Bowling For Columbine

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Why is it when you refute one argument, they ignore that and move to another, and when you have covered them all, they go back to the first?

Or they just go back to repeating what they said originally, despite the refutation. It's amusing!

Quote

And you know the "assault weapons" in the ban are nothing like what soldiers carry. Those have been covered since 1934 or so.

That is true, using the technical definition of an assault weapon.

However, the politicians went and changed the definition for their purposes, and that is now widely used by the media. So we're stuck with it, even though it's incorrect.

I know you are aware of this, but for the general readers here, the political definition of an "assault weapon" is a firearm that contains a pistol grip, a flash suppressor, a bayonet lug and/or a folding stock.

When was the last time you heard of someone being
bayoneted to death? Hit over the head with a pistol grip? Poked in the eye with a flash suppressor?

The whole thing is a joke. The so-called "assault weapons" have nothing to do with machine guns, the rate of fire, the power of the cartridge they fire, or anything else that makes them "dangerous". It has only to do with cosmetic features that make them look "scarey" to anti-gun politicians.

Lions and tigers and bayonet lugs, oh my!

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

I have only asked one simple question of JohnRich. To provide me with the scientific proof that his statement of gun laws do not work is correct. He has pretty much been ignoring me ever since.

Oh I have provided plenty of evidence, all of which you choose not to accept. I recognize that no amount or manner of data would be sufficient to make you change your mind. That's okay, you have a right to your opinion. And I have a right not to waste my time trying to jump through your hoops with your demand for more proof.

[The111 1]

Quote

Quote

I think 100,000 citizens armed with spoons could probably take 5 soldiers with an entire arsenal of guns at their disposal. I think they'd also lose a lot of lives in their spoon assault, and many would be scared to try.

I think 100,000 citizens with guns would ANNIHILATE 5 armed soldiers, and be much more confident in doing so.

I could not agree with you more. But we were talking about the US Army not 5 soldiers.

I'm glad you agree with me. PhillyKev showed that the ratio of soldiers to civilians is 5 to 100,000.

www.WingsuitPhotos.com

[The111 1]

Quote

Quote

All foot soldiers do not carry one weapon, and I do not truly know what number is "average". My point is this. I'm asking you to explain, rationally, why you keep focusing on "one weapon." What is the realistic difference between carrying one gun or two? You can only die once.

I agree, I did not come forward with that interpretation of the 2nd Amendmend. PhillyKev a staunch supporter of the right to bear arms did. (I hope I recal that correctly)

Maybe he did, but he's not the one who started hammering home the "1 weapon per person" concept. You are.

Quote

I don't know what average would be, nor what the average footsoldier carries as a weapon (again some one else put forward the m16). I would think that the wise men who came up with the interpretation can decide what it is.

Actually, they can't. They're dead. To the dread of many, we have to think for ourselves.

www.WingsuitPhotos.com

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

So, using your own argument, since 99.997% of all guns are not used to kill someone, then their "purpose" must not be "to kill".

Quote

Using *your* own argument... what is the purpose of your reserve parachute? Based on how many times you use it, and how often you *prepare* to use it...

Hey, it's not my logic - I was using the other guy's logic to refute his own statement. He was all hung up on how they are actually used. So I went with that and showed him he was incorrect using that basis.

A reserve parachute, like a self-defense gun, is used to save your life. It doesn't matter how long it has sat around unused in the meantime. It's there for you in the rare circumstances when you need it.

Using the inferior logic of this other guy based upon frequency of use, I suppose he would conclude that the purpose of a reserve parachute is to fill up the top half of your container and add 10 lbs of weight to your rig.

[The111 1]

I thought Flieglend (sp?), the one who you were replying to, said that guns were designed to kill. I'm confused.

www.WingsuitPhotos.com

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

That doesn't indicate though if it was for instance the rapist or the rapee that got killed, which was the point of his question.

Yeah, it wasn't perfect, but it was the best I could come up with quickly.

It did have some interesting stuff, like the fact that nearly 1,000 of the murders were gang-related: gang members killing other gang members. That's bad guys getting shot by other bad guys, and sort of fits what you were looking for.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

I really don't understand what kind of validity this argument has in current times. If for instance Bush got full control of the military and would somehow be able to get them to do exactly what he wanted. Do you really think a half armed civilian population could stop them?

Sure, the government has all the high tech weaponry, but would they use it against their own citizens? If they did, then we'd have a full scale revolution, and rightly so.

And the professional armed forces pale in comparison to the number of veterans now in civilian life. There is more combat experience in those former soldiers than in the active duty forces.

If commanders were to give orders to troops to fire on civilians, a large bunch of them would refuse to carry-out those orders. Maybe even turning on their commanders who issued those orders. The military forces themselves might be at war with each other.

