saw 'Columbine' last night...

[3chordcharlie]

First, a gun securely locked away isn't accessible if someone kicks your door in.

That aside, many "Gun Control" group sare after the complete outlaw of guns. They are working on small things first, and will fight for more control when they are successful with that. Judging by the AWB, they don't want sensible laws, but "feel good" laws.
------------------

I am for gun control (in my country, I obviously have no standing in yours), but not for the outlawing of firearms. I respect the heritage of guns in our shared history, the sportsmanship of target shooting (not so sure about hunitng to be honest) and I understand that in your country the right to bear arms is protected. I just think people are irresponsible about it, and sadly this means more control is needed.

If you already lock your guns securely at all times when they are not in use - and better yet, unloaded - then good for you; gun control isn't needed for you, but it may be for your neighbor, your family or your best friend.

There's no sense in 'feel good' laws, whether they allow easy access to guns or not. Keeping a loaded, unsecured gun in your house can make you feel safe, but statistically it makes you less safe. This is just as foolish as 'feel good' gun laws. But it sounds like this is not you, so good for you.

 

[chrisms]

That film was very entertaining

 

[ciba]

3chordcharlie, I don't know how familiar you are with the assault weapons ban. It was advertised as prohibiting "assault rifles" (think AK-47), but merely prohibited "scary looking" rifles. Most of the criteria in the law had perfectly acceptable uses. Automatic weapons had been banned by

One example are firearms with adjustable/folding stocks. Imagine a father/son pair that likes to go shooting. Well, you can't just take one rifle because of the AWB.

It also banned firearms bayonet lugs. Seriously, when was the last time you heard of a drive-by bayonetting?

Note: the AWB actually requires TWO criteria from a list for a weapon to be banned. The above are just examples.

house can make you feel safe, but statistically it makes you less safe

Your statistics are interesting, but there is also a bigger picture. They don't account for training, presence of children, or other factors. Sure, it is irresponsible to have an unlocked and loaded gun with children present. Adults at home? That's a different story.

Also, most of these statistics only count use of a firearm as a crime prevented. They do not include brandishing in their crime prevention statistics. Most crimes prevented by firearms are done by simply brandishing the weapon.

I just think people are irresponsible about it, and sadly this means more control is needed.

I agree with you 100% that more control is needed. Note that your sentence shows who is irresponsible. The people, not the object are what need the control.

 

[boran]

imho, since the second amendemend prohibits gun ownership limiting as we have here (belgium) the gouvernment should require licencing and training before one can aqcuire a gun, you need a drivers licence to drive a car, why not a gun licence to own a gun ? also I think you need to put minimum ages on the buying of both guns and bullets.

you could couple the nice with the not so nice part, learn people how to take care for their gun, learn them how to shoot, but also learn them the dangers, and to take responsibility with a tool that is designed to kill people.

young children that want to start shooting early should be able to do so, but the gun should stay owned by the shooting range and stay there (it is like this overhere, you "rent" the gun from the shooting range, and it never leaves the shooting range, but here it's for all guns, also for adults)

also imho heavier weapons should not be sold to public, guns that are designed to kill as many people as fast as possible belong in the military, not on the street.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: ciba
3chordcharlie, I don't know how familiar you are with the assault weapons ban. It was advertised as prohibiting "assault rifles" (think AK-47), but merely prohibited "scary looking" rifles. Most of the criteria in the law had perfectly acceptable uses. Automatic weapons had been banned by

One example are firearms with adjustable/folding stocks. Imagine a father/son pair that likes to go shooting. Well, you can't just take one rifle because of the AWB.

It also banned firearms bayonet lugs. Seriously, when was the last time you heard of a drive-by bayonetting?

Note: the AWB actually requires TWO criteria from a list for a weapon to be banned. The above are just examples.

house can make you feel safe, but statistically it makes you less safe

Your statistics are interesting, but there is also a bigger picture. They don't account for training, presence of children, or other factors. Sure, it is irresponsible to have an unlocked and loaded gun with children present. Adults at home? That's a different story.

