Bowling for Columbine

[Yorick]

Oblivion, you're shooting the messenger and ignoring the message. The points Moore makes are very pertininent, whether or not he is a flawless character or not.

Are you suggesting that 11,000 gun related deaths are a good thing? Are you suggesting America has no problems to fix?

Become part of the solution, and start addressing the real issues instead of being a reactive defensive and getting all "pro-gun/anti-Moore"

Let's look at this hypothetically.

What would you do, if it was found gun ownership was PROVEN to be the SOLE problem, and that gun prohobition would erase Americas murder problem?

Now before you argue against the hypothetical, I'm saying WHAT IF it were so, not whether it is so. What would you do IF that were the case?

[Oblivion437]

It's not Moore as a person that bothers me. I don't give a damn about Moore, and I've had the good taste to keep him out of it personally. I have examined his film, and I can only conclude that his arguments, drawn from faulty data collection methods and brought together by precision spin and fast-and-loose editing techniques that try to mislead the viewer, are not valid. Perhaps you'd care to compile concise, solid arguments based on reliable factual data in a totally open and honest way that I can reason with. Moore has not done this, but given the way you argue points, if in fact the argument is valid, I think you're capable of it.

I would never suggest 11,000 gun murders is a good thing, murder is a bad thing in general. Some people are really begging to die, but those people are so rare that their numbers aren't really countable. They do terrible things, and some put themselves in situations where they naturally incur the risk of dying. Such as burglars, bank robbers and hunters. If they die in the course of comitting these acts, as a result of the situation that they've brought upon themselves, they deserve no sympathy from us. They got what they deserved. Don't attempt to rape someone and then cry out for mercy when your lower jaw is broken by a .25 that passed through it on the way to your throat.

I suppose, if it would completely eliminate murders, I'd consider putting the ban on the table, but let me tell you, the potential detriment to freedom would likely win over it in the end, and if it were ultimately in my power, I'd reject the measure for the sake of entitling individuals to protect themselves.

Finally, I'm not inherently pro anything except pro-liberty. Nothing is so sweet and sacrosanct as freedom. It's one of the only causes that I an Atheist will die for. I believe that individuals keeping and being willing to bear upon their oppressors significant enough firepower to overthrow them is one of the most important and powerful vanguards of that liberty.

[Yorick]

Liberty has two sides Oblivion. Freedom to DO and Freedom FROM anothers action.

The freedom to own a firearm, directly overrides another individuals freedom FROM being shot.

I see you conveniently ignored the Columbine massacre in your assesment of gun related deaths. Let's focus on the innocent victims oblivion, not the bad guys. Good guys get shot mate. Innocent girls. Did you ignore the story of the effectively motherless kid taking a gun to school and killing the girl? Did you ignore that?

Balnce in freedom is necessary. Restricting individual freedoms so individuals are free. Where people fail to do this voluntarily, we have laws. Laws are restrictions on freedom.

[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.

[Oblivion437]

Liberty has two sides Oblivion. Freedom to DO and Freedom FROM anothers action. The freedom to own a firearm, directly overrides another individuals freedom FROM being shot.

Let me put this as simply as I can. Your freedom is unlimited insofar as it does not impinge upon the freedom of others. Individuals owning firearms does not inherently cause problems, it's people using them irresponsibly that causes a problem. Considering that it is a problem, it is something to be dealt with, but gun 'control' isn't going to solve that problem. What about freedom from tyranny? I don't believe in Freedom FROM. That's not even Freedom. That's security. Freedom from sexual abuse, it's not freedom but a security against sexual abuse. Something secures you. It doesn't make you free. Freedom is in the doing of something, not in the not being inconvenienced by something.

I see you conveniently ignored the Columbine massacre in your assesment of gun related deaths. Let's focus on the innocent victims oblivion, not the bad guys. Good guys get shot mate. Innocent girls. Did you ignore the story of the effectively motherless kid taking a gun to school and killing the girl? Did you ignore that?

Well, let's see, the victims, the victims. There existence as victims is the reason we must take action against something. That thing, the massacre, let's compare it to another massacres on record, used to justify such controls previously, the subway massacre in New York.

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.

Moore is an advocate of gun free schools. If police officers had been on the scene, or if a teacher had legally carried concealed (not so unearthly a possibility) on the campus, it's very possible their rampage would have been as minor as an 'attempted repeat of Jonesboro.'

Balnce in freedom is necessary. Restricting individual freedoms so individuals are free. Where people fail to do this voluntarily, we have laws. Laws are restrictions on freedom.