Finally, professional armies are often unable to win guerrilla wars. We learned that lesson ourselves. The French learned it. The British. The Russians. High tech weaponry doesn't guarantee victory in widespread guerilla warfare.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

I personally believe that the posisbility of reducing deaths from firearms is more important than some one's right to carry them.

Uh-huh, and using "possibilities", "maybe's" and "what if's", you could legislate away everything in the Bill of Rights.

The 1st Amendment could be eliminated, because it breeds child pornography. The 4th Amendment could be eliminated because it allows criminals to hide illegal materials and activity in their homes, free from police raids. And so on. I wouldn't want to live in an Amerika that eliminates freedoms based upon "maybe's".

I think freedom requires a much higher standard of proof than that. We don't convict accused criminals just because they "might" be guilty. And we shouldn't eliminate freedoms simply because some proposed law "might" work.

There's a possibility right now that you could be using your computer to view child pornography. Therefore, we're going to have to confiscate it! Go turn it into the police station right now, before they come knocking down your door for it...

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

I thought Flieglend (sp?), the one who you were replying to, said that guns were designed to kill. I'm confused.

He started that way. But then he also went on to saying that is how they are actually most often used.

It is hard to keep up with all the arguments, and who made them, as the thread progresses...

[turtlespeed 221]

Quote

I'm glad you agree with me. PhillyKev showed that the ratio of soldiers to civilians is 5 to 100,000.

There aren't that many there that don't want us there.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[Newbie 0]

Quote

I enjoy his view on things, however, after reading his books and watching this movie I have come to the conclusion that Michael Moore is merely an entertainer. He claims that he has all of these view points on why Bush sucks and this and that, but in reality all he does is write this stuff as entertainment. None the less, the movie was very entertaining.

eh? How does a film questioning why so many Americans, compared to other western nations, kill each with guns, become "entertainment"? Thought provoking, astonishing, mystifying, sickening and bizarre perhaps, but i wouldn't call it entertaining.

"Skydiving is a door"
Happythoughts

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

I think freedom requires a much higher standard of proof than that.

Guns do not guarantee freedom though. The underlying thought behind the 2nd amendmend is not correct in my opinion. Try to follow me with a somewhat open mind.

Your argument is that your right to carry arms is what keeps you free and is a sufficient deterrent to the goverment not turning on its citizens.

However, we will never know what would have happened if the US citizens did not have the right to bear arms. We don't know if the US government would have turned on their government.

We do have documented cases of the opposite. Namely Iraq. Saddam Hussein never restricted Iraqis when it came to the ownership of weapons. Iraqis were free to own guns and rifles and many certainly did.

Yet, we can all agree that Saddam Hussein was a tyrannical leader, who completely dominated his subjects. We can all agree that Iraqis did not have many freedoms and it certainly was not a democracy.

Now the US invades Iraq. I won't go into the reasons since that is a whole different argument. The US gets rid of Saddam and starts trying to build a democracy and giving Iraqis their freedom.

What do they do, the tell Iraqis to hand in all their weapons. They completely restrict the ownership of firearms. They see it as a deterrent to the establishment of democracy and a hindrance to the establishment of freedoms of the Iraqis.

It is the complete opposite of the thoughts behind the 2nd amendment. It also proves that it wasn't that difficult for a tyrannical leader to get to power while the citizens are armed. It did not provide any freedoms to the Iraqis and now the US is saying that they have to hand in their weapons to establish freedom and democracy.

Your own government is saying the thoughts behind the 2nd amendment are not true.

(As to your proof. I am asking for something scientists would agree with. Not a report where the authors agree that they do not have enough valid information to come to a conclusion. What part of that do you not understand?)

[Kramer 0]

Quote

Quote

I enjoy his view on things, however, after reading his books and watching this movie I have come to the conclusion that Michael Moore is merely an entertainer. He claims that he has all of these view points on why Bush sucks and this and that, but in reality all he does is write this stuff as entertainment. None the less, the movie was very entertaining.

eh? How does a film questioning why so many Americans, compared to other western nations, kill each with guns, become "entertainment"? Thought provoking, astonishing, mystifying, sickening and bizarre perhaps, but i wouldn't call it entertaining.

Yeah, there have been a lot of people in this thread refer to Bowling For Columbine as entertaining (myself included even).

I would define entertaining as something that humors you, gives you pleasure, or makes you feel good. Nothing about Bowling For Columine gave me pleasure or made me feel good...(it did humor me a bit at times).

The movie made me feel empty and lonley if anything. After watching it, I couldn't stop thinking about how if America is this fucked up, and we're the "best country on the planet", then what's going on in these other countries.

