I'm glad i'm not American :)

Very nice review lizzy, i might rent this when i see it in the dvd store :)

BTW i love American girls like Liz tough :D

Any change will be a long hard road. This quote is from a pro - gun website " Whether you like it or not, gun rights are civil rights. If you are against gun rights, then you are in the same pack as the Klan and the communists, and are as likely to vote to shut down churches and newspapers as you are to license and register guns" . When you wrap a gun around the flag then dogma replaces balance and reasoned argument will count for naught.

Nice review. I agree that times are getting tougher and more out of whack. But I personally think harsher punishments will help cut down on violence.

Sorc, I like your use of the word "whack". I find that I use the word "whack-job" a lot lately.

8-)

propaganda

n : information that is spread for the purpose of promoting some cause
Source: WordNet ® 1.6, © 1997 Princeton University

You know I have a lot of respect for your insight into this matter of gun control. The thing is i disagree with Michael Moore and I find it sad that someone could look at this film and see it as anything but propaganda. I am a member of the NRA and have never killed anyone with the guns that I have. Charleton Heston is niether evil or racist. It is not fair to edit sound bites of people and take them out of context. There are 22,000 gun laws and almost as many drug laws in our country and people still get hopped-up on "smack" and rob liquor stores. If you are for legalization of drugs because it is a waste of time....and drug laws are mostly, then in order to be intellectually honest you must also be in favor of less restrictions on guns. Gun laws dont hurt criminals and this fact is demonstrated every day in Chicago and Washington D.C. who have the highest gun violence rates in the nation and the toughest gun control laws. Michael Moore used to be an independent socialist and has since lost all validity because he is now funded by the Democratic party who we know is for tougher gun laws. It is truly sad that someone can be fooled so easily by such utterly cheap and un-original propaganda. The problems in America are not exclusive to this country either. There is a reason why the first amendment is followed by the second amendment...."to ensure the security of a free state" The constitutional amendments are written in order of importance and if you dont believe that one is important (2nd amendment)then there is a way to change it. That way is through the amendment process. The constitution has been dragged kicking and screaming through the dirt for years. You cannot just go around the constitution of the United States.....that is why the fathers of this country allowed the constitutional amendment process to exist. If the second amendment was voted on by the states and struck down in the proper legal way I would support it. But it never will be done in a legal way, it will be whittled away at by cowards who dont understand what this great nation stands for. It is a slippery slope and needs just a little more attention than saying "guns and violence are bad" ......how bout some honest non-emotional debate on the issue. Just a question, have you EVER heard of someone (on the news) defending themselves and thier family from harm with a gun? ever? why not? does it never happen?
Now ask yourselves how many times you have heard of someone murdering an innocent with a gun? Doesnt that just seem a LITTLE strange?

I know the amount of justification there is for the second amendment but it all fails to answer convincingly the charge that it was intended for a different time and culture. At a time when there was no standing army let alone police force it made sense to form militia, however with the evolution of society we have democratically assigned power to groups like the police force, the judiciary and even local government. At the time of the second amendment everybody had the right to arrest a felon – now we accede to the law as it has been designed by society to carry out this task. So a condition that existed at the time of the declaration of independence cannot strictly be used as justification today.

The other charge is that it is an anachronism – is it being kept because it is good law or it suits a requirement? If it is because it is in the constitution then why do we no longer keep slaves? They were after all condoned in that same constitution.

A good argument but consider this:
1)The first amendment was written at a time when there was no freedom of the press. Should we bag the first amendment too?
2)If you consider what I have written you will find the statement "The constitutional amendments are written in order of importance and if you dont believe that one is important (2nd amendment)then there is a way to change it. That way is through the amendment process." ....that being said you have to admit that there is a legal precedent to the amendments. There is. 3/4 of the states have to pass the amendment before it becomes law. Generally speaking in this modern age people do not want to be bothered with such trivial details as constitutional law. If you wish to change the constitution of the United States then do it legally. Not with activist judges proposing laws that CLEARLY violate the constitution.
Example: to use your own words...
"The other charge is that it is an anachronism – is it being kept because it is good law or it suits a requirement? If it is because it is in the constitution then why do we no longer keep slaves? They were after all condoned in that same constitution."
AND TO THIS I SAY: President Lincoln had declared the freedom of the slaves as a war measure, but when the war ended, the effect of the proclamation was ended, and so it was necessary to propose and to ratify the [anti-slavery] Thirteenth Amendment in order to insure the freedom of the slaves. THATS RIGHT THE THIRTEENTH AMENDMENT! you see an amendment was passed. This amendment is the foundation for civil rights as we know it today. Funny Lincoln was a republican who won the Republican Nomination in 1860. These facts can not be disputed.(wait I thought only democrats were for civil rights) Well it all depends how you look at it...I mean senator Robert Byrd is a Democrat and former clansman since you brought up this whole slavery issue as if it is some kind of trump card to make the constitution invalid (very clever...also cheap and predictable)
It is all too easy to be swept away by hollywood and idiot savant's like Mike (democratic sellout) Moore but do not be fooled by slick editing.
3) YOU SAID "I know the amount of justification there is for the second amendment but it all fails to answer convincingly the charge that it was intended for a different time and culture"

Well i guess you got me there....we need a new and modern constitution since this one is such a huge failure. By the way our constitution is the only one in the world that has lasted more than 150 yrs, the nation of France has had 5 separate constitutions Germany....4....in the time that the U.S. has existed. I just wish that Americans and others would realize that ours is just short of perfection...nothing is perfect and ours has lasted more than 200 yrs and spawned the greatest and most prosperous nation that has EVER graced the face of the earth. It is for this reason Europe and the rest of the world second guess us, they just hate it that we came from them, rose from them and did something better. Europe has had to form a union just to compete with us, Oh yes and there is the matter of us saving the ENTIRE WORLD on three separate occasions WW1, WW2
and the cold war that utterly destroyed communism world wide. The American taxpayer did foot the bill for that one....no appreciation from Europe or Japan.
Anyone else want to add anything? I mean I am always ready to debate whats wrong with America. I say plenty, but the constitution must be protected at all costs. It is the ONE thing that makes us unique. Incidentally....China also has a constitution. It is almost EXACTLY like ours. Think about that one the next time you want to create a chomsky-esque utopia.

You know what? I find this funny. I mean in Britain The legal foundations of the current monarchy were laid after a 17th century internal war in which the Catholic King James II was deposed and the Protestant King William of Orange was installed on the throne. Legal steps were taken at the time with the introduction of laws such as the Coronation Oath Act 1688 and the Act of Settlement 1700 to ensure that only a Protestant could, in future, be crowned. These laws have caused great injustice and much distress over the years and still do so today.

So how does a British guy have a right to talk "smack" about the American system? Is this not why we left England and came here in the first place?

This obviously is rather a touchy subject with you Pete as you not only see fit to follow up your reply with another post after and hour of brooding but also decide to send me abusive personal mail to make sure I understand your anger.

I will quote your email as I believe in open debate:

‘Oh you are from England. well that makes sense considering the cameras everywhere and the fact that noone (sic)has any guns in your nation (right). Also the fact that we fought the insane rules that the church put on us ....which is why I live here and you live , well, there.
I would just like to know how your countries draconian gun laws have reduced crime and gun violence? Is there not a huge amount of home invasions and robberies in London? Arent (sic)the gun related crimes up in London by a factor of 3? If you are such a constitutional scholar then go to http://www.google.com and type in "constitution" and look at the links. All of them are American on the first two pages. Why do you think that is? How can you comment on American gun control when you do not even live here? What does an Englishman know about the American experience? Are you a naturalized citizen? Perhaps you are American and moved? If not then why does someone like yourself even care?
I know why, because whether you like it or not America is the lone place in the world that posesses (sic)the free will from the U.N., Europe, Fascists, communists and all types of dictators that we saved the world from with American blood that did not need to be spilled for the likes of unapreciative (sic)Europeans and asians who owe thier (sic)lives and economies to us. Southeast Asia would literally NOT EXIST without America. The same goes for Britain, Germany, France, Poland,Yugoslavia, Croatia, Bosnia, Japan, Norway, Holland....should i go on? Why the high and mighty stance on an idiotic socialist American? Our country is under constant siege from the left wing propagandists and utopian "scholars" that we have fought long and hard to repel. It is just a supposition but I hope that you may in the near future spend more time studying the constitution of the United States, who is going to eventually save Great Britain (again) from the communists in Europe and less time listening to the sickly old men in your parlaiment (sic)with the powdered wigs. No offense (sic)to you as a person but i belive (sic)you are wrong and need to study the American revolution and what it means to the people of your great nation now........and in the near future

I do not intend to argue with a closed mind so will try to content myself in objective facts.

You lay the charge at my feet that I cannot comment on the American system as I am not American yet you then go on to do exactly the same.

‘huge amount’ is a subjective statement – you may consider 2 to be a huge amount – I may think 200. The fact is home invasions if they are defined as a group attack upon a property are extremely rare – simple burglary is the problem and as the crime is committed in the overwhelming majority of cases on empty properties all that will happen if guns are introduced is the guns will also be stolen.

The reason why American sites appear on the first two pages of Google is simply the America centric nature of the internet – I believe the figures are 80% of internet traffic emanates from North America.

The myth of altruistic America – There are American communists. There are American Fascists. They have the same vote and rights as you to say what they want as do American left wing propagandists and idiotic American socialists. America founded the idea that led to the UN. America entered the world wars years after they started because its own interests were compromised. America made sure that at the end of the wars bases were established all around the world to secure American interests and influence.

Unappreciative ? – when my parents were being bombed in the Blitz where was America? – Oh yes. It was not your war then.

The cold war started between the US and the USSR you cannot be fire starter and fire-fighter. All the others were bit players.

The world in is current form does not exist through the good graces of America. Ask any Terrorist, what some Americans see as beneficence is viewed as cultural imperialism by people in other countries.

Sickly old men in parliament? By this, I assume you mean the democratically elected representatives of the people. A democracy by the way not based on how much money can be spent to assure election or if a piece of card has a whole punched all the way or only part of the way through.

And on your posts….

The constitutions of some Greek city states existed for far longer that the American one before there eventual assimilation into the Roman Empire.

The cold war did not utterly destroy communism look at China for example.

On the subject of China if the one thing that makes America unique is the constitution and China has the same then its not unique!

Please do not mistake the monarchy as having any rights or powers in the running of the country. The fact is the Queen is merely a titular head and has very little power beyond a temporary veto and that never in the case of finance. Even this is too much power in my book.

Finally I did not say the constitution was a failure – the fact still stands that power of arrest and defence has been given over to representative bodies and they act for the general good of society. If you feel they are not working then its your right to say so but that is the extent of personal power. One could ask, would better policing help restore faith or are we a the stage where a belief that the representative bodies are no longer up to the task is so prevalent that a paradigm change is coming? The question is rhetoric as I have no desire to progress the debate

It is a shame when reasoned debate turns to a shotgun attack with targets scattered over a wide area. All you have succeeded in doing is alienating me and dissuading me from any further discussion on this subject.

You are, of course, on my junk senders list.

First of all What was "abusive" in my email to you? There is nothing abusive about what I said and since you are so "objective" why dont you tell me. nice use of the (sic) as a passive aggressive weapon. Everything that I said in my email was absolutely true as well as what I have posted here today. You and I both know that Criminals, as usual, are laughing at gun laws. Britain's crime rates, already rising steadily since 1954, soared after the 1997 gun ban.
America's murder rates are still higher, but your chances of being mugged in London are six times greater than in New York City. And England's once-hilariously low rates of assault, robbery and burglary are far higher than ours.

"You lay the charge at my feet that I cannot comment on the American system as I am not American yet you then go on to do exactly the same."
actually you criticised our system first and so the least you can do is to allow me to retort, and show you where you are wrong by being an abusive jerk :> When a person from another country criticizes the constitution and our way of life and proposes that it be changed(ESPECIALLY SOMEONE FROM ENGLAND FOR GODS SAKE!) then I have every right to do the same. Really i just wish you would read the constitution as you are misinformed about it and thought that slavery was still a major tenet of said document. I WILL retort when people like yourself live under the cameras of London (now the most heavily surveilled urban population in the world) talk down to Americans as if we aren't the greatest nation in the world and you just can't stand it. Good luck over there in Europe my pompous friend. Your going to need it. George Orwell is turning over in his grave right now. Remember this fact. Everything that happens in your media, on your movie screens with your governments policies is dictated to you by a nation that England could not defeat. I know it stings but there is NOTHING GREAT about Great Britain ....Tony Blair is a lap dog for our president....good boy.
now THAT is abusive.

Here is the stupidist thing I have ever heard an America-hater say....
"America founded the idea that led to the UN. America entered the world wars years after they started because its own interests were compromised."
I am not even going to qualify that remark with a response.

the second dumbest thing I have heard....
"America made sure that at the end of the wars bases were established all around the world to secure American interests and influence."

You are really twisted. Do you know what would have happened to Europe if the United States had not protected it from the communists? GOD i hate the fact that there is no appreciation for what we have done for you and Europe as a whole. What interests are you referring to exactly? Money? OIL? Europe has lots of that. It was the American taxpayer that allowed Europe to exist during the cold war. It was not the U.S. that started the cold war it was the former Soviet Union who Europe was very afraid of at the time. Now that the boogy man is gone the Europeans dont need the U.S. anymore and dont appreciate what we have done for the region by defeating communism with the American wallet and military might.

You have failed to answer the original argument. If you could make the second amendment disapear and outlaw guns, would criminals be able to get them still? Drugs are illegal. I can pick up a phone right now and get any drug i want. So what?
It is completely illogical and unrealistic.

The fact is that guns do more *good* than harm. In the U.S. alone, armed law-abiding citizens stop 2,000,000 crimes, and 98% of those don't even involve a single shot, since the just attacker runs away. People with guns, statistics show, are more responsible than even police, since police often shoot the wrong person. That means armed citizens are better than free police. Bathtubs kill far more people, and they don't save *any* lives. Let's ban *them*. Guns also help deter crime. Crime rates in the US have been dropping over 20 years, while they've almost doubled in countries like Japan that don't allow their citizens to have guns, over the last 10 years. The Taliban took guns away from the people of Afghanistan in the name of good, and then they killed people. Hitler and Stalin took away guns too. We know how that turned out. The Second Amendment still matters, because you don't have a right to speak if you're too afraid. Finally, gun control has never been shown to work, because only law-abiding citizens give up their guns. Criminals always keep their guns. There are so many reasons guns are good, and Moore has conveniently ignored them all. I believe he knows the truth, but he doesn't report it, because this emotional victim-based mentality makes him more money.

There's so much more to say, but just do the research. Just looks for pro-gun web sites and read Dr. John Lott's book, "More Guns, Less Crime." Don't just mindlessly believe Moore and those like him who just seek money political power. Think for yourself.

Fred / Pete - have either of you actually seen Michael Moore's film. It is not antigun in the slightest. As was pointed out in the original review he is personally a lifelong member of the NRA. The only question he is asking is "Why are there so many people shot each year in the US." He points out quite accurately that Canada has more guns per person than the US but far fewer deaths caused by those guns.

To paraphrase the typical NRA supporter "Guns don't kill people, Americans do"

very good point, puppy.

Quoting from USA Today:

"By no stretch does Lambeth, or any other area in Britain, remotely approach what most Americans would consider murderously crime-ridden. Less than 1% of crime in this country is committed with a gun. And in all of Britain in 1999-2000, there were only 62 firearm-related murders. By comparison, in the USA, 7,950 homicides were committed with guns in 1999. (The U.S. population is about 4 1/2 times Britain's.) Forty-two of the British murders were committed with handguns obtained illegally. Armed robberies, also with handguns, have increased dramatically."

So... The argument about criminals being able to get hold of guns doesn't really work.