Well, our society seems to prefer to protect groups over individuals. Hold individuals responsible where their responsibility fails. We as human beings, let's face it, are led astray, not simply born there. Yes, laws are restrictions on freedom if you want them to be. Or, they could be recognitions of freedom, such as the first 10 ammendments to the constitution, and laws such as an illegalization of murder, or assault, are laws that recognize the natural limits of a free action, and the point where it becomes an intrusion. At that point there is hell to pay, even in the most Libertarian society imaginable. I believe law is the bridge between freedom, security we provide ourselves and with the help of our governments, but we do our part. Lower expenses overall, and greater output in the end. A society built on a virtuous idea, not a reactive one. The possibility is golden. So beautiful and amazing and tantalizing I can almost taste it at times.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Oblivion437: What about freedom from tyranny? I don't believe in Freedom FROM. That's not even Freedom. That's security. Freedom from sexual abuse, it's not freedom but a security against sexual abuse. Something secures you. It doesn't make you free. Freedom is in the doing of something, not in the not being inconvenienced by something.

The point you're missing, is that freedom from gives you freedom to do. You are free FROM the necessity of hunting and growing your own food, giving you freedom TO DO other things with your time.

You seem to have missed that fundamental philosophical concept in all your protestations against gun control.

Freedom FROM guns, is freedom TO leave your doors open at night (as per Canada and parts of Australia) Freedom FROM hiv infected needles is freedom TO walk on a beach barefoot.

And so on.

[john]

Yorick, getting back to the first post here,I too loved the film ,if anything it certainly makes you think.Which is a good thing.And I also have read "Stupid White Men" and "Dude Wheres My Country" both great books.I also think Michael had balls of iron to say what he did at the oscers,it may have been the wrong place to do it but still I applauded him for speaking his mind when others would have said nothing.Well this is way more than I usually write but what the hell..Don't forget to VOTE ...anyone but George.

[wellard]

Originally posted by Oblivion437: About the bank scene he lies very carefully. The Bank thing was setup over a period of months. The fact remains that, had he actually attempted to load the weapon in the bank, there were cops right there. They'd have their pistols levelled at his face before his pudgy fingers could have closed the bolt on that thing. Never mind also the fact that the rifle in question was, at the entire time of his filing for the CD (he's now plunked 1000 dollars into the bank, not something a robber would do) in a vault 4 hours away. That's a long distance, the rifle was handed to him months later, as the scene was filmed, but he'd already had that filed for some time.

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?


(He’s now plunked 1000 dollars into the bank, not something a robber would do)


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.

“I walked into that bank in northern Michigan for the first time ever on that day in June 2001, and, with cameras rolling, gave the bank teller $1,000 – and opened up a 20-year CD account. After you see me filling out the required federal forms ("How do you spell Caucasian?") – which I am filling out here for the first time – the bank manager faxed it to the bank's main office for them to do the background check. The bank is a licensed federal arms dealer and thus can have guns on the premises and do the instant background checks (the ATF's Federal Firearms database—which includes all federally approved gun dealers—lists North Country Bank with Federal Firearms License #4-38-153-01-5C-39922).
Within 10 minutes, the "OK" came through from the firearms background check agency and, 5 minutes later, just as you see it in the film, they handed me a Weatherby Mark V Magnum rifle (If you'd like to see the outtakes, click here). “


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.

[ 02-27-2004, 08:48 PM: Message edited by: wellard ]

[Night Stalker]

Wellard .... call me a skeptic, but to Mr Moore at face value on his "rebuttals" is a little self serving. Especially when his veracity and integrity are in question. Sure, he claims that he got a shotgun from a bank in ten mins. I've seen claims that employees of that bank claim that Mr Moore had his production company stage that scene. He even provides video supporting his version, well he has prooven himself capable of creative editing, how do we know that what he shows is raw footage? Or that the scene wasn't staged, as some claim state?

This day and age, a photograph or video means nothing. And it won't be too long before they are inadmissable in court, simply because they are too easily edited to be something dramatically different from reality.

I mean, he tried to blame the whole Columbine incident on Lockheed Martin, simply because they have a plant near there. Talk about gross hyperbole!

I am not against radical or liberal propaganda, but when one finds the need to creatively juggle facts, time lines and quotes out of context, there is no support for the arguement that is being presented. Mr Moore is no better than a "reporter" from the National Inquirer, he just has a larger budget.

[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. And before anyone else goes on about the availability of guns, those boys acquired them illegally to begin with, AND it is not that hard to plan that type of massaqre with common every day items that most people have in their garages.

Just look at the Oklahoma bombing .... 600 dead, no guns, not even any WMD or other conventional bombs. The only materiels used were a truck, and garden suppies.

I'm more willing to accept that the parents are to blame (though I still lay culpability on the psychos themselves) for being totally clueless about their "little angels" than any of insinuations that Moore lays.

I'm not saying that our society is not f'ed up. I am saying that guns are not the problem, people are.