Free Skins
© Fisana

Jump to content


Photo

Bowling for Columbine


  • Please log in to reply
29 replies to this topic

#1 mnemosyne

mnemosyne

    Junior Villager

  • New Member
  • PipPip
  • 137 posts
  • Location:Monroe

Posted 22 February 2004 - 08:40 PM

Have any of you ever seen the movie Bowling for Columbine?  If you have and would like to share your opinions about the movie, the political statements made in the move, or the whether you agree or disagree with the creators views on gun control, please message me.  I am doing a report on the ethically standing of points made in this movie and would love to include other's opinions.  
Thanks
He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you.Friedrich Nietzsche

#2 mnemosyne

mnemosyne

    Junior Villager

  • New Member
  • PipPip
  • 137 posts
  • Location:Monroe

Posted 24 February 2004 - 11:43 PM

yeah me too. The part of the movie that really bothered me was just watching all those people murdered in the span of about thirty seconds.  It was a little overwhelming.
He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you.Friedrich Nietzsche

#3 Jhangles

Jhangles

    Junior Villager

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 127 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:WA, USA

Posted 26 March 2004 - 08:37 AM

Guns are just tools.  

They are not "Evil".  

In the US, the highest murder rate is in Washington DC, where you are NOT allowed to own a firearm.  The lowest murder rate in the US is in Vermont where you don't even need a permit to carry a concealed handgun.  

Read "More Guns, Less Crime" by John Lott Jr.

**http://www.a-human-right.com/**
http://www.armedandsecure.org/
http://www.jpfo.org/
http://www.keepandbe...com/default.asp
http://www.pulpless....lock/stats.html


Guns are used to STOP crime over 2 MILLION times per year.  That's ALOT MORE (aprox. twice the number) than they are used to commit crimes.

I felt that the "documentary" was biased and meant to sway people's opinions of guns.  >:(

There are very valid and important reasons why our founders put the Second Amendment in the US Constitution.

With guns we are citizens, without guns we are subjects.

-Beau
Killing never solves anything~ But it keeps people out of your hair while you think about what to do...

#4 MoonChild

MoonChild

    Undead giant that feasts on hotdogs!

  • Town Council
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 50,360 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Kochi, India
  • Interests:I want to help people to re-connect with themselves. Rock Music, Football (European League), Animals (cat lover), Travel, Cars, Speed, Nature, Super Natural.

Posted 26 March 2004 - 08:58 AM

hhmmmmm.... interesting thoughts Jhangles! Nice to see ya "jhangle" back in the Village ;D
Posted Image

#5 Paul_G

Paul_G

    Senior Villager

  • New Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 439 posts
  • Location:Newark, DE USA
  • Interests:Stuff

Posted 26 March 2004 - 09:29 AM

I agree with most of what Michael Moore says, but then I'm one of the more liberal people on here.

But gun control wasn't really what the movie was about... well, not mostly. Moore made a huge point of saying that Canada has lots of guns too, and they don't kill each other up there on a daily basis. He went after Charlton Heston because Charlton was an BAD_WORD and held NRA rallies in cities that had just experienced the worst types of gun violence.

In regards to gun control... I could see allowing revolvers and shotguns... I own a revolver myself. But assault rifles? What the hell do we need assault rifles for?

But anyway, I thought Bowling for Columbine was more about the culture of fear we have in America which causes us to shoot first and ask questions later. How there is a lot of money to be gained in making the American public be fearful of everything, most of which is completly irrational, like the Y2K scare for example.

Thats why the Bush administration was able to invade Iraq and get the majority of Americans to support them... because they used fear to make the American public think that Saddam was planning an amphibious assualt on New York or something. If you think back, they didn't once bring up a rational reason for their invasion.. they just used slogans and propaganda.

There's nothing wrong with guns in and of themselves. But widespread gun ownership and a public that has been made to be afraid of everything by the government and media isn't a good mix. I think thats more what he was talking about.. the mixture of guns and irrational fear.

#6 Jhangles

Jhangles

    Junior Villager

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 127 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:WA, USA

Posted 26 March 2004 - 11:00 AM

An "assault" rifle is the same as any other semi-auto rifle except it has cosmetic features (pistol grip, folding stock, detatchable magazine, ect) that make it an evil "assault" rifle all of a sudden.  Most hunting rifles are much more powerful and have a further range than so-called "assault" rifles.  

And when it comes to protecting myself and loved ones I'd like to have the most efficent tool possible.  And the most efficent weapon I can afford just happens to be a semi-auto AK-47 variant (Romanian SAR-1).  I'd rather have 30 rounds at my disposal instead of 5 or 10.  