Also, most of these statistics only count use of a firearm as a crime prevented. They do not include brandishing in their crime prevention statistics. Most crimes prevented by firearms are done by simply brandishing the weapon.

I just think people are irresponsible about it, and sadly this means more control is needed.

I agree with you 100% that more control is needed. Note that your sentence shows who is irresponsible. The people, not the object are what need the control.

Thanks - always nice to hear from someone with another perspective. As I said I have no interest in banning guns, but at the present time I should say also have no interest in owning one myself. I am somewhat familiar with the AWB you speak of, and I did know that its rule-based approach banned some weapons illogically (and I suspect may allow some weapons that are a little surprising as well).

Yes - the people need control, and I hope most here understand that, but the control is in how they think about, handle and otherwise interact with their guns.

Nice post.


:beer:

 

[nageov3t]

gun owners have always struck me as kinda paranoid folk. I've lived within 5 miles of New York City for the past 15 years. I don't know of anyone who has ever prevented a break-in or a mugging because they had a gun on them. truthfully, I think that having a gun makes the situation much more dangerous... just give up your wallet and get over it.

 

[ciba]

I live in Washington (state) and know a half-dozen occurences where friends/family have used a firearm, or threat thereof to scare off an intruder.

As I said I have no interest in banning guns, but at the present time I should say also have no interest in owning one myself.

It's funny we're having this discussion. I don't own any firearms either. I haven't taken the time to become proficient with one, and see know need to get one until it is a greater threat to an intruder than myself.

Nice disussion, charlie!

Oh yeah, another criteria under the AWB is a separate magazine on a pistol (outside the grib). I don't see how that makes a pistol more dangerous.

 

[DeeKnow]

to the a-gun-that-is-securely-locked-away-is-no-use folks.... how do you stop children from getting hold of and misusing a weapon if it's always loaded and ready to go, 'just-in-case-some-maniac-breaks-my-door-down'...???

and pullleeeze don't give me that joke about teaching them responsible use... if that worked, we wouldn't have kids smoking and doing drugs and getting pregnant in 9th grade either..

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: DeeKnow
to the a-gun-that-is-securely-locked-away-is-no-use folks.... how do you stop children from getting hold of and misusing a weapon if it's always loaded and ready to go, 'just-in-case-some-maniac-breaks-my-door-down'...???

and pullleeeze don't give me that joke about teaching them responsible use... if that worked, we wouldn't have kids smoking and doing drugs and getting pregnant in 9th grade either..

Kids that are brought up around firearms and are educated in firearms safety are far less likely to have and accident or misuse a weapon.

Your comparison is fairly crappy. Considering the state of drug and sex "education" in this country it is really no suprise that kids do what they are told not to.

 

[xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx]

Originally posted by: DeeKnow
I'd heard on and off about Michael Moore but didn't know much about him. Last night a friend gave me a copy of 'Bowling for Columbine'. some of the news I'd heard about in the last few years began to make a little sense...

I guess your friend didn't also give you the tinfoil beanie that comes with the video...ever see that movie, "The Ring?" Don't answer the phone.

 

[alchemize]

I haven't seen the movie, so I have a question. In BFC, how much discussion/how many interviews/how many scenes are there about the 4 adults (still alive) that are directly and solely responsible for the tragedy?

 

[DT4K]

Originally posted by: DeeKnow
Heston just disgraced himself... I don't know much about his past, but I don't think I care to find out.

See, that is why people despise Michael Moore. All you know about Heston is the distorted version of him that Moore created.

Heston would have disgraced himself if the way Moore portrayed the events was the way they actually happened. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Racist - Guilty by association

Closing the Columbine footage tear jerker scene, we see a near-hysterical female Columbine High School student telling how the girl next to her was shot in the head and a black male student was murdered 'because he was black.' Right at that line about him being shot 'cuz he was black' the footage is stopped (the frame freezes) and in a zoom in fade transition accompanied by a few seconds of black screen, we immediately see a clip of Charlton Heston at an NRA convention, colonial long-gun held high over his head, saying:

"I have only five words for you . . . From my cold dead hands!"

