrorists?

So how many deaths do you hear of achieved with garden supplies or cars (not referring to traffic accidents here) over here in Western Europe, or in Australia? Or any other bizarre means of killing? I can think of a few examples (someone once used a crossbow loaded with a biro (!) to murder someone over here), but these are exceptions, which probably happen as often over here as in the US - even if you were to add up "our" gun-related deaths and these bizarre cases, I don't think you would get to the US level of gun-related deaths.
Sure, if you're trying to murder someone with careful planning, I doubt it would make all that much difference whether you own a gun or not (restricting the example to single person-centered murder attempts now, massacres like at Columbine high school are an entirely different case altogether; I agree with Yorick that they would *never* have been able to kill that many people if they had been walking around with knives, or even crossbows - and bar hijacking a monstertruck, I doubt they would have gotten that far with a car in a school building ) - but it's accidents (little children, people dusting a gun that should never have been loaded etc), heat-of-the-moment situations that only escalate because guns were involved, and flat-out snapping while in the vicinity of a loaded firearm, that seem to be a large part of the problem. Not to mention the higher level of fear and paranoia that I believe automatically occurs with a widespread ownership of guns, which was also one of the main points Moore was trying to make with BfC. Guns may not kill people, but they *do* add a certain element to the American society and create an atmosphere in which a lot more gun-related deaths and murders in general occur, compared to other Western democracies or many Asian countries.

[ 02-28-2004, 04:48 AM: Message edited by: Grojlach ]

[Grojlach]

And it's probably just me, but I personally don't see a link between liberty and gun ownership, it doesn't feel like I'm really restricted in any way because of the restriction of gun ownership under Dutch law; to me it's an extra bit of security and an overall improvement of norms and values - without trying to offend any US citizens, I'm glad we're *beyond* that stage of the gun ownership vs gun restriction status quo.

[Grojlach]

Just to illustrate my point a little bit more:

Originally posted by Oblivion437: Over 20 people were killed by a single man carrying a pistol that didn't fire that many rounds without a reload. In a subway car. Then let's consider that all of the victims had one thing in common besides the fact that they commuted on the subway: They were unarmed. What happened next? They all died. Imagine, if you will, the practical possibility of even two or three people on the car carrying a firearm? That's a possibility, the idea of one crazed nut being incapable of getting a gun, even illegally (as I believe he did) is not so practical. Illegal and nonexistant are two different things. If even a few carried, it's likely that the maniac wouldn't have gotten past a victim, two in the worst possibility.

So, do you sleep with a gun under your pillow as well? Do you carry a gun with you all the time? And if you do, would you realise how that would make others feel about you, knowing you walk around with a gun or at least have one at home?
Perhaps it's just my foreign perspective, but as long as I don't know you all that well, I'd watch my words around you, be careful not to anger you, even if you were in complete control of the situation and would be more than capable to use any firearms responsibly; the knowledge adds to distrust, and could easily lead to - again - paranoia and even fear - and that's only because you own a gun. And if you own a gun, then that distrust could lead to your neighbour taking one himself as well in response, because he might feel safer and more comfortable having one whenever he's around you, even if you've never even shown the slightest aggression or instability. And that could inspire this guy's other neighbours to do the same, and so on. And that's exactly the kind of situation Moore is referring to - the Colombine high massacre may have opened the eyes of some, others only add more locks to their doors and buy more kinds of firearms and other means of defense.
Heck, I realise the horrible nature of the 9/11-disaster and the supposed Anthrax-attacks, but the televised responses that reached Europe included a large number of people litterally barricading themselves in their homes withs guns on their laps, as a sort of automated response to fear - understandable in the context of American society and the effect of those horrible tragedies, but it does appear somewhat surreal in my eyes, that guns actually provide some sort of comfort in any way.

[Grojlach]

And cool! It seems I've pulled a Yorick, judging by the number of posts in a row.

[Oblivion437]

Originally posted by wellard: [qb] You just don’t get it Oblivion do you? [img]graemlins/heee.gif[/img] The word IRONY The fact that a bank, victims of guns for so many years, wanted to entice custom by offering a gun. THAT is the whole argument, the WHOLE point of the scene. To Show the IRONY of it all. Does in not come across in any way as Ironic to you or god forbid FUNNY? [/B]

The whole point is stupid if it's based on an argument rooted in falsehoods. Where don't you get this? Is there some block of brain cells missing? Do the interneurons quit work five minutes after their mid-afternoon break? It doesn't come across as anything more than a gross insult and a lie to me. It's a documentary, or supposed to be, and was awarded as such. I don't care about funny or ironic, I want some good information here. Documentaries are supposed to be enlightening, not infuriating and more irritating than pneumonia.

Ah so your au fait with the workings of the criminal mind? Has no robber ever put $1000 into an account EVER? [img]graemlins/wow.gif[/img] mind sending a link to the criminal phycology site that little gem comes from [img]graemlins/heee.gif[/img] Somehow I don’t think you will be posting one And seen as you obviously refuse to read the reply on his web site I’ll just cut and paste this little reply to you.

If the scene plays as he'd have us believe it, it's not likely to turn into even an attempted robbery. How many times did Clyde Barrow or John Dillinger plunk a serious load of cash, certified, in a bank before robbing it? The truth being that Moore didn't actually get the gun, RIGHT THERE, and had to go through various ID checking motions for the FFL transfers, and then some. They now know his name, where he lives and if he happens to work at a union shop or something like that, where he works. They know a lot about him that you don't usually get on a bank robber. Plus you've also got one thousand dollars of his money, which you have to understand is going to be difficult for him to rob with the rifle/shotgun he just got, which has no ammunition. Also, I'd like to point out that the manager of the bank herself replied to the lies and misinformation, I'll find it later.