"Assault" weapons are used in less than 2% of all crimes involving a firearm.  Thats the same rate they were used, even before the "assault weapon ban" was brought into effect.

The 2 murders at columbine shouldn't of had those guns according to the law in the first place.  They got them illegally.  If criminals want weapons they will get them, period.  BUT, just imagine if the security guards or teachers had weapons when that happened...  not nearly as many people would've died or been injured.  I doubt the 2 perps would've even thought about going into that school with guns if they new that the teachers were armed.

Most people who commit crimes with guns are criminals who are already not allowed to own firearms.  Banning "assault" weapons or any weapon for that matter, will only take it out of the hands of law abiding citizens.  Criminals don't care if the gun they have is against the law, that's why they are criminals.

I really encourage everyone to take a look at the websites I posted and/or read anything by John Lott Jr.

The media reports about nothing but gun crimes, yet guns are used almost twice as many times each year to STOP violent crimes.

-Beau
Killing never solves anything~ But it keeps people out of your hair while you think about what to do...

#7 Paul_G

Paul_G

    Senior Villager

  • New Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 439 posts
  • Location:Newark, DE USA
  • Interests:Stuff

Posted 26 March 2004 - 12:08 PM

An "assault" rifle is the same as any other semi-auto rifle except it has cosmetic features (pistol grip, folding stock, detatchable magazine, ect) that make it an evil "assault" rifle all of a sudden.  Most hunting rifles are much more powerful and have a further range than so-called "assault" rifles.  

And when it comes to protecting myself and loved ones I'd like to have the most efficent tool possible.  And the most efficent weapon I can afford just happens to be a semi-auto AK-47 variant (Romanian SAR-1).  I'd rather have 30 rounds at my disposal instead of 5 or 10.  


Semantics aside, my argument is this... I'm assuming you are a good shot... well versed in your weapon in general, and whoever in your house is likely to wield that gun probably knows how to use it. So why do you need 30 rounds? I mean really, if some dude breaks into your home and you happen to be there don't you think you could take him out with a shotgun? If you want to follow the 'efficent tool' logic, then why not buy a machine gun? Why not buy a bazooka and some hand grenades? Or poison gas?

A hunting rifle is more powerful, round for round, than the weapons you are talking about. But they aren't designed to shoot large quantities of bullets in a short period of time. Some dude in a school with an AK is much more dangerous than the same dude with a typical hunting rifle. If I get shot, it doesn't really matter to me if the round in my chest is a .40 caliber or a .22. And a guy with an AK can shoot more people.

It seems logical to me to assume that most guns criminals use were originally bought by honest people such as yourself and stolen. It's reasonable to think that most criminals are going to break into your house when you aren't there, and when they do, steal the guns that you yourself would have used to shoot them, thereby putting them in the hands of criminals. Isn't it logical to assume that an 'assault weapon' ban would therefore cut down on the amount of stolen assault weapons which will be used by criminals?

Have you walked around schools, etc., and seen some of these security guards? I used to work as a security guard, and I can tell you for a fact that you would NOT want to see some of my former co-workers walking around with an AK. And if teachers were walking around strapping a piece, wouldn't it be likely that an upset student would grab the gun and start shooting people?

Jhangles, I'm not anti-gun... I own one myself, and I'm fairly good with it. There is probably someone here who could debate gun control in general more stringently than me. I'm just anti-overkill.

#8 Mykiedave

Mykiedave

    Village Elder

  • New Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,977 posts
  • Location:Dallas, Texas USA

Posted 26 March 2004 - 12:24 PM

I tend to believe that if people are breaking the law by robbing and using a gun to do so, or selling drugs and carrying a gun, or being a little punk and running a gang with a gun, then making them harder for the law abideing people is NOT going to slow these miscreants down. Saddly it's very easy to not only buy a gun on the street, but they are pretty easy to make. I'm not saying that we should revert to a "Wild West" mentality, but was should also not be naieve enough to believe that gun laws are going to affect anyone other then the people who already obey them.
Growing old is mandatory... growing UP is optional.I didn't say it was YOUR fault, I SAID I was going to BLAME you.The nice thing about being Senile is, I can hide my own Easter Eggs.Posted Image

#9 Paul_G

Paul_G

    Senior Villager

  • New Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 439 posts
  • Location:Newark, DE USA
  • Interests:Stuff

Posted 26 March 2004 - 12:32 PM

I'd like to add that the Columbine kids got their guns legally at gun shows. That was one of the things mentioned in 'Bowling for Columbine'.

#10 Jhangles

Jhangles

    Junior Villager

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 127 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:WA, USA

Posted 26 March 2004 - 04:02 PM

Actually the Tec-9 and the Hi-point carbine were bought by a friend of theirs who was old enough purchase the guns.  Therefore they were bought illegally under current law.  Yes they were bought at a gun show, but by a legally entitled adult committing a crime.