It's made me decide that maybe we're not the best country on the planet. From a standpoint of economy and power, sure...but there's a lot more to life than power and money.

-Kramer

The FAKE KRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAMER!!!!!!!!!

[leroydb 0]

Quote

A few weeks ago I found the drivers license of somebody that I'd never met wedged between my visor and the garage door remote. That was quite the mystery.

2-3 million soldiers
vs
2-3 billion civilians (mins 2-3 million)

Leroy


..I knew I was an unwanted baby when I saw my bath toys were a toaster and a radio...

[jaaska 0]

Wow... So much for the original topic.

However, I repeat:

How come so many more Americans are killed (in %)by guns even if you compare to the kind of countries that have a lot of guns, too (say Canada or some European states (in%))?

[The111 1]

Quote

Quote

A few weeks ago I found the drivers license of somebody that I'd never met wedged between my visor and the garage door remote. That was quite the mystery.

2-3 million soldiers
vs
2-3 billion civilians (mins 2-3 million)

I have no idea what you are trying to say here, why it is addressed to me, and why you are quoting me as saying something I didn't.

???

www.WingsuitPhotos.com

[The111 1]

Quote

Wow... So much for the original topic.

However, I repeat:

How come so many more Americans are killed (in %)by guns even if you compare to the kind of countries that have a lot of guns, too (say Canada or some European states (in%))?

As Canuck pointed out, it has something to do with the way Americans are bred to think, and the fact that so many of them are sheep and are easily shaped by the media, etc. I'm not perceptive enough to lay my finger on exactly what mindset makes so many people think killing someone is the solution to a problem (nor is it an easy thing to figure out - that is the point of the movie and Moore's many theories), but it is obviously something about our culture/society that causes people to think this way, if people in other cultures/societies don't think this way.

www.WingsuitPhotos.com

[goose491 0]

Quote

Show me one shred of evidence stating the NRA took up the KKK's crusade. Show me one piece of scientific research or analysis showing their goals have anything in common.

I really don't think there is any left now in 2003. It is clear that they are not related today. It is also clear that they are not the same oganisation that they founded in 1871.

Quote

I think you meant disbanded. And I have news for you. The KKK is still alive and spewing their own brand of hate. The bedsheets never left, they just got folded up.

1870 Force Acts (KKK Acts) passed by Congress ­ seek to enforce 15th Amendment by giving Federal protection for black suffrage, and authorize the use of Federal troops against the KKK. These acts are declared unconstitutional in Cruikshank v. U.S. in the 1880s. Federal Troops! the KKK is around today yes... but I bet they were nowhere to be found in the handful of years following this!

Find the grammar error in that. (yes, I meant disbanded)

Quote

The National Riffles Association, dedicated to keeping guns in the hands of gun owners and fighting any form of limitation restraint or control, was founded the same year that the bunch o' bedsheet wearing, negro hangin, shotgun weilding hicks were outlawed and disbanned.

"fighting any form of limitation or restraint" That would mean they're against keeping guns from "negros," wouldn't it?

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

Guns do not guarantee freedom though. The underlying thought behind the 2nd amendmend is not correct in my opinion. Try to follow me with a somewhat open mind.

Your argument is that your right to carry arms is what keeps you free and is a sufficient deterrent to the goverment not turning on its citizens.

No....you're confused about our argument. Our argument is that freedom means being free to own guns. And yes, having an armed citizenry is one aspect of retaining freedom, not the only deterrent.

Quote

However, we will never know what would have happened if the US citizens did not have the right to bear arms. We don't know if the US government would have turned on their government.

We do have documented cases of the opposite. Namely Iraq. Saddam Hussein never restricted Iraqis when it came to the ownership of weapons. Iraqis were free to own guns and rifles and many certainly did.

And now you're comparing apples and oranges. Iraqis living under dictatorial rule with guns do not equate to free born Americans. And I'd like to see your proof that weapon ownership was not restricted in Iraq, I find that hard to believe.

Quote

What do they do, the tell Iraqis to hand in all their weapons. They completely restrict the ownership of firearms. They see it as a deterrent to the establishment of democracy and a hindrance to the establishment of freedoms of the Iraqis.

It is the complete opposite of the thoughts behind the 2nd amendment. It also proves that it wasn't that difficult for a tyrannical leader to get to power while the citizens are armed. It did not provide any freedoms to the Iraqis and now the US is saying that they have to hand in their weapons to establish freedom and democracy.

I can't believe I'm actually wasting my time responding to this part. Ummm....check out the news, we're in the middle of a conflict. No where is anyone claiming that Iraq is now free and democratic and should have every aspect of that right now. We want that for them eventually, but right now we're trying not to die.