This trick is an important one to notice and is one Moore makes use of later in the film. The girls full comments aren't shown. Moore intentionally showed us footage of the sobbing student and stopped the feed at the racist line (paused and zoomed in) to demonize Heston. This is the first, but not the last time Moore does this kind of trick to tie racism in with guns.

The juxtaposition is especially insulting to Heston, who has a long history of time and effort in fighting for civil rights. Before the elitist Hollywood community took interest or involve in civil rights, Heston marched side by side with Martin Luther King Jr. on a number of occasions including the civil rights march in 1963 performed in Washington, D.C. In the original (uncut) version of "King: A Filmed Record... Montgomery to Memphis" (1970), Heston appears as a narrator.

Timeline trickiness

After this, we hear Moore telling us, ominously, that "just 10 days after the Columbine mass murders Heston came to Denver and held a large pro-gun rally."

The distortion is nauseatingly extreme. Heston's "cold dead hands" speech, which leads off Moore's depiction of the Denver meeting, was not given at Denver in defiance to Columbine. It was given a year later in Charlotte, North Carolina, and was his gesture of gratitude upon being given the handmade musket he's holding, at that annual meeting. A key word there is 'annual.' Although Moore successfully makes it appear that Heston has held the rally in response to the Columbine massacre - the gathering was preplanned.

The portrayal is that the line is made in defiance of Columbine while at an insensitive rally in Michigan, when it's actually a thank-you speech given a year later in North Carolina. It was a statement to reaffirm the right to own firearms, no different than saying the same thing with a steak raised over your head to show opposition to fanatical groups like PETA. It had nothing to do with any tragic event and its just as unfair to cut the two together as it would be if you cut the parallel line from my steak scenario after footage from a from the sad families of those who have lost a loved one to mad cow disease.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: DT4K

Originally posted by: DeeKnow
Heston just disgraced himself... I don't know much about his past, but I don't think I care to find out.

See, that is why people despise Michael Moore. All you know about Heston is the distorted version of him that Moore created.

Heston would have disgraced himself if the way Moore portrayed the events was the way they actually happened. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Racist - Guilty by association

Closing the Columbine footage tear jerker scene, we see a near-hysterical female Columbine High School student telling how the girl next to her was shot in the head and a black male student was murdered 'because he was black.' Right at that line about him being shot 'cuz he was black' the footage is stopped (the frame freezes) and in a zoom in fade transition accompanied by a few seconds of black screen, we immediately see a clip of Charlton Heston at an NRA convention, colonial long-gun held high over his head, saying:

"I have only five words for you . . . From my cold dead hands!"

This trick is an important one to notice and is one Moore makes use of later in the film. The girls full comments aren't shown. Moore intentionally showed us footage of the sobbing student and stopped the feed at the racist line (paused and zoomed in) to demonize Heston. This is the first, but not the last time Moore does this kind of trick to tie racism in with guns.

The juxtaposition is especially insulting to Heston, who has a long history of time and effort in fighting for civil rights. Before the elitist Hollywood community took interest or involve in civil rights, Heston marched side by side with Martin Luther King Jr. on a number of occasions including the civil rights march in 1963 performed in Washington, D.C. In the original (uncut) version of "King: A Filmed Record... Montgomery to Memphis" (1970), Heston appears as a narrator.

Timeline trickiness

After this, we hear Moore telling us, ominously, that "just 10 days after the Columbine mass murders Heston came to Denver and held a large pro-gun rally."