Before AND after the assault weapon ban, the statistics of assault weapon use by criminals during a crime are the same.  The AWB had no effect on it.  All it did was take weapons out of law abiding people's hands.

Automobiles kill more people per year than guns.  

If someone is a law abiding citizen with no criminal record, i believe they should be able to buy whatever weapon they desire.  If they use that weapon illegally in a crime, then punish the criminal.  Don't punish the rest of the good people because some jackass decided to kill someone.  That'd be like you drunk uncle (not saying you have one) driving drunk, so the authorities come and take your entire family's cars.  Because you guys 'could' drive drunk.

what about a mob or riot situation?  30 rounds would be most appropriate for that type of event...  Chinese immigrants use AK-47s to protect their shops during the rodney king riots, when ALL the stores around them were looted and burned to the ground.  

Another reason for having these "evil" weapons, is that when the 2nd amendment was origionally penned, they wanted the People to have the ability to resist the government if it ever became too tyranical and oppressive.  By limiting the types of firearms they effectively stop that ability of the People.

Hardcore liberals believe that we the people are not smart enough to own weapons and make decisions on our own, and I take that as quite an insult.

I'm not trying to attack you Paul_G, this is just a major issue that I feel very strongly about.

-Jhangles
Killing never solves anything~ But it keeps people out of your hair while you think about what to do...

#11 Paul_G

Paul_G

    Senior Villager

  • New Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 439 posts
  • Location:Newark, DE USA
  • Interests:Stuff

Posted 26 March 2004 - 05:51 PM

I looked up the Columbine thing, you're absolutly right Jhangles... my post about how they got their weapons was mistaken and was appropriately beat down. :-[

But as far as assault weapons in general go...

Most gun related crimes aren't committed by people using assault weapons, they're committed by people using handguns because they're easier to conceal and are cheaper... but thats not really my argument. Replace the 'mob and riot' situation you mentioned with 'some nut in a mall' and you can see the greater danger posed by these types of weapons. Maybe I'm a big wuss, but if the situation in Newark, DE, ever disintegrates into anarchy, I'm just gonna get the hell out of here. No piece of property is worth my life. Just our different ways of dealing with the situation I guess.

Other than a few square miles in South Central LA for a couple of weeks about 10 years ago, where else in the country has there been total anarchy? The likes of which would warrant whipping out an AK on a group of people? I think in general it's much more likely that someone would accidently get shot with a weapon like that, or the weapon get stolen, than the legal assault weapon holder have to deal with a riot situation.

When the constitution was written, the firearm in use was that time was the musket. How long does it take to load and fire a musket? 30 seconds at best? I'm sure the founding fathers didn't envision the prospect that, over 200 years later, some BAD_WORD was going to get hold of a weapon that could put out the firepower of 50 revolutionary militiamen and bust loose in a school with it. And even if they did, maybe the founding fathers were wrong about some things... they were just people.

I am a liberal, and like most liberals, I believe law abiding citizens should be able to do whatever the hell they want as long as no-one else gets hurt. You could make the argument that a law abiding citizen should be able to own TNT or a rocket launcher if he or she wants. But the problem is is that someone might steal those weapons from a law abiding citizen, or that the maladjusted 15 year old son of that law abiding citizen isn't the type of person you want to have access to weapons that can kill large numbers of people without much effort. I bet if you traced the passage of most firearms used in crimes, they started off in the hands of someone who, at the time they bought them, were law abiding citizens.

Automobiles do kill more people per year than guns. Automobiles kill more people per year than lots of things. I have posts, maybe even on this site somewhere, that complain about our dependance on cars and the corresponding oil that they burn. I also think it should be much harder to get and keep a license than it is... but thats not really the topic I guess.

I don't feel attacked... I respect you and I'm just debating. No big whoop. And if you read my first post, you'll see I'm not strongly opinionated really about gun control laws. I stick out because I'm the only person in this thread who has said anything at all about limiting gun ownership to some extent.

The issue I was trying to mention with that post was the irrational fears which the media and government instill in the public and the fact that these fears cause them to be quicker about owning lots of guns and shooting people than they should be. The world certainly can be pretty dangerous, but unless you live in the Gaza Strip or somewhere like that, 99.99% of the time it isn't. I've made it to 32 and I've not been shot or stabbed yet.

#12 Camille

Camille

    Village Elder

  • New Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,925 posts
  • Location:Cleveland, Ohio USA

Posted 26 March 2004 - 08:12 PM

About the movie...I'm not a fan of the NRA, but I will say that Michael Moore was a bit heavy-handed with the way he presented his position.  I get the point already.  His interaction with Charleton Heston was especially mean-spirited and ineffective.  

