Disney Forbidding Distribution of Film That Criticizes Bush

[Night Stalker]

I chose an axe for a reason . Axes have been a staple on the battlefield for millenia. Who said you are MISusing an axe by killing a person?

The difference between a firearm and an axe is the one is a missile weapon, and the other is a melee weapon. And while guns are designed for death and destruction, where is it said that they are required to cause death and destruction to people. Hunting is a very legitimate use for a firearm.

Yes, one uses the right tool for the right job and all that. But a tool still needs a hand to have a purpose, otherwise it is an inanimate object. The point the NRA makes is that a firearm usded in an unlawful manor is being misused. That whole "People kill people" thing. There are as many lawful uses for firearms as there are excuses from gun control advocates against them. One of those lawful reasons is in defense from those that would use them for unlawful ones. Laws do not stop people from harming others.

[Faceman]

Yes but there's a difference between a battle axe and an axe to chop wood akin to the difference between a hunting rifle and an SMG.
The problem is that SMGs are designed for carrying out a specific action (i.e. shooting lots of bullet in short time at short range). Whether you've got a lawful reason to do that or not, if you fire an SMG you are using it in a manner appropriate to its design.
Would you say that somebody who's driving his Ferrari down the highway at 150mph is MISusing his car? No he just handles it appropriate to its design. The fact that he acts unlawful does not enter into it.

And after all that it still stands up, that guns are the most effective personal killing tool nowadays.
Again I emphazise: I'm all for self-defense. If somebody needs a gun for protection he should have one. But I think one should be aware of the great responsibility one carries with that. If you buy a tool for killing you acknowledge the fact that someday you may have to kill somebody with it. This may be pragmatically cynical but if you decide for having a gun you should have the stomach to say: "I will shoot if you break into my house" instead of "I use the gun for fun, it's nothing else but a fun tool like a car" because it isn't.

[Cerek the Barbaric]

Originally posted by Faceman: 1. Every tool is designed for a specific purpose. Axes are for cutting trees, cars are for driving to work, a TV set is for entertainment and guns are for killing/hurting people (or deer in the case of hunting rifles).

That is nothing more than your opinion, Faceman, and it is an extremely biased one at that. Guns are for shooting bullets - PERIOD!. It is up to the individual owner to decide what those bullets are fired at. I have no intention of shooting another person unless it is in self-defense, and I have NO INTENTION of hunting under any circumstances because I gain no pleasure in killing animals for sport or food.

If guns are designed JUST for killing people, then we will also have to eliminate the bow and arrow, crossbow, and many other weapons that were ALL originally designed to kill the enemy more effectively in war. Archers were once the most feared members of the enemy forces because the arrows were so efficient at killing troops from a distance. So - by your logic - we cannot deny that the PRIMARY purpose for the bow and/or crossbow is to kill people or animals (in the case of Native Americans).

Originally posted by Faceman: 3. Guns can be used for other things than their main purpose (i.e. wounding): target practice, fieldstripping contests, or hammering in a nail.

Again, the idea that a gun's primary purpose is to wound people or animals is YOUR opinion. I've already listed examples of other weapons you overlooked on that list.

Originally posted by Faceman: 4. If somebody buys a tool I assume he's going to use it as intended by its maufacturer. He's going to chop wood with the axe, drive home with his car, watch TV on his Plasmascreen and kill somebody with his gun, because that's what they're there for.

.

So then you obviously must think that *I* am also going to kill somebody with the guns I own - since that is their intended purpose.

Originally posted by Faceman; 5. a handgun is the most cost-effective, practical tool for a single person to kill another. That's why the army and the police are not driving around in professional lumber machines. And if you don't believe them take a look at the mobsters. They're also not packing TV sets and axes, but handguns.

Technically true, but that still doesn't prove that killing people is the "primary purpose" of a gun. As I said before, guns are designed to shoot bullets. There is nothing that says those bullets must be fired at another person, otherwise the owner is "misusing" the gun. Now, you DO have a stronger argument when talking about the manufacturers of bullets designed to flare out on impact in order to cause more internal damage to the target. Not much use for those in target practice (unlike hollow points, which can create a more impressive impact when fired at a jug full of water - pretty cool effect )

Originally posted by Faceman: 6. So the difference between a killing with an axe and killing with a gun is that in the first you are MISusing the tool but in the second you are fullfilling its MAIN PURPOSE.