The distortion is nauseatingly extreme. Heston's "cold dead hands" speech, which leads off Moore's depiction of the Denver meeting, was not given at Denver in defiance to Columbine. It was given a year later in Charlotte, North Carolina, and was his gesture of gratitude upon being given the handmade musket he's holding, at that annual meeting. A key word there is 'annual.' Although Moore successfully makes it appear that Heston has held the rally in response to the Columbine massacre - the gathering was preplanned.

The portrayal is that the line is made in defiance of Columbine while at an insensitive rally in Michigan, when it's actually a thank-you speech given a year later in North Carolina. It was a statement to reaffirm the right to own firearms, no different than saying the same thing with a steak raised over your head to show opposition to fanatical groups like PETA. It had nothing to do with any tragic event and its just as unfair to cut the two together as it would be if you cut the parallel line from my steak scenario after footage from a from the sad families of those who have lost a loved one to mad cow disease.

Moore wasn't trying to disgrace or embarrass Heston, he merely showed how when you ask the tough questions even those who should have an answer are dumbstruck, because they have never considered the issue in that way. It goes along with the whole point of the entire Movie, people have not really considered Why they own a gun or what a Gun is, they just own one because of some vague idea that they're Safer, even though the facts prove otherwise.

 

[Stunt]

I have mixed feelings over Moore. He is great at presenting information to the people and finding information that should be told, but gets lost by the media. His opinions are a bit warped. ie. he wants jobs but disagrees with different ways to attain jobs. He feels that being protectionist and imposing laws on companies with regards to profits, environment, jobs will be better for the country. Although there are other methods, such as tax cuts, less military spending, less services held by the government which can create jobs. I am a fan of his as he helps fill the gap in such things as the majority of the US thinking that saddam had ties to 9/11.

One thing that i totally disagree with is his opinion on our federal election. He knows our opposition party supported sending help to iraq, and the governing party didnt. But now there is a new leader of the governing party and he would have sent troops to iraq. But still he came out and told canadians not to vote for the opposition as they supported the war...how warped is that. Moore should stick to the facts as there is enough to run on there...without bringing his personal objectives into it.

 

[M0NEYSH0T]

Originally posted by: loki8481
I mostly agree with Moore's politics. but he's a crap film maker, they're misrepresented as documentries, and he "misrepresents" the truth way too often and way too far.

Like in his latest film. Where people are rebutting many of his statements he's saying are fact.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5239322/

There's more like this, and more will come out once the movie hits mass distribution. I think this person is full of hatred. He also says that he didn't vote for, Clinton. I don't know. I think a film of this sort in an election year is disgraceful.

It's amazing the voice and power the left has...

 

[Stunt]

"I think a film of this sort in an election year is disgraceful."

This type of film in an election year is exactly what the electorate needs to see before going to the polls as a lot of americans think saddam is related to 9/11 still.

 

[M0NEYSH0T]

Originally posted by: Stunt
"I think a film of this sort in an election year is disgraceful."

This type of film in an election year is exactly what the electorate needs to see before going to the polls as a lot of americans think saddam is related to 9/11 still.

After look at some polls, I see you are correct about the Saddam and 9/11 being related. But so what?

Again, the left has SO MUCH POWER IN THE MEDIA it's absurd. Farenheith 9/11, point in case. Disney scrapped, and two liberal brothers picked it up and distributed it. This is NOT ethical during an election year.

 

[Zephyr106]

Originally posted by: M0NEYSH0T

Originally posted by: Stunt
"I think a film of this sort in an election year is disgraceful."

This type of film in an election year is exactly what the electorate needs to see before going to the polls as a lot of americans think saddam is related to 9/11 still.

After look at some polls, I see you are correct about the Saddam and 9/11 being related. But so what?

Again, the left has SO MUCH POWER IN THE MEDIA it's absurd. Farenheith 9/11, point in case. Disney scrapped, and two liberal brothers picked it up and distributed it. This is NOT ethical during an election year.

Free market distribution of films isn't ethical in America????

Zephyr

 

[Stunt]

The left has so much power?