And I'd also like to point out that Britain has a constitution. It may be uncodified, but it's still there, and has evolved constantly from about the 1200s.

First, Tony, I agree wholeheartedly with you, but on a couple of technical points,
the queen still does have power, she simply doesn't exercise it out of recognition
that times have changed. Second, the cold war has a large part of its origins in
the fact that Western powers sided with the White Russians during the revolution
of 1917 and one of those powers was Britain, so you can hardly blame the U.S. for
the war.

Fred, you baffle me. You argue that we should think for ourselves instead of
taking someone else's word and then refer us to pro-gun websites? Is this supposed
to be less propoghandist? I can't follow your thought process here...

Point #1: Moore's film is right, in that the US holds an extremely violent culture. This is not a new thing - finding the obvious, Doom & Lethal Weapon 4 violence is as easy as finding a drunk irishman in Boston. Noting the subliminal undercurrents of violence, supported and established racism in governmental halls (Gypsies, anyone?), and all that other good stuff elsewhere is a bit harder. Not much, but with all this free-floating stuff churned out by the US and others, why bother?

Complaining about all the violence puts you in the same league as Tipper Gore and her campaigns against everything from Mortal Kombat to Howard the Duck. Violence isn't a new idea, and graphic violence today just has a longer visual shelf life than the brushfire wars of earlier centuries.

Point #2: Most gun crimes in the US are crimes of passion. These alone are one of the few cases where police are consistent and moderately efficient in solving crimes, because they're sloppy, off-the-cuff and one-time-only (Usually) events that end up with some spouse/SO/business partner doing a stretch in Leavenworth. Guns, in these cases, are the handiest things available. Knives, poison, and the old toaster in the bathtub trick are just as viable. We don't kill because guns are the magical wands of death - we kill because we're an emotional, neo-cannibalistic species.

The lower gun crimes rate in other countries? Hoo-rah. Fewer guns. How are your knife attacks doing? Clubs? Beatings? Bombs? Lynchings? Like every other technological advance, the tools may change but the game remains the same.

Point #3: Cold War, World Wars, US is saviour of the world, blah blah blah. Bullshit, in kinder words, considering the convienient timing, laws, politics, and economies preceeding and following each globally significant event that the US has jumped into. The US is an economically driven government, to cut to the very bone of the matter, and this is reflected in the gun policy as well as history. Guns sell, so you can still buy umpteen different models of the basic revolver and pistol, while the higher end market is supported by the military, the police, government agencies, and the ever-nebulous 'overseas sales.'

You can't buy those guns, because police sell as well. It creates jobs, support, etc. Police protect the interests of those with the most money to invest, easily reflected in the gross difference between getting a squad car up to Beverly Hills and getting one deep down in the depths of Watts.

Which, in itself, is another reason I support guns despite the company that comes with them. When I have a choice between trusting myself and a tool I train regularly with, or trusting people I do not know, who're only regulated by grossly substandard tests and reviews (Big history of cops in the family, I know just about everything that doesn't change drastically from precinct to precinct), and who just may be severely unhinged... ...it's something of a no brainer.

i would just like to comment on some of the rediculous statements made previously about the U.S. "saving the world". That's simply a laughable statement. The world wouldn't have ended if the cold war or even the world wars had turned out differently. Sure, things wouldn't have been pretty for people in America, but that's why America got involved in those events, to protect the interests of America. This is undeniable. But the attitude that these interests are in the right, because "America is the greatest nation in the world" is rather ignorant. That's not looking outside a single perspective. And all the horror we've fed, all in the name of fighting "evil" communism. A detailed look at history and world events will show that alot of the "world problems" today are results of our bull-headed war on communism and the cold war. To take the most obvious example, just look at the most talked about "issue" in the U.S. now-a-days. 9/11
of course now we're all gung-ho about destroying terrorism after WE were directly attacked. But to refuse to acknowledge our own responsiblilities in contributing to terrorism, that's the sort of arrogance and pride that hurt Rome so much, and may very well do the same for the U.S. in the end. Anyway, my point is, we helped put the terrorist regime in Afganistan [you'll pardon me if i misspell] into power. During the cold war, back when we "saved the world". We helped out the Taliban to fight them damn dirty communists. But that's just the most obvious example to make. A point that's been made many times before. But just take a good careful look at just how many tyrants and despots the U.S. has supported and in some cases still does. The self-rightous attitude of many "american patriots" [a laughable term when applied to the people i refer to] is based on ignorance and arrogance. What's so great about that i ask?

Wow, I'm impressed at how far this has come. Good points made all around, you all deserve a round of applause. A few things I'd like to touch upon:

I can definitely agree that Moore's movie was not completely antigun. The point was definitely leaning toward the fact that what needs to improve are not gun laws, but our collective character. As an American, I can agree with this. Outlawing guns is something I could not bring myself to support... I mean, honestly, would criminals obey this law? The people who would be hurt most are those who abide the law, and would most likely never hurt anyone.

Another point missed; when Hitler came into power, one of his first actions? Outlawing guns. Can't have the populace fighting back, now, can we?

Anyway, I have no quarrel with England, and I must respect both the points made by Tony, and my compatriot, Pete. But this gutenstagl fellow annoys me, if only because he's giving us no real insight. These are common college-campus anti-america talking points... rather, I seem to have erred in using the plural form for his ONE argument. To sum it up in a word: specious. If I were to add a second word, it'd be pessimistic.

Gut (may I call you Gut?), you really need to take a step back. You're taking, as the saying goes, a microscopic view of a telescopic realm. Yes, we helped install these undesirable elements. You really ought to keep in mind, though, that at the time, they were not undesirable. But, as you can see, people and situations change, and America is not afraid to adapt. And to mock those who love america outright... suddenly I feel I know an awful lot more about you. Why? Because there's very little intellectual deviance on the left. If you're using those arguments, I can probably peg a lot of your other stances. All of this is assumption and supposition, mind you, but I'll bet that you support affirmative action, government-run healthcare, gun control laws, abortion, and the rest of the left's "big issues." I'll bet that you're, on some level, an environmentalist. I'd wager a week's earnings that you've disliked Clarence Thomas for a while, and have no recollection of why, aside from some vague memories about a woman named Anita Hill.

Of course, these are all issues to debate another day... actually... I'd prefer not to. College auditions are coming up soon, and I need more time to practice playing my instruments. So back to the issue at hand.

America is certainly not the well of ignorance you seem to assume it is. If you live here, then my assumptions about you are probably right. If not, then I'm very likely wrong on some of those counts, and you just need more news sources to balance out your current angle. May I recommend National Review?

America has made more medical advances than any other nation in the last 60 years. We continue to ship out most of the world's medicine, year after year. As far as entertainment is concerned, we fall second to no one. Most of the movies watched around the world are American. American music is tremendously popular worldwide. (none of this is to say that all american music is good... I honestly can't stand pop. I'm talking about Jazz, blues, and rock. Prog rock is currently my favorite genre, and America's got that in spades [Vai, Satch, Dream Theater]. Although, I still do listen to a lot of foreign music... Nightwish, Sonata Arctica, Dark Tranquility, and Anand Mahangoe are just a few names I've come to appreciate. But I digress, in a very large way.)

A true beacon of freedom, America still stands out as one of the least restrictive nations worldwide... religion, speech, press - it's all free. And we're still one of the only nations who dare to stand up to those who oppose freedom, like Iraq, what with Saddam's sterling record of oppressing his people. Again, this was not so when he was installed, but we adapt.

America is key in the world economy. I know, here it comes ("But the economy is doing terribly!"). Frankly, it's not. Signs of everything picking up are everywhere. Diners and theaters are packed. Malls are full. Unemployment is at a low, around 5%. House pricing is up, and mortgages are down. These are all signs of an economy that is about to improve. Yes, we were hitting a low, there (Thanks a lot, Bubba), but things are working out. They always do.

I could go on further, but it seems I've already taken this much further than I intended to. Look at that! 1am, and I still need to start my paper on Oedipus Rex (due tomorrow). I am such a procrastinator.

It's been swell, everybody. Maybe I'll stop by later to see how this was received. Probably won't post again, though.
To Pete - good arguing, just be careful to not lose your temper;)
To Tony - also some good points. Good job standing up for england (who could hate the country that gave us Iron Maiden?).
To the other miscellaneous single-posters - thanks for your input.
And to good ol' Gut - Try to lighten up, a little, ok?

Liz:
Moore produces rhetoric, not commentary. He frames every argument within his one degree view of the universe -- largely that corporations are responsible for our quality of life -- and consequently what the misinformed or ignorant public considers to be his trenchant insight, most objective or informed persons reject as inflammatory and irresponsible propaganda.

Despite realizing the similar rates of gun ownership between Canada and the United States, Moore insists throughout the movie that pervasive fear necessitates firearms regulation rather than a more complex social awakening. The reasoning and evidence to support this supposed environment of fear is outrageously simplistic.

From 1992 to 1996 the number of US homicides declined by 20%, yet the number of murders reported on ABC, CBS, and NBC evening news increased by 721%.

-Richard Saul Wurman, Understanding USA

This is an appeal to fear -- sensationalism. Moore uses such examples as evidence that the human condition is somehow unique in the U.S. as opposed to the rest of the world, where tabloid journalism is no less common.

Whenever evaluating statistics you must compare rates (commonly per 100,000 people) instead of totals:

Group A contains 100,000 people, 100 die.
Group B contains 1,000,000 people, 1,000 die.

A disingenuous propagandist would declare B worse than A because 900 more died in that group; it appears worse only until you see the rate as being exactly the same, 10 per 100k, in each group.

You were left feeling something at the end of the film because Moore wanted you to. He wrenched at your emotions rather than wrestle with logic. Had he been interested in balanced commentary he would have at least mentioned the lowest estimate of 82,000 (DOJ NCVS) instances of self-defense with a firearm in the U.S. each year, or the more likely figure, 2.5 million (Gary Kleck). He could have shown the scars on Anna Marie Carpenter, who was attacked by a psychopath armed with a pitchfork. Her story is significant because the Carpenter children knew how to shoot but were unable to defend themselves because, in accordance with California law, the family's handgun was disabled by a trigger lock. Two of the Carpenter children were killed as a direct result of 'safe gun laws'.

Fairness -- real commentary -- would have confused Moore's message.

Tony:
The 2nd Amendment was not designed to suit a particular time. Tyranny inherent to centralized power knows no limit of time, presenting itself throughout history by innumerable despots who have killed millions of people. In response to the anti-federalists, the Constitution's Bill of Rights was drafted to insure that certain conditions necessary to the livelihood of a free people and sovereign state would be protected.

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined...The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun." -Patrick Henry

It was not expected that those unscrupulous individuals born to every people would refrain from abusing their rights; it was decided that the potential for abuse would not outweigh the protections of rights.

puppy:
Moore's lifetime NRA membership was an award. He has stated he would like to "dismantle" the organization if its members would elect him president.

Well, I'm back. This ongoing debate is too interesting to just leave well alone.

Great presentation, FantasticElastic. It seems that you've done this before. I'm still a novice, yet, but I'll continue to contribute what little I can. Which is nothing, at this point, really.

I guess I'll just add that outlawing guns is also a poor idea due to the fact that guns are not the only tools that a killer can use to put his evil to work. Look at Columbine, for example. They had also constructed bombs, and left them around th school. Consider this: Had they no access to guns, they'd have just as soon simply detonated one of the many more bombs they'd have made in the middle of a large crowd. There could have been many more deaths, in whatever alternate reality this was the case.

Well, really, the point I'm trying to make is that if people are going to kill other people, they'll use whatever they can get. If not guns, then perhaps a step above or below guns. Firearms sold for personal protection are essential to freedom, simply because that citizens should have the right to defend themselves in whatever way they can. That some would abuse this right is tragic, but still we see that the vast, VAST majority is responsible.

To quote John Adams:
"Resistance to sudden violence, for the preservation not only of my person, my limbs, and life, but of my property, is an indisputable right of nature which I have never surrendered to the public by the compact of society, and which perhaps, I could not surrender if I would."

Speaking of Adams, anyone else here read the David McCullough biography of him? McCullough is an amazing biographer... he's really on top of everything. I had no idea what a great president Adams was. :)

>That some would abuse this right
>is tragic, but still we see that
>the vast, VAST majority is
>responsible.

Err, to clarify, I meant that they are responsible with their rights, not responsible for gun related deaths. I know it seems obvious, but I've had my words twisted around enough to know not to leave something like that just lying there.

I don't deny that criminals would use other weapons, rather than guns. But that's not my point. My point was denying the claim that criminals would still get their guns from some nebulous source or other.

Also, fact is, guns are the most lethally, murderously efficient weapons mankind has developed, and they're bloody terrifying to go with it. If a guy's coming at you with a knife, and you run like hell, what's he going to do? With a gun he could shoot you in the back.
Okay, so an explosive device could have recreated the death toll at Columbine, but it's impossible to ban everything that could possibly be made into a bomb. Apart from bombs, no weapon other than the gun has the destructive potential.

I don't deny that criminals would use other weapons, rather than guns. But that's not my point. My point was denying the claim that criminals would still get their guns from some nebulous source or other.

Also, fact is, guns are the most lethally, murderously efficient weapons mankind has developed, and they're bloody terrifying to go with it. If a guy's coming at you with a knife, and you run like hell, what's he going to do? With a gun he could shoot you in the back.
Okay, so an explosive device could have recreated the death toll at Columbine, but it's impossible to ban everything that could possibly be made into a bomb. Apart from bombs, no weapon other than the gun has the destructive potential.

I didnt read all the responses, i just have one thing to say. No object causes anything, abjects are merely tools, which we as humans use. So everythign that happens, isnt because of media violence, guns, etc, its because of use. Had the colobine shooters not had access to guns, they may have used knives or swords. What if they were sword fanatics and not gun fanatics? Removing material objects from the arena will not solve the problem, the problem is within the people and must be solved there. All the scapegoats blamed for violence in america, Violent video games, violent media, heavy metal music, guns, etc are not the source, they are tools and maybe (MAYBE) catalysts. The source is the a kid with an abusive father, and no support. The problem is a child whose parents are never there and let the TV raise him. The problem is the father who encuorages his son to be a bully and torment other kids. If they make it past high school, they become adults. They become the wife beaters, the drunks, the thieves, the rapists. Not all, i've seen plenty of people rise above, but they need support, strength. Or maybe the child has a perfect life, friends, supportive parents, but he has a mental disorder like cronic depression, or anxiety disorder, that no one sees. Better values, better awareness, thats the solution, not the easy way out, like banning material objects like guns, movies, cds, games. It's not the quick way out. But it's the real solution.

That argument's flawed. A kid comes into a school with a knife and tries to cause a massacre, three bigger kids are going to jump on him, end of story.

See the movie. It will change you. If it doesn't then you are already a smart person, or a total nutcase. Just.. see the movie. It covers all the debated topics and doesn't even hint at banning guns. Its not just one thing, its everything put together that makes America a corupt nation. The media, the guns, the fear. See the movie. God damn,I hate this assholes that come on these forums and bitch bitch bitch, when they have no research what-so-ver. This moore character, does in depth reporting and research. He is a very smart man. If you haven't seen the movie and you are going to post another negative comment on the forum, You are the bigoted idiot.