That aside...gun control.  Hmm.  I'm not so much afraid of the guns as I am of the people who carry them.  We as emotional human beings do NOT exercise the best judgment, especially under tense situations.  To give an example:

A friend of mine is a big gun advocate and border-line survivalist.  She has handled several different firearms and practices regularly on shooting ranges. On the day of the blackout last August, after she came home from work and found the power out, she freaked out.  For those who don't know, here in Cleveland, we are especially sensitive about terrorism after 9/11.  Cleveland has a large Jewish community (second only to New York), and the plane that eventually crashed in Pennsylvania first travelled in our airspace for some time before it turned around and went back to PA.  Because of that, some believe that Cleveland was the original intended target.  Whether that's true or not doesn't matter, it's made many of us quite skittish.   (we still do practice drills in my office building)

Anyway, my friend thought the worst of the blackout (i.e. terrorism), and "prepared" herself.  In getting her gun (she was going to clean it and reload it, then put it in an accessible place), she accidently discharged it in her living room.  The bullet hit an inch above her living room window, which faced the sidewalk outside.  We are all grateful that she didn't hurt herself or someone else.

I guess my point is that even with someone as experienced as she is with guns, there is always a huge margin for error.    

For the most part, I sit on the fence with this one. I don't believe guns should be outlawed.  In theory, I agree that we have an inherent right to arm and protect ourselves.   Yet, I don't (and can't) trust myself or my neighbor with a tool that can instantaneously and irrevocably kill or hurt someone.  

Many of us probably imagine a scary situation where we are stalked/robbed/threatened by a stranger.  In those situations, it is easy to agree that we should have the opportunity to protect ourselves.  However, without throwing stastics around, most people are hurt and killed by people they know:  Domestic violence, bitter disputes with neighbors/friends that quickly escalate into a crime of passion, accidents, etc..  It is hardly comforting to know that someone can have easy access to a gun when, for instance, he or she has a fight with a spouse.

Effective April 4th, 2004, here in Ohio, it will now be legal for citizens to carry concealed weapons.   That scares me.
"What is wanted is not the will to believe, but the will to find out, which is the exact opposite."Bertrand Russell"You're going to go to McDonald's... you'll order an Egg McMuffin and some coffee... WAIT! They're going to forget your extra salt! Remind them to give you salt, please!!"Ed Closser, Trivial Psychic

#13 m2bc2001

m2bc2001

    Member

  • New Member
  • Pip
  • 1 posts
  • Location:x0|Montana|USA||0|0|MT,Montana

Posted 09 April 2004 - 04:05 PM

To all the people who are afraid of guns or don't think we need them. When your house is broken into and you're being raped or being beaten to a pulp. Don't call me to help with my guns cause I don't want to infringe on your rights or your opinion of not owning one for your own protection.
I just hope you live close enough to the police station for them to get there before your DEAD!

#14 anasuya

anasuya

    Village Elder

  • New Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,395 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Michigan

Posted 09 April 2004 - 08:43 PM

I like guns. I shoot them, I clean them, but I don't own them. My husband has a rifle that he keeps for hunting purposes, and it's locked in a case any other time. Any person tries to hurt me or my family, I'll prefer killing them with my bare hands, thank you very much...so much more satisfaction in it that way.

I'm not afraid of the population owning weapons. Weapons don't scare me. What scares me is the threat the owners of those weapons pose to my family and friends. Hey, own all the guns you want, but if anyone should so much as accidentally shoot a loved one... screw the law, justice is mine. I'm all about anarchy. lol

Ana
Don't be a newt!

#15 shellas13

shellas13

    Village Elder

  • New Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,626 posts
  • Location:Beijing, China

Posted 10 April 2004 - 05:08 AM

Honestly, I have always been a huge fan of Michael Moore. He has the guts to present very sensitive issues with bith wit and intelligence. True, he may go overboard sometimes but that does not disspell his initial intentions and thought provoking presentation. I think he made an excellent point in that fear really makes people do stupid (and dangerous) things. We are all defensive creatures...and it's good to want self-preservation, but I often ask myself this: IF let's say that I did own a gun (which I don't as they DO scare me, lol) would I be able to live with myself IF I were to somehow accidently cause the death of someone known or unknown to me?? Of course I am all about free will and those of you that do own guns or advocate them for safety and whatnot, I say more power to you...but for me, that thought of that particularly gross regret hanging over me is enough to make me never want to own a gun. It frightens the daylight out of me that in the space of one second, one pull of a finger can make life disappear like THAT!

Hence why I'm ALL about the martial arts! :( ;D

But good thread...really enjoyed reading everyone's very valid opinions!




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users