Hey it’s even got a link to the outtakes of him getting the gun. It a real shame that you just repeated the first posts mistakes without bothering to find out some facts. I was looking foreword to an independent critic of the film from some one passionately pro gun. Rather than wade through the bile laden, stale and un correct posts that you heave repeated. Seen as you have not bothered to correct the mistakes of your first post, in fact just make things worse by repeating them in detail, forgive me if I don’t bother wading through the rest of your post with a fine tooth comb. It would be a waste of the forums time or mine.

Those out takes you speak of would work, if the window of doctoring weren't so clearly open! I'm guessing you haven't seen that many movies but I'll use a popular example. Goodfellas. In Goodfellas, there's a conversation scene between Paulie Cicero (Paul Sorvino), Henry Hill (Ray Liotta) and a restaurant owner (who's name I can't remember) who got roughed up by a petty hood. Well, the scene switches from two different camera angles, angles which crossed over eachother in such a fashion that if done in one take, we'd see the cameras. It had to be done in multiple takes. In retrospect, it all looks like a single passage of time, but it isn't, it was just Scorsese employing brilliant editing to good effect. With this in mind, consider that if Moore used a second camera, various possibilities are there. I can't download the clip again as it would require me to install Apple's quicktime player. Last time I did that it was a fiasco.

I find it fascinating that you call my arguments stale and bile-laden, when in fact I can tell from the condescending tone, arrogant, smart-ass language used, that you are in fact the one so filled. Referring also to arguments as stale, when in fact you can't even try to dispell them, strikes me as an act of arrogance, apparently everything you say is right all the time, is right even when you don't argue it and so we should just agree I'm the dumbest bastard on the planet, right? Wrong. Argue the damn point or shut up. You haven't demonstrated real mistakes to begin with, so I'll just assume you'll shout the rhetoric from the roof tops long after you've gone dumb from overuse. That's dumb as in being unable to speak, not handicapped in intellect.

So, do you sleep with a gun under your pillow as well? Do you carry a gun with you all the time? And if you do, would you realise how that would make others feel about you, knowing you walk around with a gun or at least have one at home?

Not under the pillow, no. I wouldn't do such a thing as I live with other people, and there's the very real possibility of me doing something in my sleep like knocking it over. In addition to being a light sleeper, I'm also a rather tumultous one. I'm up after a couple of hours on a couch, and I couldn't stay still the entire time. I do know how certain people would feel. Some wouldn't care, others would be glad, others would be afraid. Anyone afraid, I think, is someone who doesn't know me personally, or the realities about people who carry concealed. I keep it in a lockbox that I have the only key to.

Perhaps it's just my foreign perspective, but as long as I don't know you all that well, I'd watch my words around you, be careful not to anger you, even if you were in complete control of the situation and would be more than capable to use any firearms responsibly; the knowledge adds to distrust, and could easily lead to - again - paranoia and even fear - and that's only because you own a gun. And if you own a gun, then that distrust could lead to your neighbour taking one himself as well in response, because he might feel safer and more comfortable having one whenever he's around you, even if you've never even shown the slightest aggression or instability.

That's the image that Moore likes to sell us on, but it's not the reality. Be sensible. I am a rather polite person in public, I don't confront people in general. If someone makes a grievance, I try to talk them down. I don't like confrontations, as they always end badly for someone.

And that could inspire this guy's other neighbours to do the same, and so on. And that's exactly the kind of situation Moore is referring to - the Colombine high massacre may have opened the eyes of some, others only add more locks to their doors and buy more kinds of firearms and other means of defense.

It could happen, but has it happened? Moore's critical thesis on the subject is questionable at best, his conclusions selective his sources on various critical numbers (gun deaths, for example) are from groups that compile and label the numbers differently. Credible as they are, he uses numbers in Germany that, if he used similar source in the US, the number was different.

Heck, I realise the horrible nature of the 9/11-disaster and the supposed Anthrax-attacks, but the televised responses that reached Europe included a large number of people litterally barricading themselves in their homes withs guns on their laps, as a sort of automated response to fear - understandable in the context of American society and the effect of those horrible tragedies, but it does appear somewhat surreal in my eyes, that guns actually provide some sort of comfort in any way.

The terrorist attacks on September 11 (more one big attack, considering that it was all orchestrated from the same sources) and the Anthrax attacks opened up a few people's eyes as well: The Government does not, nor can it protect you. I don't know how they run things over there, but when you call the cops, they'll arrive a courteous 30 minutes later to examine your freshly killed corpses. It isn't the firearms that provide the comfort, in fact, I'm sure that they were even more disquieted by the reality that they might be the ones defending when it came down to it. It's a frightening, then illuminating prospect. The sickest thing about the anthrax attacks comitted by Americans after the attack, was that this was used to further justify a rather halfway-to-Jingoism line of thinking. That thinking, that kill and die for your country kind of thinking, is one of the most terrifying things I've ever seen. It's made monolithic animals of intellectual men. It upsets me even as I write this.

[ 02-28-2004, 06:01 AM: Message edited by: Oblivion437 ]

[Grojlach]

Oblivion, you might want to check this topic regarding personal attacks first, before accusing someone of missing a block of braincells, regarding it as some sort of valid retortion to someone who merely disagrees with your points of view. Even if you have the feeling that this person isn't playing by the rules either, let the mods deal with it - don't consider it to be a carte blanche to go for the throat yourself.

[ 02-28-2004, 05:53 AM: Message edited by: Grojlach ]