Oh please come on. we're not trying to lower the amounts of death here. we're tryin to cut them off at the source. sure people might be aable to wrestle the kid down but he'll still catch someone by suprise in the back. so the problem isnt the tools its the people.

well i didnt want to post anything since many of you have succinctly presented many of the facts i hold dear, but i do unfortunately have to add some numbers to Other Pete's post about firearms being "the most lethally, murderously efficient weapons mankind has developed". actually i dont remember the specific numbers (so shoot me?) since it was a few weeks ago since i looked em up but it goes something like this...

there are 200+ million firearms in the US.
there are 2+ million automobiles.
how is it that the 200+ million "most lethally, murderously efficient weapons mankind has developed" only killed 29,000 people in 1999, but automobiles, a technology decidedly not designed to kill people, was involved with about 6 million injuries and 42,000 deaths? (let's neglect to ponder the environmental toll...)

to me that's stating that my firearms are defective. but dont get me wrong, 30,000 people dying by guns is an unpleasant thing. yet taking my guns away wouldnt even come close to cutting that number in half. i'm frankly sick of my culture but what i find even more loathesome is our tendency to believe what people tell us, our tendency to accept emotion as a rationale for action. let's get some facts...please! (and that's not directed at you other pete, that's just a plea to everyone...) if you want safety, less crime, taking guns away is the last thing you want to do.

and yeah, apples and oranges maybe, but if you start looking at crime and death and the causes on a statistical level...well...it's a bit illuminating shall we say...(hence my switch from a youthful pro-gun control position to one of a more pro-gun position...)

in any case...dont take life too seriously..it isn't permanent....

Come on, Garrett. Bigoted idiot? The point here is to hear out different viewpoints, despite your own biases; not mock them. Once you stoop to name-calling, it sends a strong message that you no longer actually have anything to contribute.

Moore's a smart guy? Yeah, I can agree. I'm sure he'd do fine on SAT's, etc. But the whole "college dropout" thing never helped his credibility in my eyes. I think the man is something of a phony, too, if not for the faux intellectualism, then for his lifestyle. He's a multimillionaire who lives in the upper west of Manhattan. The man has his own maid. None of this would make him a phony on its own, but when paired with the fact that he still tries to pass himself off as the everyman crusading for the everyman, something doesn't ring true. When you live in the lap of luxury, you start to lose sight of the feelings of your typical middle/working class countrymen. And I'm not just saying that because of my personal aversion to Moore. It happens to a lot of people. Look at Billy Joel, for example.

The SF WebZine folks finally got around to posting an MP3 of a talk last year by Michael Moore:

Michael Moore gave a keynote speech on July 21, 2001 for Webzine 2001 in New York City. He spoke about the Internet as a revolutionary medium that can empower the little guy, how the Internet helped TV Nation win another season, a powerful scene from Bowling for Columbine, a dirty little chat with Bill Clinton at a porto-potty and a few inspirational stories to motivate YOU to get out there and do something.

> how is it that the 200+ million "most lethally, murderously efficient weapons mankind has developed" only killed 29,000 people in 1999, but automobiles, a technology decidedly not designed to kill people, was involved with about 6 million injuries and 42,000 deaths?

well possibly because if you have a car you use it everyday to drive from a to b, whereas if you have a gun you don't go out and shoot someone with it everyday
the important difference though is that automobile related deaths are accidents as opposed to a gun related death which is (generally) intentional and not an accident

I've had arguments of this sort with pro-gun folks before and there is no changing their minds.

America is becoming a very conservative nation, more so than it ever was. I fear for the world.

Most pro-gun folks, when cornered, start quoting statistics and using analogies that any statistician or logician can tell you are flawed. You can't compare auto's to guns. How does the saying go? It's like comparing apples to oranges.

Like the person above said, people use cars every day. But lets think about what the world would be like if everyone carried a firearm every day. I guarantee that the amount of people harmed in gun accidents or through deliberate misuse would shoot up to surpass deaths by autos.

The truth is, once you have something on your person, it becomes an option for use in daily life. When folks first got cell phones, suddenly the option became available to call your wife on the way home to ask if she needs anything from the shop. Once PDA's came out, and people carried them with them, suddenly taking notes on all sorts of stuff you would never have taken notes on becomes an option in your daily life. When gaming consoles were created playing Rez became an option instead of having real sex (if you missed it, that's a joke based on a story on this site about the Rez Vibrator). The point is, if everyone carried guns all the time, using a gun becomes an option too.

Instead of working out an argument with hard words or even a fist fight, using a gun to settle the debate becomes an option. Incidents like Columbine have shown us that more and more folks are starting to think that a gun is a solution to their problems. Could you imagine going to a college bar, tons of drunk students, and all of them packing firearms? Judgment impaired, feeling woozy, and the guy has a gun. If not on him in the bar, then perhaps in his glove compartment.

Truth be told, if you like hunting then you don't need a browning bushmaster or Russian sniper riffle. You don't need a 357 magnum for target practice. It's massive excess. Just like you don't need an SUV to drive on the highway to work and back, you don't need a gun designed for killing enemy troops to hunt a rabbit. But then again, we Americans are all about the excess, aren't we?

In today's America, the average citizen doesn't need a gun. I argue that it's more dangerous today for people to have them then than for us to not have them. When this country was formed, guns were a tool used on the frontier to hunt and protect the family from wild animals. Living in the suburbs, I can't recall the last time my family was threatened by a wild bear and all I have to do for food is visit the local grocery store. And if target practice is something you want to do, try paintball. Guns are obsolete and dangerous, like asbestos. Better alternatives exist.

Objects??? People??? Who or what is to blame???

Evolution takes a long time, and when one stands back to look at the bigger picture, not so trapped in the egocentric mindset of MY COUNTRY, MY PLACE, MY TIME, one might have a clearer understanding. All EMPIRES have fallen or faded with time, as shall America (this coming from a person born in raised in said such area of land mass). When we can surpass our tiny isolated ego's and realize that there are more infinite possibilities and solutions we mighten lessen the degree of argument and killing and maybe even the fear of needs for guns. Yes you may say "well that is a long way off, we are here right now with this mess or pleasure depending on how you see it".

But it starts today, everyday in crystalizing a vision of something greater and more integrated. For all of you intellectual types out there, study the patterns. Look at your models of psyche development from Maslow, Kohlberg, Lovineger. Check out Spiral Dynamics, look at the trajectory of consciousness evolution. We will all die, that is guarantied. Let us develop this mind and learn to connect on infinite levels, beyond our petty ego's and isolated fearful views. This is where novelty and creation is at it's most potent.

Regardless whether we become aware of this and consciously engage it, it will come... as "change is the one constant in the universe".

So we can squabble all day, "well what do you think about gun laws" "oh I think guns don't kill people, people kill..." blah blah blah. As with the many arguments that have gone on for centuries, whether it was trying to ban spears from first society's to bow's and arrows to swords to guns to nuclear weapons. When humans hate (another word for seperating themselves) violence occurs.

Hate and fear these are the roots of all these problems. But because these are seemingly abstract and often times unconscious we never deal with them directly. We always run in circles around them, chasing their offspring. But can we not engage the heart of the problem??

For most it seems not, at least not consciously. We have to many distractions to worry about. Hell we may not even be aware that we need to.

But alas that is what evolution or life is here for. And so it continues ............on and on and on and on and on and on and on........ the circle turns.

Here's a response for Matt.

>I've had arguments of this sort with pro-gun
>folks before and there is no changing their
>minds.

>America is becoming a very conservative nation,
>more so than it ever was. I fear for the world.

o_O Now, why would you say that? Is it because conservatives eat babies? Do they push old people down stairs?

It sounds to me like you've swallowed a lot of nonsense. And yes, it can be difficult to change the mind of someone who's pro-gun. I would say that this is because any argument to the contrary depends more on emotion and hypothetical situations than the reality of the matter. But beyond that, it's difficult to change ANYONE's mind about ANYTHING. This is because politics, like religions, are personal. Once you commit to an idea, this is what you think is best. An attack on a political stance is, on some level, not far from an attack on one's individual thought process.

Anyway, back to being afraid of conservatives... I've been riding the middle rim for a while, and I'm starting to finally lean more that way now, simply because no new ideas are coming from the left, anymore. Just kneejerk opposition to whatever the right says. It's another thing to at least provide an alternative to ideas, but even that is becoming rare. I see this an awful lot, for example:

"The Republicans need to reconsider their stance on the economy."

"And what would the democrats recommend to improve the current situation?"

"..."

As for your bit about the bar, this is an example of irresponsibility. Rights come with responsiblities, and in order for Democracy to work, there must be some level of trust... if your scenario occurred commonly, then perhaps the world is not ready for democracy. I'd like to point out that your scenario CAN happen, even now, with current gun laws. But it doesn't. Consider that, and give people a little more credit.

:)

Lem:
Most vehicular deaths are a result of negligence: driving while drowsy/drunk (these are equally dangerous), distracted (cell phones, etc.), and recklessness. Vehicles are used to commit homicides even more horrific than some of the firearms-related killings seen in the media. You may remember Buford Furrow, the disturbed man who fired into a Los Angeles Jewish community center, but you probably haven't heard of Steven Abrams. The difference in their crimes is a space of three months, one death, and choice of weapons. Abrams drove his Cadillac through a playground filled with forty children, killing two and injuring five (Boston Globe 8/23/99). Had he used an Uzi, as Furrow did, every person living outside a cave would have heard of his act.

Matt:
Do not assume the worst of your fellow man.

There are hundreds of thousands of citizens in the United States who carry a concealed firearm every day. In Texas these individuals are 5.7 times less likely to be arrested for a violent crime, 14 times less likely to be arrested for a non-violent crime, and 1.4 times less likely to be arrested for murder than the general population of the state (NCPA 2000).

Not only are armed citizens far more law-abiding than the general population, their very presence has been proven to lower the crime rate. John Lott -- economist and senior research scholar at Yale Law School -- published a study of gun control laws and crime rates in the Journal of Legal Studies, and later More Guns Less Crime, which is now in its second edition. His data and methods have been thoroughly reviewed. Academia has not refuted his findings: concealed carry laws reduce murder by 8.5%, rape by 5%, and assault by 7%.

For as long as we face the risk of our rights being violated, our person attacked, or our property stolen, we are entitled to defense. Even in today's America, defense is most effective with a firearm.

I think Michael Moore succeeded. He sparked a healthy debate. This site is proof enough of that.

Ahhhhhh A healthy debate, gotta love it.

I love that documentary. I think its really true about the things he says, and I like the little cartoon made by the south park guy.

Pete (er, the other Pete =P)

"And in all of Britain in 1999-2000, there were only 62 firearm-related murders. By comparison, in the USA, 7,950 homicides were committed with guns in 1999."

Now ask yourself the difference in population between America and Britain, and the difference in the diverse racial ethnicity that is in each country.

If catapults are outlawed, only outlaws will have catapults. (Don't remember where I heard this one =P)

.....get a life.....

THIS is why England has gun control!

http://www.wired.com/news/privacy/0,1848,56152,00.html

London's Privacy Falling Down

By Julia Scheeres
02:00 AM Nov. 02, 2002 PT

Attention Londoners: Big Bobby is watching.

That's the message of posters plastered along London's bus routes earlier this week to assuage riders' crime fears.

Poster: http://wired.com/news/images/0,2334,56152-5340,00.html

But the posters are having the opposite effect on privacy advocates, who say the artwork is creepily reminiscent of the all-seeing authority described in George Orwell's 1984.

The posters show a red double-decker bus crossing a bridge as four floating eyes stare down from the sky. The eyes' pupils are the symbol of Transport For London, the city's mass-transit provider. [ http://www.londontransport.co.uk/tfl/ ]

"Secure beneath the watchful eyes," the poster says. "CCTV and Metropolitan Police on buses are just two ways we're making your journey more secure."

The eyes-in-the-sky imagery startled Perry de Havilland, who ran across one of the posters at a bus stop in his Chelsea neighborhood.

"I saw the bloody thing, and it boggled my mind, the sheer audacity of it," said de Havilland, who runs a blog on libertarian issues. [ http://www.samizdata.net/blog/ ] "Basically what they're saying is that we're watching you and you should be happy about it."

De Havilland's observations about the poster have generated a lively discussion. [ http://www.samizdata.net/blog/archives/002285.html ]

The posters had a similar effect on Simon Davies, the head of Privacy International [ http://www.privacyinternational.org/ ], who also lives in London.

"I thought it was a powerful piece of political satire from a disruptive citizen's group, but then it dawned on me that they were real," Davies said. "It's acutely disturbing."

The posters are part of a larger campaign to make London buses safer for riders, a spokeswoman for the Transport of London said. City officials are also installing video cameras on the city's entire fleet of buses, which log 4 million trips a day.

[ http://www.londontransport.co.uk/campaign/bus_improvement/index.shtml# ] According to the transportation agency's website, the CCTV rollout "not only protects drivers and conductors, but (it) also plays a major role in keeping passengers secure. It provides evidence in the event of an incident and acts as a deterrent to likely offenders."

British authorities have placed great faith in CCTV as a crime control device, installing an estimated 1.5 million police cameras along the country's streets, buildings and mass transport systems. Still shots taken from video feed are used to identify protesters and hooligans.
[ http://www.met.police.uk/appeals/mayday/mayday2002.htm ]

[ http://www.crimereduction.gov.uk/cctv3.htm ] But while the government insists CCTV has reduced crime, critics say the technology has merely displaced crime to areas without cameras and that the mechanical eyes -- which are frequently disguised -- are easily evaded by wearing baseball caps or other headgear.

"There is a mentality that everyone is potentially a criminal," said Davies. "I resent the idea that I should be subjected to the scrutiny of invisible cameras just to satisfy someone's crazed idea of that way society is."

#########################################

The U.K. government has failed to persuade Internet Service Providers to voluntarily agree to new rules for keeping archives of data about people's internet activities and freely providing this information to intelligence and law enforcement agencies. The government has failed to exclude cases unrelated to terrorism, such as tax collection or public health, from the new rules.

Without any voluntary agreement from ISPs, the government now plans to make these new electronic surveillance rules compulsory and enforceable by law.

[ http://www.guardian.co.uk/internetnews/story/0,7369,816523,00.html ]

Hey - Bowling for Columbine is a good flick, but the review has a few problems. It cites Trey Parker as the South Park dude - it's actually Matt Stone, the *quiet one* who appears. Also, I have to disagree re: the Heston part of the film. I could smell Moore's self-satisfaction a mile away. He bested a doddering old man in a debate that Heston clearly didnt even UNDERSTAND. That part left a bad taste... As puppy indicated in her post, the movie isnt really about guns, but the culture of american fear. I love the way local TV news was skewered.

As to all of these other debates, personally, I have always liked living in America, it has some problems but it is true that other countries are all gradually becoming more like it, governmentally, socially, economically, et al. You may think this is a bad thing, foreigners, but I dont think people try to imitate failure. I'll just leave it at that.

ok, I know these conversation seems to be over, but I only now have gotten around to reading the site again, so I post noW! No one can stop me! mwa!
Ahem, ok, my points...
ah yes! Wonder has the right idea methinks. He seems to know what's what in my opinion and seems share the notions I have of what's important, namely a wider viewpoint, or even better, an view of many perspectives.
Okie, and I'd like to repond to James. Sure you can call me Gut ;)
I think you're greatly mistaken in your assumptions about me, I know the sort of person you seem to think I am, I admit, I fraternize with these sort of left wing college folk you have identified. I am not one however. I also am quite chummy with the opposite right wing chaps as well. My point is, I disagree with both. They both seem quite the same to me really, as far as the democrats and republicans go.
It pains me that you say I have a microscopic view, but I suppose I'll satisfy myself by chalking that up to your assumptions of me being a lefty and my horrible inability to articulate my views to my satisfaction.
Oh and....ah...I was going to make some point about america and our supporting despots "that aren't undesirable at the time" but I'm too tired to make any sort of coherhant argument, or spell properly...ugh. You win this day, James. And I'll prolly never stop by this site at a time when I'm not tired and incoherant, so...fungah, foiled again!

I have to say I find it interesting that when a liberal uses valid logics and verifiable facts, conservatives call it 'propaganda', but when conservatives use faulty logics and a misleading mixture of half-truths and outright falsehoods with a sprinkle of facts - as they inevitably must, if they are to try and defend their beliefs - and liberal point this out, then the liberals are called idiots, traitors, or America-haters. Hmm.

