Thread: Your Favorite Director at it again.

bowling for columbine was anti-gun. Not anti-american. The bad part about it was that he edited it in such a way that it was more lie than truth. And that's been his M.O. ever since. He will take things out of context and when things ARE in context he'll edit in such a way as to MAKE it out of context. He's a lying scumbag.

Originally Posted by Ranger10

People will always choose to believe what the want to believe, see what the want to see, and make decisions based on information they think is 'correct'. Michael Moore, while provocative, usually only presents a view which espouses his own ideas and opinions on how the world SHOULD work. Yay for him.

The disconnect is that how is should work, and how it actually works are so far removed from one another, they are comical in contrast. I would love for the world to magically have no more guns. Then we could find better ways of killing one another. But since that fairy tale will never exist, then you have to operate in the reality that guns do exist, bad people exist, racists people with guns exist and there is no law that will ever undue that. For this reason, the best way to make sure your way of life is protected is to even the playing field and grab your own gun. This works especially well in the wake of corrupt governments.

Guns are an invention that for better or worse, are here to stay. All of you who secretly (not so secret in these forums) hold to the notion that we should be creating policies aimed at reducing the number of guns because you think it will reduce the number of deaths is living in a fairy tale. It's time that people like Michael Moore put his big boy pants on and start living in the real world where we need real solutions to real problems, instead of acting like another law is going to fix it.

So if gun control won't work what will? The number of deaths by gun in the US is very high, is it not? Should we be doing something reduce the number of deaths by gun? I think we should - if you don't, why?

Originally Posted by Kanati8869

bowling for columbine was anti-gun. Not anti-american. The bad part about it was that he edited it in such a way that it was more lie than truth. And that's been his M.O. ever since. He will take things out of context and when things ARE in context he'll edit in such a way as to MAKE it out of context. He's a lying scumbag.

Kanati you hit the nail RIGHT ON THE HEAD where Moore is concerned. When I was in college I was a film major, and worked in the industry as well. When the film Roger & Me came out, Moore was instantly one of my heroes - that was a fantastic film and exposed issues in a way we hadn't seen before. My man crush on Moore was destroyed by all of his later work. In fact, I wrote Moore a thoughtful letter after Bowling for Columbine came out, before all the debunking websites and all that, to tell him about my journey as a film student, that he used to be one of my heroes, and point out the flaws in the film and to ask Moore why he would flat out lie like that?!?!? I was devastated by this betrayal of trust by a supposed documentary filmmaker whom I had admired and respected. Moore actually wrote me back - he said that he was glad I didn't like his work and that he wouldn't want someone like me caring about what he had to say anyway. He said some other things too but the bottom line was that his agenda was plain as day and it disgusted me... And if you look at his body of work along with his outspoken opinions and well known views, one could say that he is decidedly anti-american.

While I'm talking about disillusionment with people I have admired, another person who I had admired when I was younger was Jesse Jackson. In 1988 Jackson came to my college campus at the University of North Texas while running for President to give a speech. I was excited to get the chance to see/meet him. I went to the auditorium and waited for him along with a group of other students. Soon enough, Secret Service people came and also a rope was set up as kind of a receiving line where people could stand to see Jackson as he walked by on his way into the auditorium. About 15 people waited there for a hope to get a glimpse of Jackson or maybe interact with him in some way, while everyone else was focused on going into the auditorium to get a good seat... At that point I noticed that I was the only non-African American in the group waiting outside; Jackson's car arrived and to our surprise he took his time going in and shook everyone's hand on the rope line as he walked by, stopping to share a comment or two with a few of them - I was toward the middle of the line. Jackson was genial and kind toward every person who reached out to shake his hand, looking them in the eye and smiling - until he got to me. When he reached me, I grinned and held out my hand to shake his. His smile dropped, he looked me right in the eye from two feet away, and he did not shake my hand. he then moved to the next person and shook their hand, etc. and so forth. It was a willful, purposeful gesture on his part to blow me off. It had a huge effect on me in terms of my own realization of what Jackson's real agenda was and what his beliefs were about, before I ever really knew what he was about from his actions - remember the internet really didn't exist back then so researching him wasn't so simple as it would be today. As far as I was concerned from that point forward, Jackson was a racist and I had experienced that firsthand. That experience hurt quite a bit.