Quote

(As to your proof. I am asking for something scientists would agree with. Not a report where the authors agree that they do not have enough valid information to come to a conclusion. What part of that do you not understand?)

Again...that's where anti vs. pro are divided. It's the belief in personal freedom. You never addressed the very valid post above regarding convicting people on a maybe, or restricting rights because of a might.

Freedom is like insurance. You can have named exclusions or specified coverage. Our constitution is like named exclusions. Everything is permitted unless it is specifically made illegal. The bill of rights isn't naming the rights we are allowed to have. It is specifiying some that are considered fundamentally important, but it also goes on to say in the 9th amendmant, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. "

In other words, even if the 2nd amendment didn't exist, we should still have the right to own guns, because there is no legitimate reason to restrict their use, and it is YOU or anyone seeking to ban them that must provide the proof that is not the case.

[goose491 0]

Quote

Now the US invades Iraq....

What do they do, the tell Iraqis to hand in all their weapons. They completely restrict the ownership of firearms. They see it as a deterrent to the establishment of democracy and a hindrance to the establishment of freedoms of the Iraqis.

It is the complete opposite of the thoughts behind the 2nd amendment. It also proves that it wasn't that difficult for a tyrannical leader to get to power while the citizens are armed. It did not provide any freedoms to the Iraqis and now the US is saying that they have to hand in their weapons to establish freedom and democracy.

Your own government is saying the thoughts behind the 2nd amendment are not true.

This is a wonderful point Justin...

If the reason we absolutely must not give up our guns is that we may one day need them to overthrow a government gone villainous on it's people, then why take away the arms of those you are presently trying to free from a villainous government?..

My Karma ran over my Dogma!!!

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

And I'd like to see your proof that weapon ownership was not restricted in Iraq, I find that hard to believe.

I am sure you will dispute this as proof, ut i have some work to do. it is clear that gun ownership was veyr much a part of the Iraqi culture, which makes it pretty damn unlikely that it was restricted. As a matter of fact, Saddam used to give guns for free to citizens.

"Coalition forces are making a concerted effort to strip the country of its small-arms cache, but they face a Herculean task. The country has an entrenched culture of gun ownership. “Give everything to your friend,” an old Iraqi saying runs, “except your car, your wife, and your gun.” Given the complete breakdown in law and order following the collapse of the Hussein regime, Iraqis are particularly reluctant to give up their weapons now."

from:

http://www.worldpress.org/Mideast/1200.cfm

Quote

Ummm....check out the news, we're in the middle of a conflict. No where is anyone claiming that Iraq is now free and democratic and should have every aspect of that right now.

exactly and the fact that almost every Iraqi owned a gun did not prevent a tyraniccal leader coming to power. The same holds for Afghanistan.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

If the reason we absolutely must not give up our guns is that we may one day need them to overthrow a government gone villainous on it's people, then why take away the arms of those you are presently trying to free from a villainous government?..

Actually the ruling now is that they are allowed to own small arms, yet they are only allowed to keep them in their home or their place of business. They are not allowed to carry them anywhere.

Maybe that is a good compromise for the US itself.

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

Actually the ruling now is that they are allowed to own small arms, yet they are only allowed to keep them in their home or their place of business. They are not allowed to carry them anywhere.

Maybe that is a good compromise for the US itself.

Guess what...that's always been the rule until a few years ago. Concealed carry laws have only existed for a short time. With the exception of a couple of small states, that rule was already in effect.

So, thank you for making that entire part of your argument even more irrelevant than it was before.

And as to why the Iraqis didn't fight to keep Saddam out of power, it still has no comparison to what we would do in the US. It's very culturally different. That region has always been used to absolute rulers. We've always been used to personal freedom. Completely different mindset and motivation factors.

[goose491 0]

Quote

Actually the ruling now is that they are allowed to own small arms, yet they are only allowed to keep them in their home or their place of business. They are not allowed to carry them anywhere.

Maybe that is a good compromise for the US itself.

I think so... Like I've already said, it's too bad this has turned out to be a gun-control thread instead of the Bowling for Columbine thread that it was supposed to be. I'm not entirely against guns but yeah, that would be a nice compromise.

It would satisfy both the "We need personal protection from my President should he go tyrannous on us." and the "We need personal protection from attackers and theves in our homes." arguments. It's only the "We need personal protection from muggers in the street" ones that would be put out.

There the ones who should learn some Ninja skill at the dojo I guess and everybody wins!

"Where's the inflated sense of self esteem? [pulls small handgun out from his sock]... Aaaah, there it is!"
-Barney

My Karma ran over my Dogma!!!