Ok, numerous incorrect statements, I'll try to handle as many as I can here:

Cars and guns: Wrong comparison, since the issue is not number of items, but number of owners/operators

100 mil drivers, 30 mil gun owners (best estimates)

Deaths: 40,000 car , 32,000 gun

Car:

15,000 drunk driver deaths
14 mil drunk drivers (best est)
1 death/1071

Gun :

32,000 gun deaths
30 mil gun owners

1 death/937.5

So gun owners as a group are more lethal than drunk drivers (yet gun ownership is not a crime).

On self-defense/crime prevention by gun owners:

Even if we take the ridiculously high figure that 2 mil of what I'll call 'street crimes' (i.e. non-domestic crimes) are prevented
by gun ownership, that would statistically mean
the prevention of about 20 deaths (as 90% of all murders are domestic in origin); compare this to these facts:

[All figures approx, and from DOJ and other fed govt records]

80% of all murders gun deaths

The US has 5 times the murder rate of any Westerm nation; this was true even compared to Northern Ireland in the worst years of terrorist activities.

32,000 gun deaths

-21,000 accidental

-11,000 non-accidental (true murders)

9,900 domestic (members of the
same household
killing one
another)

1,100 street

28,800 (90%) committed by gun owners
with no previous
criminal record.

So we see that it's not the criminals we should have to worry about, but the law-abiding gun owners.

On 2nd Amendment :

It was stated that gun-control laws violate the Constitution; well, that is your opinion, and one not shared by the courts; in fact, that is one of the reasons why we _have_ courts, to interpret the law. Which leads us to...

2nd Amendment Interpretation:

The 2nd Am. as written would allow private ownership of any and all arms, including chemical, nuclear, and biological, which I hope you're not advocating (if you are, you're insane); and if you're not advocating that, you
must logically concede that the 2nd am. was indeed written for another time;
The 2nd Am. as written allows for the ownership of arms but NOT ammunition - the Founding Fathers were highly educated and very specific in their use of language, and arms and amuunition are two separate things - if you have any military knowledge you should be especially cognizant of this fact. This separation or terms is also significant considering that at the time the Constitution was written, the vast majority of ammunition was kept in central storehouses.

So if you _don't_ feel that the 2nd Am. allows any private citizen to own chemical, nuclear biological weapons, or that it _does_ allow private citizens to own ammunition, then you must logically also concede and believe that
it was indeed written for another time.

On gun control in other societies:

Some of the countries in Western Europe (which, contrary to conservative claims, are individually as multicultural and democratic as the US, if not more so, which voids that argument) and around the world have done away with guns and are less violent as a result; others allow even more access to guns (for example, Sweden, which allows its citizens to own automatic weapons) - yet still have far less murders. so one of the things which Bowling for Columbine shows indirectly is that we as a nation
do need gun control because we are apparently not mature enough to do without it.

( Side comment on window sticker

"Nothing on this property is worth dying for"

If your property is not worth a life to obtain, then that would logically mean that it is not worth a life to defend, whether it was your life or someone else's...so what the sticker is really saying is, I WON'T kill you if you try to take it...the opposite of what the writer intended.)

On winning wars, and who did it:

WWI : It has nothing to do with the entry of the US into the war. Germany was winning, had everything they wanted already and was willing to end hostilities; US Pres. Wilson, amazingly, somehow persuaded the German signatory to the Treaty of Versailles that signing it would be the best thing for Germany...which of course it wasn't: it's provisions led directly to the rise of Hitler and to WWII;
WWII: US troops fought the very worst of the German army - young boys and old men, and it still took them years to beat them. Hitler expended nearly all of his best troops fighting the Soviets, who were the ones who really won the war in Europe;
Cold War: Remember that the US actually started this one in order to try and eliminate the perceived threat of the Soviet Union. The USSR simply responded to US threats Had the CW actually been about who could do the most good, there would have been a Marshall Plan for Eastern Europe (or any kind of aid at all, really), but the US govt did not feel it could make a huge profit as it did with the MP for Western Europe (which incidentally is why it 'forgave' European debts - not only would it make the US look good and create - with the right PR spin - the appearance of an 'ethical debt, it had already made the money back many times over via the MP).
The Soviets were struggling to rapidly convert from a rural agrarian aristocratic society into an urban industrial socialist one - and keep their people fed, housed and clothed in the process - but were forced to build up militarily in response to the US intent to blast them off the map. We now know two damning facts: one, that the arms race was started by competition between US arms manufacturers, and two, that the Soviet govt was being funded by US banks. This last is particularly significant, for it is no coincidence that the Soviet govt collapsed only after the enaction of major conservative legislation - i.e. conservative Republicans no longer needed the USSR in order to get done what they needed to get done, and so the banks withdrew their support and in so doing collapsed its economy.

So let's not have all this talk about how the US 'saved' Europe or whatever. The US has not only never fought an enemy of equal strength in a fair fight, it has in fact lost to inferior enemies on numerous occasions (it even lost to Canada 4 times!); even in the American Revolution, the colonists used guerilla tactics, and when there were formal battles, half the troops on their side were French (by the fifth year of the war, this rose to 4 out of 5).

Comments made about the US contributions to medicine, the arts, etc, and the US economy:

Medicine: US medicine is the most expensive in the world, yet Americans have the poorest health (highest incidence of disease) of any industrialized nation - in fact a higher incidence of cancers, and diseases of the kidney, bladder, liver, and reproductive systems than any other nation. Figures complied from the Journal of the American Medical Association, New England Journal of Medicine, and other US medical publications indicate that in the US, medical doctors, hospitals, and drugs are the #1 cause of death, in fact are responsible for more deaths than all other factors combined. So much for a contribution;
Arts: Nearly all these contributions come from groups which are disaffected from the culture; further, the US supports the arts less than any major culture in the last 5000 years. So much for the arts being a true result of the culture;.
Economy: Since wealth has to be based on something tangible, it cannot really be created, only redistributed and/or used more efficiently (the most recent proof of this is the dot com bust of 2000). So where do you think the US gets its wealth? Hint: It uses 30% (and rising) of the world's resources but has only 4.5% (and falling) or the world's population. (On a side note, I've spoken to or heard the words or read the writings of a number of former Soviet citizens now living in the US, and one thing they all have said (in way or another) is"I never saw anyone starving until I came to America". So if the US ecomony is so great, how come it can't feed 1 in 5 of its people, whereas the Soviet economy (which supposedly was so bad) managed to feed everyone?)
As for European nations 'needing' to band togeher to compete against the US economy: this statement
was made in ignorance of the fact that $7 trillion of the $10.8 trillion invested in the US economy is from foreign investors (so how much
is the US economy really the "US" economy?) and also the fact that the EU was formed in large part to provide a hedge against the vagaries, and/or possible collapse of, the US economy (the EU is forming its own military for similar reasons).

Sergei Rostov

p.s. Note here that I won't be coming back to this discussion, so don't interpret my silence as any sort of concession or inability to answer arguments :) I simply don't have the time. (Not that it would do any good if I did - I've challenged conservatives to free and fair debate many a time, and they either back down, are reduced to ad homimen attacks, or get slaughtered (in the debating sense :)) repeatedly, which is boring and too easy for me, and downright embarrassing for them. :)

Sergei Rostov:
CDC NCHS data for the year 2000:
Firearms - 28,663 deaths including 16,586 suicides, 10,801 homicides, and 776 accidental.
Vehicles - 43,354 accidental deaths.

Census population of the 50 states for the year 2000:
281,421,906

42% of Americans have a firearm in their home (Gallup poll April 2000):
Access, not ownership, determines who may use a firearm, therefore the verity of such numbers would be preferable for establishing rates.

76.7 million Americans own a firearm (John Lott, analysis of 1996 Voter News Service poll):
When this same percentage (28.9) is applied to the 2000 population, the number of gun owners is 81,365,827.

190,625,023 licensed drivers (U.S. DOT 2000).

The accidental death rate for drivers (22.74/100k) is nearly 24 times higher than that of gun owners (.95/100k).

"Studies have found that approximately 75% of murderers have adult criminal records, and that murderers average a prior adult criminal career of six years, including four major adult felony arrests. These studies also found that when the murder occurred "[a]bout 11% of murder arrestees [were] actually on pre-trial release"--that is, they were awaiting trial for another offense."
-Don Kates, 1994 (more info at link)

Murders are committed by a majority of individuals prohibited from owning firearms. You failed to consider the significantly lower crime rates of Texas' CCW users.

The 2nd Amendment was included in the Bill of Rights to prevent the federal government from infringing on an individual's right to bear arms, which would necessarily affect a state's militia. Each state made varying arrangements for storing of ammunition and/or arms for the militia. Citizens were by no means restricted to only these supplies, and maintained their own weapons and ammunition, sometimes by requirement of local law.

Weapons of mass destruction can be prohibited from private ownership because rights are not absolute. Your caviling over the definition of arms has been addressed by the courts:

"...the term "arms," in its most comprehensive signification, probably includes every description of weapon or thing which may be used offensively or defensively, and in the most restricted sense, includes guns or firearms of every description, as well as powder, lead and flints, and such other things as are necessarily used in loading and discharging them, so as to render them effective as instruments of offense or defense, and without which their efficiency for these purposes would be greatly diminished, if not destroyed." -Chief Justice Ringo, State v. Buzzard, 1842

Should we allow the right to bear arms but ban ammunition, allow free speech but dictate what people can say, allow the protections of the 4th Amendment but accept surveillance of an individual's daily life? no, the Constitution is not a mass of words made to be stripped of their effect by ideologues.

"On every question of construction [of the Constitution] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the one in which it was passed." -Thomas Jefferson, letter to Judge William Johnson, 1823

We are far from stare decisis on 2nd Amendment meaning. The most recent U.S. district court decision in which it was involved -- U.S. v. Emerson, 1999 -- found in favor of individual rights, "...the Second Amendment clearly declares a substantive right to bear arms recognized in the people of the United States."

In a free society abuse of rights is inevitable and dealt with by the law in a manner that places no prior restraint on their exercise. The government does not function as a parent to violate or accept certain rights based on the "maturity" of the people.

I loved this film and it isn't really to me so much about gun control as the amount of violence in our society. Yet another reason why I am leaving this country asap. :P

Guns are around for a reason, To kill thinks, Keep shotguns, and standard hunting rifles if u must, but handguns there is no need for, neither is there a need for Automatic rifles, The army and the likes may need them but they should never be sold in ordinary shops. Come on its the strategy that if everyone has a gun everyone is safe is the reason why there are so many crimes

You want to know what a society without guns is like? Look at Iraq. People thrown in jail, tortured, even killed for petty "crimes" such as worshiping too much. When you let the gov. control everything, that’s when the world goes to shit. Gov has its place. It is supposed to be "for the people, by the people" not dictate everything they can and cannot do. If it were up to some of those nutcases in Congress, we wouldn’t even have any video games besides stuff like Barney's Adventures in Love Ranch or some crap. Just think of how your parents may not understand certain technology and shun it. My dad thinks it’s too hard to put the VCR on AV1 and push the tv/vcr button to watch a dvd so he doesn't do it. If we leave the world up to those who feel scared and confused, we damn ourselves to live impoverished, oppressed and all around fucked up. But back to my main point. Guns do more good than harm. How do you think you would protect yourself against someone with a gun? Sure as hell not with a knife or a spork.

P.S. Michael Moore is a putz. It's our troops that defend the right for him to be a moron. I'd like to see how well he fares in a place where this brand of stupidity isn't tollerated.

Ugh... For some reason some of you people think that because you do not have a gun, you have no rights. Jesus Christ, like you would stand a freaking chance against the military even if you had your god damned handguns. The right to bear arms is not what is keeping Americans citizens free from government oppression.

Probably the easiest way for a criminal to get a gun would be to ask someone who can legally buy one to get them one. If you make the sale of guns illegal criminals would have a much harder time getting them.

Just to clarify the main article, Trey Parker did not go to Columbine High School. He lived in the Littleton area, and knew kids from the school (at the time that he attended). Michael Moore isn't really trying to say that its the guns that are the problem. Anyone who sees it as that just wanted to defend their own arguments. The point is that we're excessively violent and fearful. We are so fearful that it stops us from making rational decisions. Selling arms and training terrorists who eventually strike back. Limiting civil liberties. Trying to keep poor people busy with shit jobs. The list goes on. This film tries to get at the american condition.

I'm from Australia, our culture doesn't rely on guns and we've still got plenty of rights :) And our government quite rightly respects peoples right of protest and allows permits for them (many demonstrations during war on iraq.)

Australians love it when americans wax lyrical about their guns and protecting them against the big bad ever-present criminal. I also find it hard to believe you will ever take up arms against an unjust government as the patriotism that covers so much of american culture rules that out. Just look at the war in iraq, it's hillarious to watch anti-war protesters get told that they are traitors and that the fact that they have the freedom to protest is the reason why they shouldn't :).

America is a good laugh, we hope you pull through though because you're generally nice people.

p.s. I use my right as a free citizen to not go back through my post and check for spelling and grammatical errors...

p.p.s. Yes i have been chosen by the people of australia to represent what they think is funny so don't even question me or i'll set a kangaroo on you Seriously though they are in plague proportions down here, you can have as many as you can carry.

I say down with guns. They don't solve anything. The only reason we fight wars with guns are because the people in office who make decisions for our country can't think of a better way to solve things than "shootin' stuff". It's the exact same way that jocks in high school would punch people before they could have their foot in their mouth. Same thing.

I see this topic is back after being gone a while. I'm not going to address moore's conclusions, but he used some dirty editing tricks that you might wish to know about. it's pretty obvious in the movie, once you read this site:
http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html
His worst offense (or offence for brits) is splicing clips of several bits from different heston speeches and presenting it as part of his interview. he also leaves out much of the dialog, in order to shape the audience's opinion of heston. how many of you out there now think he's a racist, when in fact he risked his career and safety to march with MLK, and even led the actor's march in hollywood in 1963. that doesn't sound too racist to me. Again, whatever your opinions about gun control, violence, war in iraq, videogames, cost of various drinkables in various countries...whatever, i know *i* prefer to put my own spin on things, and especially when watching what is touted as a 'documentary' but which is really nothing more than a skillful opinion piece...and while there's nothing wrong with opinions, i have a problem with people passing them off as verified fact.

*disclaimer: i have my own opinions, and you may or may not agree with them. THIS DOES NOT MAKE EITHER OF US BAD, EVIL, OR STUPID. that's why they're not called RIGHTS, those are seperate*

Ouch - tough job reading all these posts, so forgive me if I missed a point along the way.

Anyways, on to my argument. (And since this is my ARGUMENT i will not state in every sentence that "i believe". That's what an argument is).

The question of gun control is not the point. Moores movie makes this very clear.
Americans understanding of themselves, their country and the rest of the world is the point - and the debate here shows that very much.

On the US as a "world savior". This seems to be a very common idea amongst americans - that the US has in the past "saved" the world many times and that it is doing it right now. All in all a view of the US as a very altruistic nation.
This is wrong.

A few examples:

WW2
What where the american sacrifices (both in terms of money and human lives) compared to the sacrifices of the Soviet Union? At least 20 mio. soviet citizens died, and much of their country was left in ruins. Still they managed to be the single most decisive factor in the war (the vast majority of axis casualties where lost on the eastern front). At the same time they where also fighting Japan (although not at the same scale as the US).
It was called a World War for a reason, and to view ones own nation as the sole victor is ridiculous.
And - a very important point, the US did not enter the war with the purpose of saving the world, but with the purpose of saving the US (or some of its interests at least).

Communism
The US SAVED the world from communism? Did they actually ever bother to ask people if they wanted to be saved from communism? Or was it rather that they saved themselves from communism? Perhaps the US economy wouldn't benefit from it - and thus it was their own profit that was saved?