The notion that the MAIN purpose of a gun is to kill another person is YOUR OPINION. That doesn't mean it is necessarily fact.

Originally posted by Faceman: 7. To stretch it farther. Would you have supported an attack on Iraq if Georgie had told you that Saddam had a flotillia of professional lumber machines?

Bush didn't claim that Saddam had a bunch of guns either (although the news has proven conclusively that they DO have PLENTY of them). President Bush pushed the idea that Saddam had Weapons of MASS Destruction. Even if you buy into the logic that guns are only designed to kill (despite several examples of OTHER uses for them), guns can hardly be classified as a WMD. So your argument here doesn't hold up.

Originally posted by Faceman: 8. Sadly there do sometimes arise situations were killing/wounding another person is necessary to defend oneself (armed robbery, armed burglary,...). If you deem this situation likely you should equip yourself for it i.e. buy a gun. But don't fool yourself into thinking you just bought a decorative item, you bought a tool for killing, so in case somebody wants to kill you you're first.

Wrong again, Faceman. I bought a tool for enjoyment and pleasure. I like to go target shooting and THAT is the main reason I own guns. I have been in the situation where I thought an intruder was going to try and break into my house. He was being chased by the police and drove down our driveway - which was a deadend. When he got out of his truck, he pulled a rifle out from behind the seat and looked towards our house, but fortunately decided to run into the woods instead. So I do know for a fact that I could shoot somebody if I had to, but I don't own a gun for that reason. In fact, my guns are kept unloaded. So if anybody broke into my house now, I wouldn't really have time to take the guns out of their cases, find the ammunition, load the gun, THEN shoot the person. Instead, I'll just grab a knife or whatever I can get my hands on. If the intruder has a gun, I will do my best to disarm him and use HIS gun.

Originally posted by Faceman: So again please focus on the point. You NEED guns in certain situations, BECAUSE they are different from other tools. So no more car analogies, please? pretty please?

Certainly. Just as soon as you stop insisting that the MAIN purpose of a gun is to kill another person. Please? Pretty please?

[Cerek the Barbaric]

Originally posted by Faceman: And after all that it still stands up, that guns are the most effective personal killing tool nowadays. Again I emphazise: I'm all for self-defense. If somebody needs a gun for protection he should have one. But I think one should be aware of the great responsibility one carries with that. If you buy a tool for killing you acknowledge the fact that someday you may have to kill somebody with it. This may be pragmatically cynical but if you decide for having a gun you should have the stomach to say: "I will shoot if you break into my house" instead of "I use the gun for fun, it's nothing else but a fun tool like a car" because it isn't.

And I emphasize again that I bought my guns because they ARE a "fun tool" (like a car). I really enjoy target shooting. And while it would be nice to use my guns for self-defense in case of an intruder, since my guns are unloaded AND kept in separate cases, it will be extremely impractical for me to take them out of their case, retrieve the ammo, load them, and THEN use them. The intruder will have already shot or attacked me LONG before I come anywhere close to finishing that sequence of events....so my guns are NOT very practical for self-defense under current conditions.

The only reason I even keep them is because I DO enjoy shooting them when time permits (which is a rare occasion with 3 young boys).

[Timber Loftis]

References to SMG's and the like don't really argue against the US. It's very difficult to get any multiple-shot weapon here. Most any found will be black market or ones people have converted. Without fully automatic capabilities, an AK-47 is just a hunting rifle with poor accuracy.

Swords were just made for killing people, too.

And, since it's a heck of a fine missile weapon, do we outlaw the bow too? You ain't taking my bow -- unless it's (say it with me) from my cold dead hands.

[Davros]

Originally posted by Cerek the Barbaric: This isn't new news, Chewbacca, but it does serve to illustrate the type of misconception I've been accusing Moore of deliberately creating. Disney never said that Moore couldn't distribute his film, they just said THEY wouldn't do it. Disney has always said that Moore was free to seek other distributers of his film...this was even mentioned in the article that started this thread. Miramax is free to seek another distributor in North America, but such a deal would force it to share profits and be a blow to Harvey Weinstein, a big donor to Democrats. And distribution rights have already been sold to several overseas companies. But Disney executives indicated that they would not budge from their position forbidding Miramax to be the distributor of the film in North America. Overseas rights have been sold to a number of companies, executives said. So Disney is NOT trying to prevent Farenheit 9/11 from being seen at all. The only thing they have "forbidden" is for Miramax to be the distributer. But they said that Moore was free to seek other distributers...and given the amount of publicity this movie is already generating, I'm sure he won't have any problem finding one.