If they did, people would know this simple fact which you admit is misprecieved.
ugh...you could say the right has the power trying to block it. Luckily we have ppl who have the guts to allow the freedom of expression...
this is a documentary...opinions are allowed you know...

 

[M0NEYSH0T]

Originally posted by: Zephyr106

Originally posted by: M0NEYSH0T

Originally posted by: Stunt
"I think a film of this sort in an election year is disgraceful."

This type of film in an election year is exactly what the electorate needs to see before going to the polls as a lot of americans think saddam is related to 9/11 still.

After look at some polls, I see you are correct about the Saddam and 9/11 being related. But so what?

Again, the left has SO MUCH POWER IN THE MEDIA it's absurd. Farenheith 9/11, point in case. Disney scrapped, and two liberal brothers picked it up and distributed it. This is NOT ethical during an election year.

Free market distribution of films isn't ethical in America????

Zephyr

Not when the sole purpose is to sway an election. No, it isn't. Talk about who's in the pocket of BIG BUSINESS.

The left has so much power?

If they did, people would know this simple fact which you admit is misprecieved.
ugh...you could say the right has the power trying to block it. Luckily we have ppl who have the guts to allow the freedom of expression...
this is a documentary...opinions are allowed you know...

This is not a documentary in the sense that you're going to go to the OMNI theater to view it, or you're going to learn something new about the Oceans. This is a film produced by a man that admittedly hates the sitting president, and will stop at nothing to see him un-seated. Even distribute a non-100% accurate movie (going off what I've heard on CNN, FOX, NBC) to PUSH his AGENDA.

 

[Stunt]

So go make a documentary praising bush and bashing kerry, it is a free country, go nuts.

You admittedly said that the pubic has the wrong impression of the facts...even with the huge liberal media as you say. So what is wrong with informing them with some facts that could help them see more clearly. I mean if they take moore as fact, that'd be foolish, but even more foolish is to believe the info out of the bush admin. There needs to be some sort of a counter to this. Moore has done a good job at this as the media has failed.

 

[M0NEYSH0T]

Originally posted by: Stunt
So go make a documentary praising bush and bashing kerry, it is a free country, go nuts.

You admittedly said that the pubic has the wrong impression of the facts...even with the huge liberal media as you say. So what is wrong with informing them with some facts that could help them see more clearly. I mean if they take moore as fact, that'd be foolish, but even more foolish is to believe the info out of the bush admin. There needs to be some sort of a counter to this. Moore has done a good job at this as the media has failed.

Yeah, the liberal owners of Hollywood would push that. Are you not seeing my point? Remove the blinders from your eyes.

 

[Stunt]

Your point is based on the electorate doesnt deserve to hear the other side of the story as they do not have the right perception on the matter.
Also you blame liberal media, liberal producers and liberal owners in hollywood.

You are saying there is not any conservative media etc?
Cuz moore complains about it all the time. Like the attempt to block his book, film and the like. There are forces at work, but i doubt they are liberal....

 

[Hossenfeffer]

Originally posted by: conjur
http://www.bowlingfortruth.com/
http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html

Started reading through the bowling for truth site, or more accurately, I read a bit on Moore's stuff there, then was interested in hearing what the guy had to say about Al Franken's book. I read the first three pages of comments and oh boy did the guy ever miss the boat. At any rate, I'll check through the site. Seems interesting.

As for Heston disgracing himself... If he did, at least 50% (talking out of my ass) of it is through the editing. Moore ambushed him and it made me cringe.

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: Stunt
So go make a documentary praising bush and bashing kerry, it is a free country, go nuts.

You admittedly said that the pubic has the wrong impression of the facts...even with the huge liberal media as you say. So what is wrong with informing them with some facts that could help them see more clearly. I mean if they take moore as fact, that'd be foolish, but even more foolish is to believe the info out of the bush admin. There needs to be some sort of a counter to this. Moore has done a good job at this as the media has failed.

Two wrongs does not make a right.