The Cold War
Actually the name is extremely misleading - the period saw more armed conflict than most other periods in history.
Was it the Soviet Union or the US that stationed thousands of troops around the world? The Soviet Union did lots of unpleasant stuff - but to view it as a onesided conflict is ignorant at best.

Terrorism / dictatorship
The US armed Saddam Hussein. US companies supplied most of the technology used to make the Iraqi chemical and biological weapons. During the Iraq-Iran war the CIA supplied intelligence information to the Iraqis, knowing that it was used to target Iranians - possibly with chemical weapons. Saddam remained an ally of the US when kurdish villages where attacked with chemical weapons. Saddam was a bad guy WAY before the US turned on him.
The US armed and trained Osama bin Laden. The US supported the Taliban - despite them stoning women, blowing up their cultural heritage (think buddhas) and generally oppressing the afghan people in a very nasty way. When negotiations on an oil pipeline through Afghanistan broke down, the US suddenly realized the Taliban where "bandits and terrorists".
Now - in the Afghanistan "liberated" by the US and others, the opium production largely stopped by the Taliban is once again flourishing. So much for "freedom".
The US has supported countless others who - at the time of the US support - were undeniably undemocratic.
The US has both directly and indirectly couped and assasinated countless democratic governments. (Chile alone is crime enough for a millenia).
The US itself committed the ultimate act of terrorism:
Not once, but twice(!) has the US used nuclear weapons on civilians.

The US democracy, so highly spoken of, is severely flawed.
How many americans vote? How many americans have the ability to run for mayor - or indeed president?
If democracy means the people has the power - the reality of the US is far from democratic.

What about the even more praised freedom of speech?
How many americans have the possibility to convey their thoughts, feelings etc. to the rest of the population?
The american freedom of press is the freedom of those few who own the press. The freedom of speech is not even remotely universal - speaking to a country of millions requires the means to do so, and those means remain in the hands of a very few. Thus the freedom has become the prison.

And the liberties of the american people?
Today the US has imprisoned more of its population than any other nation in history.
There are more murders commited in the US than anywhere else.
So US liberty is the right to go to jail or be killed.

And the US of course is a nation of many nationalities.
So is the UK.
So is France.
So is Australia.
So was the USSR.
Many nations where before the US existed.
Many nations are today.
Many nations will be when (if?) the US seize to exis. Such is the nature of humans.
Yet racism is present in the US like few other places.

Now, all this brings me to my conclusion.
Either the violent US society has resulted in the violent US policy.
Or the violent US policy has resulted in the violent US society.

This is Moores first question.
How to change that is the second.

My answers are:
A violent society does not need violent politics, but violent politics need a violent society. Thus the existance of both point to the violent politics as being the basic problem.
This almost answers the second question - dispose of the violent politics.

My solution to this (admittedly hard) problem is:
Dispose of those that has anything to gain from violent politics.

OJ

P.S. As the australian earlier - i reserve the right to bad spelling, grammar etc. (especially since english is not my first language)

P.P.S. ALL of this applies in some degree to my own country - and I am actively trying to do something about it.
Not being american IN NO WAY takes away my rights from criticizing the US - as long as the US has any impact on my life.

P.P.P.S Communism isn't dead - we just lost round 1! (oh yeah - I'm a communist, so that probably disqualifies everything I say - or?).

And just in case - I don't hate americans. I have good american friends. I have american family (even a texan soldier!-). I like them. I respect them.

The american people is not the problem.
They are part of the solution.

jinjo:
We successfully took up arms against our government once, and we'll do it again if necessary.

OJ:
Hitler failed to win against Russia because of the cold.

No communist economy could ever have a chance of matching the success of a capitalist one, which is why China has disposed of many of their restrictions against business. The U.S. fights communism because it is a disease.

Saddam was armed mostly by Russia and Europe. The U.S. provided barely 1% of his weapons:

Iraqi Conventional Arms Trade

Wisconsin Project:
The Means to Make the Poisons Came From the West

The reason you think the U.S. has a flawed democracy is because it is a Republic.

What country has ever had a means for every individual to speak to the entire citizenry? There is freedom of speech but it is not realistic, nor required by that principle, that each person be able to spread their voice over the whole country.

Racism is no longer common in the U.S.

Rate of assaults and threats per 100,000 people (year 2000 unless otherwise noted):

Australia   6.4 (1996)
Scotland    6.1
U.K         6.1
New Zealand 5.7 (1992)
Canada      5.3
France      4.2
Finland     4.2
Sweden      3.8
Denmark     3.6
USA         3.4
Netherlands 3.4
Belgium     3.2
Spain       3.1 (1989)
W. Germany  3.1 (1989)
Norway      3.0 (1989)
N. Ireland  3.0
Poland      2.8
Switzerland 2.4
Austria     2.1
Catalonia   1.5
Portugal    0.9
Italy       0.8 (1992)
Japan       0.4

The U.S. is no more violent than average. The murder rate is higher because of drug prohibition and the related gang wars.

www.revoketheoscar.com

Just random (flamebait) opinon, since I seem to have stumbled on an interesting discussion: The legal difference between America and Nazi Germany drops with each passing year, and has under the last 2 presidents, (Bush Jr, and Clinton) as well as any number of their predecessors. I use them as examples because they hae very little in common ideologically.
My supporting evidence:
The US Patriot Act. (which, it has been recently suggested be made permanent), under which people can be easily jailed without charges, trial, or access to a lawyer.
The DMCA, which most people barely notice, but which has allowed all sorts of corporate lawsuits and gag orders against 'inconvenient' people, such as security experts who claim that security products aren't, or heaven forbid, object to not being allowed to copy their new DVDs and copy protected CDs onto media that work in their players.
The FCC's continuing deregulation of the airwaves, allowing groups such as Clearchannel to build a media monopoly. (Americans, you haven't seen much of this on any major tv stations, such as those owned by the companies in favor of deregulation). Unified media defeats the advantage of a democracy, because the media reports what they want, not as many takes on a situation as possible, and large media companies tend to miss local issues.
Increaseing gun control: a major intent of the founding fathers with regard to the second amendment was this: an armed populace can revolt easily against any regime, and is difficult in the extreme to oppress, or for that matter invade and conquer. There are plenty of examples, and they should be easy to find. I for one do not trust the government one bit, and intend to own a firearm or two. Anyone who wishes to arrest me for thinking that maybe the American Revolution take II is a valid option (I want to take us back to the constitution, with all of it's amendments in place, and rewrite the laws a bit. for one thing, there's way too much kludge. I think it's a problem when there are so many laws of such length that the average citizen can't even tell you what is required for him to knock down and rebuild his house.
Goverment/Corporate proximity: Every year, big buisness gets a closer
For those attempting to peg my political leanings, I'm in favor of:
guns for everyone who can demonstrate a basic ability to handle one (not dissimilarly to cars, which are FAR more dangerous in terms of relative injuries/deaths caused, and also worse for the environment)
abortion the way it is now seems to me to work pretty well, although, well, I'm a guy. Suffice it to say that if it were me, i dont want to hear what I cant do with my body. On that score, I think drug laws are worse than useless. There are no victimless crimes is something I heard alot when I was being indotrinated in public school, and I think it's true. In the opposite way that they meant it. They meant that drug crims hurt people, and I mean it that if there isnt a victim then there isnt a crime. In any case of possesion or use, show me a victim who was hurt by something other than attachment to the person useing the drug. And if hurting people who love you is illegal, than why is alcohol prevalent, and why aren't we jailed for fighting with our significant others?
anyway, I'm way off topic in so many ways it's not funny, but I'm interested in feedback on these issues.

That's some amazing displays of moral relativism... equating the US and Nazi Germany doesn't make you an independent thinker, it makes you an uneducated dimwit. As for OJ, I suggest he go to Eastern Europe and rant about how people didn't want to be saved from communism, he'd be shot in minutes.

Matt wrote:

Truth be told, if you like hunting then you don't need a browning bushmaster or Russian sniper riffle. You don't need a 357 magnum for target practice. It's massive excess. Just like you don't need an SUV to drive on the highway to work and back, you don't need a gun designed for killing enemy troops to hunt a rabbit. But then again, we Americans are all about the excess, aren't we?

There is no Constitutionally protected right to hunt. There is a Constitutionally protected right to possess firearms. The firearms in question, in regards to the Constitution, are military grade, not hunting weapons. You may not like it, and it may not even be a "good thing", but it is what it is. And like a previous poster said, there exists a mechanism by which the law can be changed...a Constitutional ammendment. But the abolitionists know they are no where near having the votes necessary to pass a new ammendment, so they have to subvert the Constitution by stealth.

There is no such thing as a "browning bushmaster". You are probably trying to refer to "Bushmaster", which is a gun manufacturer that makes an AR-15 clone and also makes M-16s for the military. A lot of people make the mistake of thinking of the AR-15 as the "civilian version of the M-16". The opposite is the case. The M-16 is the militarized version of the AR-15. The AR-15 was originally designed not as a military weapon, but as a rancher's varmint gun for shooting things like coyotes and rabbits.

FYI, the 5.56mm full metal jacket round fired by the AR-15 and M-16 is incredibly destructive despite being only .22 inches in caliber (technically, .224 despite being called .223). This came by way of accident, not intent. FMJ rounds tend to poke neat little holes on their way in and their way out, and as long as no major organs, veins, arteries, or bones are hit, there isn't a lot of trauma (relatively speaking) involved. The 5.56mm round, however, at high velocities, is unstable moving from a low density medium to a medium density medium (like going from the air to your body). This instability creates wobble. The wobble isn't the problem, the 5.56mm bullet is still rather small. The problem is that, at high velocity, travelling through your body, the torque of the wobble puts enough strain on the bullet that it fragments and disentegrates, causing "explosive" wound cavities. Under 150 meters, the 5.56mm FMJ round is actually deadlier than the 5.56mm jacketed hollow point round.

People might not need a .357 magnum for target practice, but they make darn good self defense weapons. 98% stop rate with one shot to center of mass. If your life is on the line do you want the best weapon available or one that the one that Matt deems suitable for punching holes in paper targets 10 feet away?

The point of owning guns isn't to protect you from your fellow man. It's to protect you from your government.

Say it again: Guns are to protect you from your government.

They kill people, and they're dangerous in the hands of simpletons. But the same can be said of the American government. It currently resides in the hands of a simpleton, in case you hadn't noticed.

And what can we take away from this six month long argument?

The only real way to get your point across and change minds is with blatant, excessive violence.

The simplest of facts to keep morons at bay:

1. There are evil people in every society.
2. There will always be evil people.
3. Evil people usually ignore the law.
4. Good people usually obey the law.
5. When guns are outlawed, only the outlaws (evil people) will have guns.

Anyone who still doesn't get it, crack yourself in the forhead with a tack hammer and re-read the fact list. Repeat as necessary.

Here are some raw statistics:

http://home.attbi.com/~guys/GunFacts32Screen.pdf

BTW, the next time the british need us to send guns to help arm their populace against an invasion, we'll be sending water pistols so you can soak your heads.

Not a lot to add, as there have been some good points made. However you feel about guns and violence you, should realize that the argument about police being the only ones that need weapons is specious. Policemen are referred to as 'Law Enforcement' for a very good reason, they are only charged with catching criminals after they have committed the crime. They have no legal obligation to provide you with protection.

The myth of Police Protection presents it better than I could.

Allow me to come late into this debate and give you my perspective as an American Citizen who has been to several toher countries.

I was raised in a family who had guns. It was also a family that took responsibility for their own actions and expected you to also and taught the children that guns are not toys. Every child at about the age of 5 was taken out back witha .22 rifle and a watermelon and with instruction and help fired the weapon and saw first hand what guns can do. The children also helped with field dressing the deer that were brought back once they got older. When you hit the age of 10 you went hunting UNARMED with the adults. At 12-13 you carried a rifle that was UNLOADED until you demonstrated personal maturity and responsibility along with proper gun safety. Many members of the family where/are NRA members but not all.

I am currently an NRA member. As a member I think Mr. Heston is an albatross and an embarrassment and his time with the NRA as president should end before he taints us all with his idiotic rantings.

Now I currently live in the state of Arkansas. Arkansas was having a problem with high crime and violent crime. Arkansas implemented a concealed carry firearms permit for law abiding citizens. This is a great responsibilty for the citizen. They are "axillary police", meaning that if they witness a crime they are obligated to detain the perpetrator if possible as long as it doesn't endanger their life. If they witness a crime where their life or the life of another is in danger, they are authorized to "shoot to kill" and are trained to "shoot until dead". In the class they taught us that if you think their still alive, reload and shoot again. They are not required to anounce their presence to the perpetrator like the police. In the class they told us that warning the perpetrator (who is endangering a life) is giving that perpetrator the chance to kill. The stated "if the perpetrator is endangering your life or the life of another they have demonstrated that they have no regard for human life so kill them before they kill you. Then call us and we'll clean up the blood." Remember, this is only if someone's life is in danger. Since this program was adopted violent crime and breakins, etc have dropped dramatically (I forget the exact figure).

Now the media never reports on the news or in the papers when a concealed permit carrier arrests or defends someone against a crminal. This anonimity is in part because the police do not release the name of permit carriers. This is so a criminal never know who is or isn't armed when they chose to commit a crime. The only thing the media says is a "citizen" stopped a crime in progress. The program has been so successful that many other states are reviewing the program and are modeling similar programs after it. As a permit carrier I can carry my gun is states that have partnered with Arkansas. In others I'd have to convert it to their state before I could carry but it would only require a fee and a background check done by the police. If I was ever convicted of a crime I would lose my license. If the police ever even arrested me for fighting or domestic disturbance I would lose my permit as I would have shown I was not responsible enough to be allowed to carry anymore.

I own 3 hand guns. I currently do not own any rifles since I no longer hunt. Only my wife and I know where they are kept. The ammunition is kept seperate from the guns, they are all under lock and key with different keys for the locks and only she and I have the keys. My son is 11 months old and when he is old enough he will go to the firing range with me and learn gun safety and that they are not a toy, they are a responsibility.

Now onto the us vs. them (America vs. Europe)pissing contest. I will not get into a history debate though I am well read on American History and World History. Let's talk about now.

The U.N. has failed as the League of Nations did before it. The U.N. has become a harlot of politics who sides with whoever the U.N. president favors. It is corrupt and should be disbanded. It was never intended to become a World Governing Body as it is trying to do now. It was ONLY to be a place for countries to workout thier differences.

When I traveled I found that anti-Americanism is rampant in the world. Instead of taking responsibility for their actions and failures countries are finding it more convienient to blame the United States for their ills. How many countries benefit from US foreign aid? How many countries has the US rebuilt? How many countries recieved money from the US as loans only to have those loans forgiven? These same countries now blame America. How about the United States just stops helping the rest of the world. No aid, no money, no military support, no free food, move the U.N. to Europe and pull out. The United States is the only country that could support itself. Before you argue think of this, if we weren't sending stuff worldwide. Yes the US economy would suffer, but it would recover. The rest of the world would collapse. I do not support an isolationist view. I do however believe that the US should police the world, but we should protect America, including preemptively.

I find it funny that Europeans are confused when "common" Americans express that they don't want to be like Europeans. The only people in America who want to be like Europe are Holleywood elitists in the Socialistic state of California, and the elitist politicians in our Capital. I am neither, I've been to Europe, and I do not want to become like Europe.

Benjamin Franklin, traitor to England and fore-father to Amerca, once said, "He who is willing to give up an ounce of Freedom for an ounce of Security deserves neither". I agree, this is what is now happening in America. Due to the terrorist attack of September 11th American Citizens in fear are allowing politicians to take their Freedom for false Security. If we as citizens do not start paying attention to the politicians we will one day find ourselves living in a socialistic and totalitarian state. The very thing that the Holleywood Elite of socialist California would love. Socialism doesn't work, it is nothing more than a removal of the middle class. You end up with the elite with money, and the poor who think their equal.