Just seeking a point of clarification re the "were Disney blocking the film or not" line?

If Disney had not sold their rights to the Weinseins or others (as the Chewie article that Cerek responded to indicated), could the film have been legally distributed. Was the point of Moore's protest a means to an end to have Disney sell these rights? From what I can make out, Disney could have played the game by being bloody-minded and not onsold those rights and in fact could have prevented internal US distribution. Could someone please clarify if that was indeed the case? It looks to me like Moore was never free to seek out alternate distributors Cerek - leastwise until Disney onsold their rights.

[ 05-14-2004, 10:40 AM: Message edited by: Davros ]

[Night Stalker]

You are correct Dav, until Disney released Mr Moore of his obligation, he could not distribute it. Everything I have seen about this though has said that while Disney refused to distribute the movie, they would not stop him seeking alternate distribution vehicles.

It appears Mr Moore is stirring up another storm in a tea cup as a publicity stunt, nothing more.

[Khazadman Risen]

It's just Moore using the free publicity agle to get his latest work of fiction noticed.

[Cerek the Barbaric]

Originally posted by Night Stalker: You are correct Dav, until Disney released Mr Moore of his obligation, he could not distribute it. Everything I have seen about this though has said that while Disney refused to distribute the movie, they would not stop him seeking alternate distribution vehicles. It appears Mr Moore is stirring up another storm in a tea cup as a publicity stunt, nothing more.

Exactly, Night Stalker. Since Eisner and Disney never approved of Miramax funding the film, they could have just literally put a Corporate Clamp Down on it and refused to allow the film to be distributed in the U.S. at all. This is what Michael Moore is trying to make people think they are doing, but as you pointed out, Disney never said Moore couldn't seek other distributors for his film. They just said that they would not allow Miramax to do it. (I think that is being done by Eisner to remind his counterpart at Miramax that his company is a subsidiary of Disney and that - in the future - it would be best to go along with the wishes of the parent company in times of disagreement).

The article that Chewbacca referenced makes it appear that Moore has stood up to the Corporate Disney Bully and made them blink or back down and allow him to seek other distributors - when the fact is that Disney had said he was free to do this from the very beginning.

To use a more "liberal" analogy, Moore did the same thing that President Bush did when he kept mentioning Osama and Saddam in the same breath. He made it appear there was a link (or a cause and effect) where none actually existed. President Bush never actually said that Saddam Hussein ordered the 9/11 attacks, but he mentioned Saddam and A-Q terrorists in the same breath so often, that the viewing public made the mental link themselves (at least a large portion of them did). Moore has made it appear that Disney was trying to prevent his movie from being released at all within the U.S. (which they certainly could have done - but the fact is they never did say that). He has also cast himself as David facing the Goliath of Corporate Disney and - just like David in the Bible - Moore has won a seemingly impossible victory by making the Disney Goliath back down. Of course, the fact that Disney was never trying to block distribution of his film to begin with is beside the point. It also makes the story less exciting and Moore's role far less heroic.

[Faceman]

Cerek, Timber,

I never said anything about banning guns. The US are the land of the free and everybody should have the right to have a weapon be it a sword, a bow, a gun, whatever, just because he wants to.
I don't care if you have a gun for self-defence or target shooting. If I could buy an assault rifle in my country I'd do it just to be able to fieldstrip it (honestly) because I'm fascinated with the mechanics of guns (honestly).
But I do pertain the opinion that guns (and swords and bows and crossbows and spears, etc.) are historically designed for the wounding of living beings be it animals or humans.
Colt did not make its fortune on sport shooters.
Walther did not get famous for building great competition pistols.
I do not want to ban guns, I just want you to acknowledge that man invented and improved guns to kill other men primarily, nothing else.
A gun is a tool - Yes.
Guns belong to a family of tools called "weapons".
and Merriam Webster defines the primary meaning of weapon as

"something (as a club, knife, or gun) used to injure, defeat, or destroy"

That is all I want you to acknowledge. I don't want you to ban guns, or give up your high speed ferraris just acknowledge what they are orignially designed for.