Since then, I've had other experiences that have informed my opinion that most radical leftists don't care about anyone they don't see useful to their own needs... On the other hand, I've seen conservatives, even those far to the right, be some of the most inclusive people around.

Of course these are my own personal views but experience can be a good barometer, or at least it has been for me, feel free to flame away or call me a liar or whatever... :-)

Originally Posted by iravedic

So if gun control won't work what will? The number of deaths by gun in the US is very high, is it not? Should we be doing something reduce the number of deaths by gun? I think we should - if you don't, why?

That is a simplistic way of looking at it. We have more guns for one thing, so of course deaths by guns will be higher. But what statistical evaluation would be valuable for this? Do we look at all murders using guns or all deaths periods including suicides? What about illegal guns vs legally owned firearms? Crimes of passion vs. premeditated crimes? Which part of the data is the valuable part? Which part could legislation actually make a difference for? I think this is where the core arguments are rooted.

In most cases legislation doesn't work because it doesn't effect the desired change, and instead harms law abiding citizens. This is the dilemma in my opinion regarding gun rights.

Originally Posted by -Lazarus-

That is a simplistic way of looking at it. We have more guns for one thing, so of course deaths by guns will be higher. But what statistical evaluation would be valuable for this? Do we look at all murders using guns or all deaths periods including suicides? What about illegal guns vs legally owned firearms? Crimes of passion vs. premeditated crimes? Which part of the data is the valuable part? Which part could legislation actually make a difference for? I think this is where the core arguments are rooted.

In most cases legislation doesn't work because it doesn't effect the desired change, and instead harms law abiding citizens. This is the dilemma in my opinion regarding gun rights.

It is a simple question - I'm not looking at what the measures are, rather starting from the posit that there are too many gun deaths in the US be they suicides, murders, accidental, whatever. Too many people die by bullet in this country IMO. So what do we do about it?

Ban extended magazines since it takes 30 minutes to switch one with a modern pistol.

I liked Chris Rock's solution (from a humor standpoint): make every bullet cost $50.

Originally Posted by iravedic

It is a simple question - I'm not looking at what the measures are, rather starting from the posit that there are too many gun deaths in the US be they suicides, murders, accidental, whatever. Too many people die by bullet in this country IMO. So what do we do about it?

Yes but you are making two assumptions here...

1. That we can do something about it.
2. That we should do something about it.

We have far bigger fish to fry in terms of causes of death than guns in this country. More people die of poisoning than gun deaths for example, according to the CDC... For example:

From CDC 2010 causes of death:
Injury deaths 180,811; per 100,000 population: 58.6
Motor vehicle traffic deaths 33,687 (10,228 due to drunk driving); per 100,000 population: 10.9
Poisoning deaths 42,917; per 100,000 population: 13.9
Firearm deaths 31,672 (19,000 by suicide); per 100,000 population: 10.3

I want you to think about the actual scope of the situation. Should we be expending energy saying firearms deaths are too high when 60% of them are by suicide and our deaths by car accident is so high? By the way, suicide is technically illegal in most states - has that stopped anyone? What about poisonings? Shouldn't we do something about that?

That said, I tend in most cases to think that we can't affect the kind of change you're talking about through legislation. The NRA has done some fantastic work on gun safety awareness and self protection that are a good start, but we could certainly be doing more as a people to educate and inform. Legislation, I dunno, not so much.

Also, for non-suicide deaths by firearm, gangs or gang related activity represents about half of that number. So I suppose if you want to take down death rates by firearm, you would want to start with expansive suicide prevention programs and crack down on gangs.

Problem is, neither of those is a popular platform to run on in a national election when talking about guns, now is it? It's much more profitable for political candidates to talk about the boogeyman out there with a gun who is waiting to shoot up a school or something, which we both know represents an absolutely minuscule part of the numbers.