I get off my soap box and leave you with one last thing from Benjain Franklin. A early American citizen once asked Benjamin Franklin years after the Revolutionary War, "Sir, what kind of country have you made us?" To which Benjamin Franklin said, "A Republic, if you can keep it." The Republic of the United States of America was replaced with a Democracy between 1865 and 1945. Now the Democracy is being replaced with a Socialist Democracy. I hope I do not live to see what comes next, unfortunetly I am afraid I will.

Just for the record, Trey Parker went to nearby Heritage HS, not Columbine, but it's cool...

I think alot of well-thought points have been made about gun control throughout this discussion. When I watched Bowling for Columbine I was left wondering, "Why is America more violent than the rest of the world?" I didn't feel it was mostly about gun control (though it was harked on enough). I felt it was about the mind-set of the American people. About why people were snapping, about why we have school shootings and such. Although gun control was an important part of the film, I felt it was just the back drop for the perhaps more pressing issues at hand.

As for OJ, I suggest he go to Eastern Europe and rant about how people didn't want to be saved from communism, he'd be shot in minutes.

I did and I do (well "ranting" is subjective, but I guess you would call it so). Still never been shot at. Only people to ever point a gun at me was the (danish and swedish)police.
Anyways -

Now onto the us vs. them (America vs. Europe)pissing contest.

The problem is not that the US is much worse than Europe - its that things aren't exactly going the right way either place - and the trends are very much the same.

Laws like the Patriot Act and similar new laws in most European countries does in fact resemble the first laws passed by the nazis in 30's Germany. They argued that "terrorism" should be stopped. They did this mainly by restricting personal freedom and giving more power to state authorities.

To return to Moore and his movie -
They (being the legislative branches of most countries at the moment) can get away with this mainly because they scare people to think it is necessary.

I am wondering what the reaction will be when they start actively enforcing all these laws.

I forgot -

It would be pretty impossible for Moore to make a movie about the Columbine shootings and not mention the issue of gun control.

To Keep And Bear Arms: The Origins Of An Anglo-American Right is an interesting book, mostly because people reading here won't realise that the right to bear arms has its origins in England.

Yes, there are a good many things for which Americans can thank other nations, but instead (and somewhat predictably) we hear about bills, rights, constitutions, communism, and various other deeply set prejudices. The U.S. contingent seems massively paranoid, jingoistic, and will react vociferously to any form of criticism; faults of others are highlighted to shift attention. Take the British, always their strongest allies, yet so often the #1 target for moronic insults.

As stated by OJ, and I think this sums things up nicely: "Only people to ever point a gun at me was the police", and the very first comment, "I'm glad I'm not American", while stirring up anger, may make U.S. folks realise that just as they love Uncle Sam, we love our countries too.

If you want to keep your guns, go ahead. Just don't get steamed when the likes of Michael Moore make money out of it...

Alan-

Out of curiousity, how much experience do you have traveling abroad and relating with the citizens of socialist democracies?

i'd just like to add this comment.

anyone who commented without seeing the movie should atleast go watch it first. First of all i have never lived in America, so i may or may not be totally clear on everything he has discussed but i am clear on one thing. Why on earth is K-Mart (or whatever it was,) selling guns and bullets???

i mean holy crap, a supermarket selling lethal weapons??? i mean u have to goto a beer store to get booze, but u can just pick a rifle or something off the shelf in a supermarket... most people in hong kong are afraid to even touch a gun... (actually i'm not sure if it's illegal to even just touch it, unless at a shooting range or something)

another thing i don't understand is what the NRA is suppose to be standing up for. is it for gun control? how can anyone goto cities after gun related tragedies happen, and promote gun usage and ownership? that is a heartless and evil old man, and i can't believe i read somewhere in this page that some of u are defending him... ofcourse Micheal Moore should be smug about it after totally messing him up. if it had been me i woulda just decked that slimeball and left.

whats worse is that no one seems to realize that if u guys vote for your president then what is there to defend against? isn't that man suppose to represent the majority of the americans? so theres no purpose to owning guns, cos u shouldn't have voted for him in the first place. I just shudder at the people who Bush Jr. is suppose to represent...

I don't think America is a bad country but this film is obviously addressing one of the major problems with the US, and worse yet a significant number of the people living in this country are denying that it IS a problem. i don't care what the percentage of gun murders are to the population. it shouldn't be looked at that way.

dafish:

Moore distorted what Heston said and did:

Truth about Bowling for Columbine (Scroll down to 2. NRA and the Reaction To Tragedy)

"i mean holy crap, a supermarket selling lethal weapons??? i mean u have to goto a beer store to get booze, but u can just pick a rifle or something off the shelf in a supermarket... most people in hong kong are afraid to even touch a gun... (actually i'm not sure if it's illegal to even just touch it, unless at a shooting range or something)"

Funny, I thought I could buy beer in a supermarket...

"another thing i don't understand is what the NRA is suppose to be standing up for. is it for gun control? how can anyone goto cities after gun related tragedies happen, and promote gun usage and ownership? that is a heartless and evil old man, and i can't believe i read somewhere in this page that some of u are defending him... ofcourse Micheal Moore should be smug about it after totally messing him up. if it had been me i woulda just decked that slimeball and left."

The same way people can advocate non-genocide and non-oppression after being attacked by an outside faction : with full force, dammit!

Oh, and there have been many 'presidents' voted in that still needed to be overthrown. Don't make me go cite examples.

What's Moore's message? "America has a problem, yet I don't know what it is"? Or maybe it's "hey, look at this beautiful house! Oh, and watch this pile of shit for some reason."

I definitely loved the documentary.... I found it incredibly funny, bleak, witty, and sad. Mr. Moore is a very smart person, and I admire his "balls". As mentioned above I do think that he referred to the US as a fear-inducing country and that the message was not focused solely on the NRA. I particularly liked his emotional stair-climb as the movie progressed. His obvious frustration and anger just really came to a head at the finale.
I try not to get involved in debates regarding this film, and in this case I really don't know if it's possible to have a debate. Numbers speak for me. Over 11,000 gun murders in a 300 million(?)nation compared to just 70 in a 50 million nation.... do the math!!
I am not anti-US (not an American either), but I do find these facts disturbing. I also believe the higher the death rate, the more fear. The more fear, the higher the death rate. Vicious Circles....Just some very simple points!!

Please don't call Michael Moore's work of fiction a "documentary".

It's well-documented by now that his "facts" are mostly fabrications, his quotes are taken out of context, and his documentary spontaneous scenes staged.

To quote Mike Pesca "In 1999 in Germany, 381 people were killed by guns. In Canada, 165. United Kingdom, 68 people killed by guns. Japan, 39. Of the 11,127 people killed by guns in the U.S. in 1999, 13 were students at Columbine High School which provided the dark inspiration for Michael Moore's new film about the causes of gun violence in America, Bowling for Columbine. Armed with a rifle he got for opening a bank account and shocking statistics like the ones you just heard, Moore had plenty of fodder. But still, he was not satisfied. To properly emphasize the point that our country is a veritable shooting gallery, Moore embellishes, grandstands and ignores inconvenient facts. Fine. Fish gotta swim; birds gotta fly; provocateurs gotta provoke. For purposes of this story, a lack of countervailing viewpoints will not be faulted. The use of cliched happy-songs over images of war crimes -- not once, but twice -- will be unremarked upon. As will the point that Michael Moore would have no career if he just called ahead for an appointment. This is a fact check -- an accounting of distortions that would give pause to even the most enthusiastic fans of the movie. Michael Moore was unavailable for comment... "

I was going to see the movie. However, I decided not too... Call me closed minded, but I don't want to contribute to Mike Moore's bank statement.

He use to have a "bowling for columbine" forum up... at http://www.bowlingforcolumbine.com/ -- I went there to find more info about the movie, it wasn't released where I lived and I REALLY wanted to learn more.. I liked ROger and Me...

however, after so many people were calling his movie biased, tugging at emotional strings of people, etc... etc... basically, saying his movie was crap and full of illogical holes. He stopped the forum.. To this day, there isn't one.

Roger Moore. After doing my own research, I really hate the man. I use to like him. But now I think he's a muck raker just trying to make money by playing with peoples emotions....

I hate getting into ideological flame-wars over the internet, but here goes...

1. I don't care particularly for Michael Moore because, in addition to having the emotional maturity of a cabbage, he consistently and intentionally distorts facts to promote his agenda. Articles to this effect have been previously posted; I suggest lurkingowl's write-up of BfC on www.everything2.com (search "Bowling for Columbine" and scroll down a ways) as an addition. A short excerpt:

...taking into account population and actual handgun ownership, Canada has almost the same rate of gun homicide per handgun. (~7.5 times as many deaths, 7 times as many handguns, both per capita)...

The irony of the situation, of course, is that Moore claims the media sensationalize violence, instilling fear in viewers/readers. In reality, he is the sensationalist, giving Jayson Blair a run for his money.

2. Aguments to the effect that America has a fundamentally violent culture are frankly ridiculous. In the US I can buy a high-caliber handgun in less than fifteen minutes at any local gunshop; in Europe guns are virtually banned. It stands to reason that crime will be less there, although this hasn't stopped the UK from having the highest levels of street crime in the world. Moreover, contrary to what Michael Moore would have you believe, angsty fourteen-year-olds commit a negligible number of murders in the US; most are committed by disadvantaged urban criminals or highly-armed drug-lords fighting over turf. Suffice it to say, Europe also does not have or even comprehend the difficulties of a racially heterogeneous society in which a racial minority has virtually no vehicle out of poverty except sports, music, or crime. Not that this stops the French from blowing up a few synagogues every year, though.

3. In regards to comments of the form "America is teh sux," I heartily implore their creators to, for their own sakes, grow up. If you resent the US's political clout, at least have the maturity to say so; if you think Chirac and Schroder were making a moral stand and not a petty, geopolitical one, you're as deluded as FOX News. Ironically, most cries of 'American cultural and economic hegemony' come from countries where demand for US products is huge; if you don't like Starbucks or McDonalds, the solution to the problem is yours. And if you really think the US is some sort of Orwellian police-state, I shudder to think of what you say about the UK, which is seriously considering national ID cards as we speak.

America has problems. There's no doubt about that. But then again, so does your country, and the fact of the matter is that they aren't the US's fault. But hey, if you just want to complain about how bad America is on internet message boards because it makes you feel good and relieves you of any responsibility for your own problems, I'm not going to rain on your parade.

4. In regard to the gun-control issue, I think it is evident that if you do not have a gun you do not have any rights at all; an unarmed populace is defenseless against tyranny. As explicitly stated in the federalist papers, the point of the second ammendment to the contsitution is to allow for a violent revolt against the government, and to that end I think folks ought to be able to buy whatever hellish sort of weapons they want, fighter jets included. Of course, I don't own a gun or feel any need to; the point is that I or anyone else (fools and automatic weapons do not make good bedfellows, but, as with free speech, it's not the place of the government to decide who is and isn't a fool) should be able to assemble whatever sort of arsenal we like, and bump off Senators if it comes to that.

5. More generally speaking, I reject the wholly liberal idea the Government is Society, and that it is anything like the purpose of government to be concerned with things like poverty. The welfare state, and the more socialist arrangements found in Europe, are abhorrent to the American way of thinking, or were until we too succumbed to an effeminate desire for hand-holding.

Re:FINALmasa

well i haven't lived in america before but i have in canada, and to get booze/beer u gotta get it from a beer store up there. i just assumed it was the same apparently not. either way i am still shocked, even at canada that u could get bullets from K-mart or whatever that supremarket was called... it might not be alarming to you, since you live in america. but me on the other hand has spent pretty much 80% of my life in hong kong, the other 20% is in canada but only the last 2 years did i really live in canada as an adult (for study) so as a kid i did not realize that.

n e wayz i can't see why people are denying that guns are a problem in America. with a knife, there is some actual usage to it, but with a gun, the only purpose for it is to kill. and if everyone owns a gun in a country, doesn't that mean everyone has this ability to kill, whether or not that individual is sick enough to do such a thing?

DaFish:
Knives are designed to cut, guns are designed to expel a projectile. Both can be used as a weapon, but primarily they are used for other purposes.

Everyone has the ability to kill, whether or not they own a gun. To own a firearm or ammunition in the U.S., it is required that an individual not meet any of these criteria:

  (1) is under indictment for, or has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;
  (2) is a fugitive from justice;
  (3) is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802));
  (4) has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution;
  (5) who, being an alien -
    (A) is illegally or unlawfully in the United States; or
    (B) except as provided in subsection (y)(2), has been admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa (as that term is defined in section 101(a)(26) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(26)));
  (6) who has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions;
  (7) who, having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced his citizenship;
  (8) is subject to a court order that restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner of such person or child of such intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child, except that this paragraph shall only apply to a court order that -
    (A) was issued after a hearing of which such person received actual notice, and at which such person had the opportunity to participate; and
    (B)(i) includes a finding that such person represents a credible threat to the physical safety of such intimate partner or child; or
    (ii) by its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against such intimate partner or child that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury; or
  (9) has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.

If everyone has weapons, those who use them defensively and otherwise conservatively will band together and prevail. How else would so many people be alive today? People didn't always have a government, and even a government is just a group of people.

Being a Aussie we don't have problems in the way of gun homicides as previously stated. But I can clearly see that you Americans will never solve this.

The Pro-Gun Defenders flame away at people for posting "facts" that you claim are unreliable but to do this, you pull your own "facts" from other pro-gun sites, hence they will be biased. This is the simple truth of the internet. Very little information can be proven as truth as it is all written by someone who has their own ideas and beliefs.

Now I'm not going to say what is wrong or right, but what is the purpose of arguing your point to millions of others? Isn't that just trying to influence peoples right to believe what they want, making you the same as Moore and what some of you have dubbed as his own "Propaganda"?

I may not be able to construct my views as well as others on here, but as a 17 year old student that does not matter. I am entitled "freedom of speech" just like everybody else.

Kory:

You raise some interesting points, particularly about the futility of arguing with ideologues. But I don't think that anyone here is an ideologue, or otherwise incapable of changing his viewpoint, so I think our debate is constructive. A couple of points:

1. You seem to believe that there is no such thing as a fact; I beg to differ. A certain number of US citizens were killed by handguns last year, the US constitution says certain things and not other things, and the world outside my window is either rainy or not rainy, etc, etc. Now, it often happens that people in arguments make false statements that sound true, or true statements that, without other true statements, are misleading and false, but as it happens such methods are unlikely to fool the intelligent.

2. It is certainly arrogant and annoying to ram one's ideas down someone else's throat; i.e. to tell them what to believe as though they were too stupid to form their own opinions. That is what people like Michael Moore do, and it is didactism in its purest form. Argument of that sort, in addition to being immature, accomplishes nothing. But, luckily, I don't really see that happening here. I can't speak for everyone, but I'm just stating my opinions for the benefit of anyone who might care. If people don't want to agree with me, that's fine. I think most people here have a similar approach, or should.

By the way, good posting all around, especially Fantastic Elastic and DaFish.

I agree with you Anonymous Coward, there are facts that can be truthful, hence why I said "Very little information can be".

But you if think about the way the internet works, just about anybody can creaate a statistic and convince people that it is right. The media works in the same way and this has been proven previously in this debate here, they use stats and viewpoints that support their views, no one elses. So who's to say that someone can't just add a few hundred more deaths to make people fearful, or take them away to make people feel safe?

Its just another way to control the masses...

Kory:

Yes, it's all a giant media conspiracy, because the media have so much to gain by controlling people. Otherwise the masses, who are stupid in our little elitist world, might wake up and start questioning the Matrix or find out about the X-Files, or worse.

*is skeptical*

I've worked for newspapers, and if I have to keep hearing this kind of tripe over and over again I think I'll blow my top. The media have nothing to gain and everything -and I do mean everything- to lose by distorting facts to suit their views. Case in point: the New York Times. With the exception of obviously political papers like The Village Voice, most papers in the US have no stated political agenda (other than, 'make money'), and in fact can't survive economically if they alienate readers with opposing views. If a paper lies about a statistic, or shows a statistic in a misleading way, it will either print a retraction or get called out on it and lose its credibility. The masses aren't stupid, and they aren't easily swayed. Hell, the masses are us, and anyone who thinks otherwise is an elitist prick.

Now, I happen to not like most TV news in the US, but it's not because they make up facts. They don't. What they do, and what causes ideologues of various persuasions to accuse them of bias, is select stories on the basis of the giant, overarching, golden rule of journalism: "IF IT SELLS ADVERTISEMENTS, IT'S NEWSWORTHY." This is the sole and omnipresent motivator of journalism, particularly TV or radio journalism. Thus, what you do and don't see on FOX News (for example, terrorism alerts and teacher of the year acceptance speeches, respectively) has little or nothing to do with the politics of the network (and certainly nothing to do with the network's supposed desire to manipulate or brainwash people or do whatever folks like Michael Moore think the "evil" medi people are trying to do) and everything to do with what people want to see. Stories about terrorism, murder, and kids falling down wells sell copy. That's it.

So, in conclusion:

1. Makebelieve statistics work fine on internet message boards; real newspapers can't afford to make shit up to drive home a point. No editor in the world is going to risk his credibility because some uber-liberal reporter wants to add a couple hundred deaths to a statistic so the Dems win an election. Editors honestly don't give enough of a fuck.

2. News outlets sure do control what stories you do and don't see; whether or not you see as many stories about nice fluffy things as you do rapes and muggings. But it's not like they give a crap or have any interest in scaring you; it's just that they've found out over the years that their Nielsen ratings go up when there's a car chase on or some Modesto housewife shows up in the harbor. If you don't like the news, do the free-market thing and don't watch it.

Some interesting points were made in support of both sides of the argument as well as the usual passionately held (and mostly nonsensical) "logic" used by the majority of the anti-gun enthusiasts. Some bottom-line points to consider: Hitler, Stalin and Mao were all in favor of gun control. Hitler instituted the policy of national gun registration in the late 1930's much the same as our traitorous ex-president Clinton did years later in this country. The gun-haters may not like it but the possesion of a firearm is the differance between a citizen and a subject. It's also true that the Second Amendment guarentees the rest. Everybody whines about their freedoms but very few are willing to accept the resposibilities that go hand-in-hand with them. An inanimate piece of metal has been demonized by the liberals and elitists because it's easier than sending violent criminals to jail and keeping them there. God knows our jails are running out of room now because anybody unlucky enough to be caught with a couple ounces of pot is already there. Who have they harmed? But I digress. If I gratuitously shot someone and at the trial claimed "I didn't kill him. The gun did" How far do you think I'd get even with a Clinton-appointee judge? Odds are I'd do time; and be back on the street in three to five years on good behaviour. To do it again. If our lawmakers would keep violent criminals where they belong there would be lots less gun violence. Don't leave innocent lives defensless.

I hope someone reads this. Everyone who thinks that criminals must aquire guns through legal means is gravely mistaken. Here in Dallas Texas there is a HUGE black market for guns. Hell, I know of a few street corners where I can ask a guy for one and get a handgun in less than 30 min. probably for less than $50. These people have Domino's beat. I have a feeling that banning guns wont stop this.

Hi gonzo, I am the author of this review and I read what you wrote. I hear what you are saying and I agree, but there are plenty of people purchasing handguns that are being misused. Its all very frightening to me.

Thanks for posting!

www.revoketheoscar.com will tell you everything you need to know about bowling for columbine.

Just something curious. In Norway we have the highest lot of heavy weapons in the world pr. capita, handguns at a low 3rd place. (My family alone has about 30 weapons of different sizes.) Yet, we don´t have a lot of killing. In fact, if somebody is shot, it will be all over the news; death or wounds by guns is 1 person each quarter maximum. Being the "last communist state", Norway is the country with the highest standard of living in the world, and alone along with Switzerland, Norway is actually MAKING money each year, in stark contrast to the entire planet. Socialistic to the core, with care for its citizens; does it mean that capitalism doesn´t work? No, because capitalism is not installed in the world...

I lived awhile in America. I love the people and I loved the states I was: Oregon/Washington.

What we Europeans etend to miss is that there is a HUGE difference between states... Some are almost as pamperish as Sweden, some are tit-for-tat frontier mentalities.

Michael Moore's movie, tough touching on a big issue, was not a documentary, but a cobbled up patchwork of truths, semitruths and pure misleading material.

A memory comes to mind tough:

-The only country in the world I have been threatened with a gun (or even heard gunshots) is America. Contrary to the polls (wich I do believe) it was a Caucasian who tried to rob the pumpstation. The pumpstation owner handed over his cash (thank god) Afterwards he said: if I pull a gun a few things might happen:
1. He is faster I die
2. I am faster, he dies and I live forever with the memory
3. We miss or the bullet richochets and we hit a bystander
4. We miss alltogether and he runs away *shrug*
5. He drops his gun and I capture him.
4/5 Aren't nearly worth the 1/2/3... I rather give him this 250$. Suffice to say we customers were very happy (and shaken). Two days later I read in the local paper that a brave shopowner managed to get shot after wounding a lady (not seriously). The perpetrator got shot by a cop. Afterwards it came out the crook didn't have ammo (gods how ironic, and yes I can imagine the cops shot him... I wasn't there after all)

YES: this is just one example, and it doesn't proof anything... but the 1-5 reasoning of the shopkeeper seems very lucid to me. I am pretty sure that a normal robber won't shoot people, he just wants the cash (a difference between a murderer and a robber). Also; the chances of running into a homicidal maniac with a pitchfork (or whatever) are very small. I assume people don't carry helmets all the time as they might stumble and crack their head (and I am 100% sure that chance is a LOT bigger:)

I like Americans (a lot) and I do not hold them for the ignorant oafs we arrogant Europeans tend to. But denying there is something wrong is short-sighted. As most people die because of the guns it is very logical to look critically at them. It's not left-wing or non-patriotic.... anyone who argues on that train of thought needs to take a deep breath and come with a better answer/argument. It's not a fight, it is something everyone (gun owners and non-gun owners) should want to be solved.

The fencing with crimerates is all nice and all that, but there is no denying that there are more gun (and crime!) related deaths in the US than in Europe. This is one of the aspects the Europeans seem to handle better/differently.

Oh to round it up I feel compelled to say something about freedom (bah)- Europe and America both have comparable freedom of speech and reasonably fair laws. Fingerpointing on this subject is pretty dumb. The differences in "freedom" are negligible.

Heh, that all contributes to a completely superfluous post *bows*

Pete and Tony this is just my opinion but... I found your comments interesting but if you really want to get you points accross, keep them short and sweet. Make you arguments clear concise, and start you comment with this is just my opinion. No one member of anything can speak for a whole organization, country, or race. The reason why we have free speech is to speak intelligently, and then let others freely decide what personal opinions that want to embrace. So to make my point shot and sweet. Stop fighting. There's already enough in this world. Neither of you can agree on this subject nor will you any time soon. Stop wasting your time and energy trying to make the other take on your views. It just won't happen. And boys, remember no one person in the world can be right. Everyone has their own little reality complete with differnet morals, beliefs... Try listening, you might find that you'll learn something from one another at the very least. And if you find that you don't like someone's opinion, please do go ahead and say you don't agree, but don't resort to name calling. Stick to the facts of you argument. That's all that's needed. The tow best golden rules of life, do on to others as you would have them do unto you and of course, "If you don't have anything intelligent to say, try listening." If you boys don't understand me try reading, Unbeatable, by Jack Schropp. It'll show you boys a thing or two.

I enjoy being an upstanding citizen that has the right to choose from anything, in nearly every situation. I am an American. I police myself, I educate myself, and I am intent on creating and maintaining my own sense of right and wrong, based on law. I hold importance in maintaning the right to do the same for any other citizen of my nation.

Banning previously viable and legal things/ objects/ideas/actions, is an insult to my very intelligence, and being. Particularly when only
one portion of the population is championing change. It is the removal of the freedom of choice for those opposed to said change.

There are some who have goals that can only be viewed as socialist, at best. Whittling away until
virtually nothing more than my sex and my name may distinguish me from any other, as there are no other choices left.

Equalizing the economy to reward those who are non-productive; bridging the class gap...

Removing the ability to resist against those who vie to remove the freedom of choice...

Freedom FROM religion (mainly Judeo-Christian), unless yours is getting a bad rap (IE Islam)...

The movie was inacurate and misleading, showing a video of Mortal Kombat and eluding to the false fact the most violent games come from Japan.

Therefore the whole show is bullshit.

Meh, while I agree with most of the points he made, he SEVERELY edited the interview with Heston, though it probably is true that he's simply a gun-nut.

I can also agree that some laws in this country conscerning firearms are indeed too loose. I mean, there are lisences for cars right? However, from the primary gun control stance, thier setup would be that only professional body guards and police would have access to firearms. And with that, there is an implication. And that implication is that only people with money and power deserve personal protection.

I will not ever agree with that, period. However, I don't agree with the NRA gun for everyone stance either.

Both sides are COMPLETELY unbalanced and rediculas, and THAT is a HUGE part of what is wrong with this country. Everyone's diehard stances on everything and being unwilling to compromize in any way.

Matt:
BfC is a magnet for ignorant beliefs, as is perhaps best illustrated by Moore's association of the NRA with the KKK. Many people who saw the film considered it proof that the two are connected, despite them having no more in common than the year 1871. Moore didn't lie, and he didn't have to; he knew his audience wanted to believe the NRA is racist and it took little to convince them.

One-hundred percent of the federal laws regulating firearms are not Constitutional, further, they have not thwarted criminality or violence. The CDC recently 'confirmed' this after being unable to find one study (out of 51) proving gun control works.

Heston is not a gun-nut. He is opposed to the ownership of some semi-automatic weapons, although he doesn't support their restriction. Your absurd claim that the NRA endorses everyone owning a gun is disproven by their support -- after a compromise -- of the NICS background check system.

The NRA has always been a moderate organization. Those who consider them extremist do so because they are extremists themselves.

As a couple of reporters told me, journalists are uncomfortable printing such positive gun stories because they worry that it will encourage children to get access to guns. The whole process snowballs, however, because the exaggeration of the risks--along with lack of coverage of the benefits--cements the perceived risks more and more firmly in newspaper editors and reporters minds. This makes them ever more reluctant to publish such stories.

While all this coverage affects the overall gun-control debate, it also directly shapes perceptions of proposed legislation. Take the upcoming debate over renewing the so-called assault-weapons ban. This past summer CNN repeatedly showed a news segment that starts off with a machine gun firing and claims that the guns covered by the ban do much more damage than other guns. CNN later attempted to clarify the segment by saying that the real problem was with the ammunition used in these guns. But neither of these points is true. The law does not deal at all with machine guns (though the pictures of machine guns sure are compelling)--and the "assault weapons" fire the same bullets at the same rate, and accomplish the exact same thing, as other semi-automatic guns not covered by the ban.

The unbalanced presentation dominates not just the media but also government reports and polling. Studies by the Justice and Treasury Departments have long evaluated just the cost guns impose on society. Every year, Treasury puts out a report on the top 10 guns used in crime, and each report serves as the basis for dozens of news stories. But why not also provide a report--at least once--on the top 10 guns used defensively? Similarly, numerous government reports estimate the cost of injuries from guns, but none measures the number of injuries prevented when guns are used defensively.

National polls further reinforce these biased perceptions. Not one of the national polls (as far as I was able to find) gave respondents an option to mention that gun control might actually be harmful. Probably the least biased polls still give respondents just two choices: supporting "tougher gun-control legislation to help in the fight against gun crime" or "better enforcement of current laws." Yet, both options ultimately imply that gun control is good.

But if we really want to save lives, we need to address the whole truth about guns--including the costs of not owning guns. We never, for example, hear about the families who couldn't defend themselves and were harmed because they didn't have guns.

Discussing only the costs of guns and not their benefits poses the real threat to public safety as people make mistakes on how best to defend themselves and their families.

Michael Moore's a moron and Bowling For Columbine is just rediculas (CRAP!)

As a couple of reporters told me, journalists are uncomfortable printing such positive gun stories because they worry that it will encourage children to get access to guns. The whole process snowballs, however, because the exaggeration of the risks--along with lack of coverage of the benefits--cements the perceived risks more and more firmly in newspaper editors and reporters minds. This makes them ever more reluctant to publish such stories.

While all this coverage affects the overall gun-control debate, it also directly shapes perceptions of proposed legislation. Take the upcoming debate over renewing the so-called assault-weapons ban. This past summer CNN repeatedly showed a news segment that starts off with a machine gun firing and claims that the guns covered by the ban do much more damage than other guns. CNN later attempted to clarify the segment by saying that the real problem was with the ammunition used in these guns. But neither of these points is true. The law does not deal at all with machine guns (though the pictures of machine guns sure are compelling)--and the "assault weapons" fire the same bullets at the same rate, and accomplish the exact same thing, as other semi-automatic guns not covered by the ban.

The unbalanced presentation dominates not just the media but also government reports and polling. Studies by the Justice and Treasury Departments have long evaluated just the cost guns impose on society. Every year, Treasury puts out a report on the top 10 guns used in crime, and each report serves as the basis for dozens of news stories. But why not also provide a report--at least once--on the top 10 guns used defensively? Similarly, numerous government reports estimate the cost of injuries from guns, but none measures the number of injuries prevented when guns are used defensively.

National polls further reinforce these biased perceptions. Not one of the national polls (as far as I was able to find) gave respondents an option to mention that gun control might actually be harmful. Probably the least biased polls still give respondents just two choices: supporting "tougher gun-control legislation to help in the fight against gun crime" or "better enforcement of current laws." Yet, both options ultimately imply that gun control is good.

But if we really want to save lives, we need to address the whole truth about guns--including the costs of not owning guns. We never, for example, hear about the families who couldn't defend themselves and were harmed because they didn't have guns.

Discussing only the costs of guns and not their benefits poses the real threat to public safety as people make mistakes on how best to defend themselves and their families.

Michael Moore's a moron and Bowling For Columbine is just rediculas (CRAP!)

As a couple of reporters told me, journalists are uncomfortable printing such positive gun stories because they worry that it will encourage children to get access to guns. The whole process snowballs, however, because the exaggeration of the risks--along with lack of coverage of the benefits--cements the perceived risks more and more firmly in newspaper editors and reporters minds. This makes them ever more reluctant to publish such stories.

While all this coverage affects the overall gun-control debate, it also directly shapes perceptions of proposed legislation. Take the upcoming debate over renewing the so-called assault-weapons ban. This past summer CNN repeatedly showed a news segment that starts off with a machine gun firing and claims that the guns covered by the ban do much more damage than other guns. CNN later attempted to clarify the segment by saying that the real problem was with the ammunition used in these guns. But neither of these points is true. The law does not deal at all with machine guns (though the pictures of machine guns sure are compelling)--and the "assault weapons" fire the same bullets at the same rate, and accomplish the exact same thing, as other semi-automatic guns not covered by the ban.

The unbalanced presentation dominates not just the media but also government reports and polling. Studies by the Justice and Treasury Departments have long evaluated just the cost guns impose on society. Every year, Treasury puts out a report on the top 10 guns used in crime, and each report serves as the basis for dozens of news stories. But why not also provide a report--at least once--on the top 10 guns used defensively? Similarly, numerous government reports estimate the cost of injuries from guns, but none measures the number of injuries prevented when guns are used defensively.

National polls further reinforce these biased perceptions. Not one of the national polls (as far as I was able to find) gave respondents an option to mention that gun control might actually be harmful. Probably the least biased polls still give respondents just two choices: supporting "tougher gun-control legislation to help in the fight against gun crime" or "better enforcement of current laws." Yet, both options ultimately imply that gun control is good.

But if we really want to save lives, we need to address the whole truth about guns--including the costs of not owning guns. We never, for example, hear about the families who couldn't defend themselves and were harmed because they didn't have guns.

Discussing only the costs of guns and not their benefits poses the real threat to public safety as people make mistakes on how best to defend themselves and their families.

Michael Moore's a moron and Bowling For Columbine is just rediculas (CRAP!)

As a couple of reporters told me, journalists are uncomfortable printing such positive gun stories because they worry that it will encourage children to get access to guns. The whole process snowballs, however, because the exaggeration of the risks--along with lack of coverage of the benefits--cements the perceived risks more and more firmly in newspaper editors and reporters minds. This makes them ever more reluctant to publish such stories.

While all this coverage affects the overall gun-control debate, it also directly shapes perceptions of proposed legislation. Take the upcoming debate over renewing the so-called assault-weapons ban. This past summer CNN repeatedly showed a news segment that starts off with a machine gun firing and claims that the guns covered by the ban do much more damage than other guns. CNN later attempted to clarify the segment by saying that the real problem was with the ammunition used in these guns. But neither of these points is true. The law does not deal at all with machine guns (though the pictures of machine guns sure are compelling)--and the "assault weapons" fire the same bullets at the same rate, and accomplish the exact same thing, as other semi-automatic guns not covered by the ban.

The unbalanced presentation dominates not just the media but also government reports and polling. Studies by the Justice and Treasury Departments have long evaluated just the cost guns impose on society. Every year, Treasury puts out a report on the top 10 guns used in crime, and each report serves as the basis for dozens of news stories. But why not also provide a report--at least once--on the top 10 guns used defensively? Similarly, numerous government reports estimate the cost of injuries from guns, but none measures the number of injuries prevented when guns are used defensively.

National polls further reinforce these biased perceptions. Not one of the national polls (as far as I was able to find) gave respondents an option to mention that gun control might actually be harmful. Probably the least biased polls still give respondents just two choices: supporting "tougher gun-control legislation to help in the fight against gun crime" or "better enforcement of current laws." Yet, both options ultimately imply that gun control is good.

But if we really want to save lives, we need to address the whole truth about guns--including the costs of not owning guns. We never, for example, hear about the families who couldn't defend themselves and were harmed because they didn't have guns.

Discussing only the costs of guns and not their benefits poses the real threat to public safety as people make mistakes on how best to defend themselves and their families.

Michael Moore's a moron and Bowling For Columbine is just rediculas (CRAP both of them!)

As a couple of reporters told me, journalists are uncomfortable printing such positive gun stories because they worry that it will encourage children to get access to guns. The whole process snowballs, however, because the exaggeration of the risks--along with lack of coverage of the benefits--cements the perceived risks more and more firmly in newspaper editors and reporters minds. This makes them ever more reluctant to publish such stories.

While all this coverage affects the overall gun-control debate, it also directly shapes perceptions of proposed legislation. Take the upcoming debate over renewing the so-called assault-weapons ban. This past summer CNN repeatedly showed a news segment that starts off with a machine gun firing and claims that the guns covered by the ban do much more damage than other guns. CNN later attempted to clarify the segment by saying that the real problem was with the ammunition used in these guns. But neither of these points is true. The law does not deal at all with machine guns (though the pictures of machine guns sure are compelling)--and the "assault weapons" fire the same bullets at the same rate, and accomplish the exact same thing, as other semi-automatic guns not covered by the ban.

The unbalanced presentation dominates not just the media but also government reports and polling. Studies by the Justice and Treasury Departments have long evaluated just the cost guns impose on society. Every year, Treasury puts out a report on the top 10 guns used in crime, and each report serves as the basis for dozens of news stories. But why not also provide a report--at least once--on the top 10 guns used defensively? Similarly, numerous government reports estimate the cost of injuries from guns, but none measures the number of injuries prevented when guns are used defensively.

National polls further reinforce these biased perceptions. Not one of the national polls (as far as I was able to find) gave respondents an option to mention that gun control might actually be harmful. Probably the least biased polls still give respondents just two choices: supporting "tougher gun-control legislation to help in the fight against gun crime" or "better enforcement of current laws." Yet, both options ultimately imply that gun control is good.

But if we really want to save lives, we need to address the whole truth about guns--including the costs of not owning guns. We never, for example, hear about the families who couldn't defend themselves and were harmed because they didn't have guns.

Discussing only the costs of guns and not their benefits poses the real threat to public safety as people make mistakes on how best to defend themselves and their families.

Michael Moore's a moron and Bowling For Columbine is just rediculas (CRAP both of them!)

As a couple of reporters told me, journalists are uncomfortable printing such positive gun stories because they worry that it will encourage children to get access to guns. The whole process snowballs, however, because the exaggeration of the risks--along with lack of coverage of the benefits--cements the perceived risks more and more firmly in newspaper editors and reporters minds. This makes them ever more reluctant to publish such stories.

While all this coverage affects the overall gun-control debate, it also directly shapes perceptions of proposed legislation. Take the upcoming debate over renewing the so-called assault-weapons ban. This past summer CNN repeatedly showed a news segment that starts off with a machine gun firing and claims that the guns covered by the ban do much more damage than other guns. CNN later attempted to clarify the segment by saying that the real problem was with the ammunition used in these guns. But neither of these points is true. The law does not deal at all with machine guns (though the pictures of machine guns sure are compelling)--and the "assault weapons" fire the same bullets at the same rate, and accomplish the exact same thing, as other semi-automatic guns not covered by the ban.

The unbalanced presentation dominates not just the media but also government reports and polling. Studies by the Justice and Treasury Departments have long evaluated just the cost guns impose on society. Every year, Treasury puts out a report on the top 10 guns used in crime, and each report serves as the basis for dozens of news stories. But why not also provide a report--at least once--on the top 10 guns used defensively? Similarly, numerous government reports estimate the cost of injuries from guns, but none measures the number of injuries prevented when guns are used defensively.

National polls further reinforce these biased perceptions. Not one of the national polls (as far as I was able to find) gave respondents an option to mention that gun control might actually be harmful. Probably the least biased polls still give respondents just two choices: supporting "tougher gun-control legislation to help in the fight against gun crime" or "better enforcement of current laws." Yet, both options ultimately imply that gun control is good.

But if we really want to save lives, we need to address the whole truth about guns--including the costs of not owning guns. We never, for example, hear about the families who couldn't defend themselves and were harmed because they didn't have guns.

Discussing only the costs of guns and not their benefits poses the real threat to public safety as people make mistakes on how best to defend themselves and their families.

Michael Moore's a moron and Bowling For Columbine is just rediculas (CRAP both of them!)

As a couple of reporters told me, journalists are uncomfortable printing such positive gun stories because they worry that it will encourage children to get access to guns. The whole process snowballs, however, because the exaggeration of the risks--along with lack of coverage of the benefits--cements the perceived risks more and more firmly in newspaper editors and reporters minds. This makes them ever more reluctant to publish such stories.

While all this coverage affects the overall gun-control debate, it also directly shapes perceptions of proposed legislation. Take the upcoming debate over renewing the so-called assault-weapons ban. This past summer CNN repeatedly showed a news segment that starts off with a machine gun firing and claims that the guns covered by the ban do much more damage than other guns. CNN later attempted to clarify the segment by saying that the real problem was with the ammunition used in these guns. But neither of these points is true. The law does not deal at all with machine guns (though the pictures of machine guns sure are compelling)--and the "assault weapons" fire the same bullets at the same rate, and accomplish the exact same thing, as other semi-automatic guns not covered by the ban.

The unbalanced presentation dominates not just the media but also government reports and polling. Studies by the Justice and Treasury Departments have long evaluated just the cost guns impose on society. Every year, Treasury puts out a report on the top 10 guns used in crime, and each report serves as the basis for dozens of news stories. But why not also provide a report--at least once--on the top 10 guns used defensively? Similarly, numerous government reports estimate the cost of injuries from guns, but none measures the number of injuries prevented when guns are used defensively.

National polls further reinforce these biased perceptions. Not one of the national polls (as far as I was able to find) gave respondents an option to mention that gun control might actually be harmful. Probably the least biased polls still give respondents just two choices: supporting "tougher gun-control legislation to help in the fight against gun crime" or "better enforcement of current laws." Yet, both options ultimately imply that gun control is good.

But if we really want to save lives, we need to address the whole truth about guns--including the costs of not owning guns. We never, for example, hear about the families who couldn't defend themselves and were harmed because they didn't have guns.

Discussing only the costs of guns and not their benefits poses the real threat to public safety as people make mistakes on how best to defend themselves and their families.

Michael Moore's a moron and Bowling For Columbine is just rediculas (CRAP both of them!)

the film was not perfect just like anything else in this society but it obviously made peoples screws start turning in their noggins. people who hate the film still want to talk about it.
but anyhow. i dont want to talk about politics or gun laws. i dont know enough statistics to make an arguement-even after watching the movie. but how can you not forget that little girls picture that michael moore left in front of hestons house. if any of you are parents think about that little girl. sure the us sends guns and money to terroists so they can just turn around and use it against us like sept 11. thats not a good thing. i dont care if men go hunting with guns during the season, or someone wants to buy a handgun to protect themselves in their own home. for gods sake keep it locked up and away from children. a parent once told me that the grandmother of her child was a police officer and she would take off her gun belt at home gun and all and leave it on top of the tv. she was a police officer. stupidity rules.
obviously there a few kids out there who arent sure how to handle their anger. like the boys at columbine, that little boy in michigan, and that boy who shot his teacher in florida over being suspended and so on and so on. if the boy in floridas grandfather had kept the gun in a safer place and locked maybe it would have deterred that boy from getting the gun. and if the father of that boy in michigan had not had his gun under a mattress or in a drawer wherever it was then that little boy maybe would have just gave the girl a black eye or soemthing. obviously you can buy guns on the street through illegal sales but what little six year old would have known that. what ordinary kid would think of that. what we could do about the kids at columbine who were of legal age to buy guns i dont know. something has to be done. michael moores movie is not going to solve that problem. if you have a kid in school who is at risk of being shot at in the future maybe you should think about what can be done. i know im always thinking. its difficult because we are just people in a chat room. we may have all these amendments which give us rights but we arent in political power and we cant change the rules, but because the people who are in charge dont know what to do either our children are always goign to be at risk. that doestn mena that they should stop going to school as a matter of fact most gun deaths happen in your own home where someone else like an intruder or other person uses your gun agaisnt you. so ive heard, since guns are going to stay part of life here we have to do something to make guns safer and educate our youth about how permanent a gun can make things. some kids with all the hype and everything now find it very difficult to distinguish between reality and fiction im nt talking abotut he kids from columbine they knew what they are doing but little kids who cant distinguish between fake and real and think someone can come back from the dead even if they are shot to death. actually the nra has an okay program called eddie eagle that teaches kids that guns can be harmful. at least they are trying to do somehting. even if it is somewhat ironic. i used to do that presentation in schools. not a lot of schools knew about it because the nra doesnt widely publicize the program. but some of the schools i offered the presentation to refused it saying it would encourage kids to use guns. guns, condoms, whatever kids are going to be facinated. get over it.
but many schools were receptive but then the bad part was the agency lost funding for their gun safty program with so much violence that makes no sense. kids are educated on everything else...i dont want a gun myself, but people have their rights to keep a gun, get rid of the gun..melt it down into a statue whatever you want to do-just please make sure it doesnt get into your childs hands-be responsible.like i said i still dont know how to control things liek columbine but as for easier things like putting a lock on your gun-good idea. of course if you live alone like heston and that tofu growing guy you can have it loaded and unlocked if you want-but when the grandchilren come over its a differnt story-
dont forget that picture of the girl could be your kid.

To all of those who are deadset obsessed with Moore's "distortion" of the facts - I have a question.

Why has nobody stepped up to sue him yet? If he has made such evil 'propaganda' with a casual disregard for the truth, why then is no one willing to make him pay?

Now here we seem to miss one thing. We're supposed to be open-minded, to respect each other's view-points, opinions, etc. We should attack arguments, not people.

Now to the question of Moore. He has money, agreed. He has lots of money, agreed. He is in some ways a hypocrite, agreed. Now the key thing here to note is "in some ways". Now, don't flame me as a Moore-lover, but there tend to be assumptions made about content of his films without people actually seeing them.
Whenever people hear/read the words "film about gun control" and "Michael Moore", they assume that from his left-wind view point, the film will be anti-gun. I did this, in fact. I had heard that he had a permit for a concealed hand gun, and as a result my brain screamed "HE'S A HYPOCRITE, A HYPOCRITE". But then I watched the film. Amazingly, it is not anti-gun ( to a certain degree). It talks about the circumstances which lead to gun-related violence.

Also, I believe that people need to be a bit more (haha- I made a joke) open-minded.
Posts such as "Michael Moore's a moron and Bowling For Columbine is just rediculas (CRAP both of them!)" don't show any measure of understanding, just a willingness to try and prove that we're superior to them. (The same goes for the Pro-Moores.) I also believe that we need to be careful about- saying foreigners don't understand the situation. Why wouldn't they understand the situation? Is it because of a "complex, political climate"? If so, do you understand all the intricacies enough to be justified in abusing the foreigner? Are you involved in the political process? Or do you sit back at your computer, (no offence) thinking that you are so damn smart because you know big words, and because you got a 9/10 in your social studies project from grade school.

-You should all note that words and phrases like "evil", "bad guys", "good guys", "these guys hate freedom" and "cheese-eating surrender monkeys" are always incorrect labels when applied to complex situations and people. Unfortunately, many of you (and Dubya) use these. Generally (not always), these show a simplistic,one-sided view of a complex idea,which borders on being completely juvenile.

Now here we seem to miss one thing. We're supposed to be open-minded, to respect each other's view-points, opinions, etc. We should attack arguments, not people.

Now to the question of Moore. He has money, agreed. He has lots of money, agreed. He is in some ways a hypocrite, agreed. Now the key thing here to note is "in some ways". Now, don't flame me as a Moore-lover, but there tend to be assumptions made about content of his films without people actually seeing them.
Whenever people hear/read the words "film about gun control" and "Michael Moore", they assume that from his left-wind view point, the film will be anti-gun. I did this, in fact. I had heard that he had a permit for a concealed hand gun, and as a result my brain screamed "HE'S A HYPOCRITE, A HYPOCRITE". But then I watched the film. Amazingly, it is not anti-gun ( to a certain degree). It talks about the circumstances which lead to gun-related violence.

Also, I believe that people need to be a bit more (haha- I made a joke) open-minded.
Posts such as "Michael Moore's a moron and Bowling For Columbine is just rediculas (CRAP both of them!)" don't show any measure of understanding, just a willingness to try and prove that we're superior to them. (The same goes for the Pro-Moores.) I also believe that we need to be careful about- saying foreigners don't understand the situation. Why wouldn't they understand the situation? Is it because of a "complex, political climate"? If so, do you understand all the intricacies enough to be justified in abusing the foreigner? Are you involved in the political process? Or do you sit back at your computer, (no offence) thinking that you are so damn smart because you know big words, and because you got a 9/10 in your social studies project from grade school.

-You should all note that words and phrases like "evil", "bad guys", "good guys", "these guys hate freedom" and "cheese-eating surrender monkeys" are always incorrect labels when applied to complex situations and people. Unfortunately, many of you (and Dubya) use these. Generally (not always), these show a simplistic,one-sided view of a complex idea,which borders on being completely juvenile.