I have just watched the move “Bowling for Columbine” and my opinion of the movie is that I agree with what a lot of Michael Moore was trying to drive home, but I find some of it to be a bunch of BS. What is everyones else take on this picture of American life and the gun control issue?
I would like to see handguns go away, simply because they were made to kill people and nothing else, but I feel that we are obligated to protect ourselves.
For those who saw the film, Michael Moore flamed the idea of welfare to work, which Ithink is a good idea. The mother of the 6 year old black boy who shot the white girl was part of this program had to go to Detroit to work two jobs to make enough money to survive, which in what would be right in Michael Moore’s world would be the mother (single of course) to stay at home to be a positive influence on the shooter, if that is possible. The mother worked at the bar/restaurant owned by DICK Clark, which got the ire of the movie and Moore himself.
He also stated that Canadian as wellas European gun shoootings are lower (no shit, better gun control!). But this is America, American society which believes in protection at all costs versus the better good of society at large!
So, tell me, was the movie right on the money or pure BS!!!
I just saw it this past weekend and I have mixed feelings on the movie. On the one hand Moore makes some good points and certainly raises some interesting questions. On the other hand, he seemed to be trying to hard to drill his point home. I think this became most apparent at the end, when I actually felt bad for Charlton Heston! <yikes!>
I personally feel that citizens should not have guns. Perhaps because I think hunting is stupid, and living in NY I’ve had a gun held to me more then a few times. Lets just say it’s soured my opinion of them. I think that the 2nd amendment is a bit outdated, and needs a common sense update (who needs a m-16, seriously). I totally agree with “people kill people” not “guns kill people”, but one needs to realize that its a tool that makes the former a hell of a lot easier to accomplish. Imagine the Wash D.C sniper stalking someone and running up and stabbing them Rambo style vs. popping them off at 500 yards.
Back to the movie, a lot of blame gets put on the media, and to a certain degree, I think it’s correctly placed. It is interesting to note, as mentioned in the movie, that all these “violent” cartoons and video games are worldwide, and their impact is debatable. I certainly don’t have any answers but I agree the country would be better off without firearms.
Cheez whiz, folks, this one is destined for GD, and I expect pretty soon!
senor, your observation that handguns “were made to kill people” is true, if banal. It is fact that firearms in general were developed for the specific purpose of killing people. What is your point?
World Eater, do you personally know a lot of folks who own/carry M16’s? Do you know any at all? Living in NY, you’ve spent most, if not all, of your life in a jurisdiction that boasts some of the most restrictive gun-control laws this side of Nazi Germany. How do you suppose it is that you’ve “had a gun held to me more then a few times?” What sort of neighborhood do you live in, and what on earth keeps you there?
Hmmm, I’d have to disagree with that statement. In New York, no permit of registration is required to purchase or carry a rifle or shotgun, and a permit to possess a handgun in one’s home is easily acquired. Concealed carry permits for handguns are a bit harder to come by but are issued on a regular basis. Local statutes in New York City are a bit more restrictive.
I agree. Full-auto is very inefficient; the “rounds per hit” ratio is astronomically high. As Clint Smith is fond of saying, “It only turns money into noise.”
On the other hand, I do need a good semiautomatic .308 battle rifle (e.g. FAL or M1A) and high-powered bolt-action rifle…[sup]1[/sup]
[sup]1[/sup] [sub] And a .50 BMG would sure be nice.[/sub]
The one valid point that Moore makes throughout his film is that the media is sorely corrupt here in the states, and fear-mongering is much to blame for the poor judgement of the TV generation. Ironic that this conclusion is delivered in movie theatres around the country, isn’t it?
No one (civilian) in the U.S. is permitted to legally own, carry, use, etc. an M16, unless he/she has undergone an incredibly lengthy background check and licensing process, and paid some pretty hefty fees (thousands of dollars). I haven’t checked recently, but it used to require a Class III Federal Firearms License; try obtaining one, if you need an expensive hobby for the next year or two.
I may be mistaken, but some M16s are constructed not to fire full auto, but semi-auto with three bullets per squeeze. At least, I remember firing such a weapon on a tour of a military base. My question is whether such a weapon would be considered an auto or a semi, and whether that would affect it being legal.
No. I don’t know anyone that smokes crack, but I think there ought to be laws against that as well.
I’ll wager that over the past few decades, NY has been towards the top of the list in regards to gun related crime.
I’ve been mugged at gunpoint 4 times, shot at one of those times, and had my job robbed (the upper east side a nice area), which included being taken to the basement and being put on my knees execution style, with a nice shiny glock pressed against my temple. As far as staying in my neighborhood (where 2 of the muggings occurred), it’s the same as anyone else, no money to move, roots (family, friends, etc). How about solving the freaking problem, instead of me moving?
I’ll add that in NY (NYC at least), gun related crime is not unique to any area. People have been held up in any part of any borough, as I’m sure many lifetime NYers will attest to.
What I want to know is, how would the USA differ if all firearms were banned outright? Would it be better or worse? And if so how?
Not quite. The fee is two hundred dollars, and they can’t be that hard to get since I know lots of people who have them (various full autos that is, not necessarily m-16s).
In fact I took some visiting friends submachinegun (a Thompson and an MP3) shooting just last weekend.
Two of those points posted by ElJeffe I don’t think were being made by the movie. He might have added that quote about Willie Horton, I can’t really remember.
But the Lockheed Martin and Kosovo connections I think were misunderstandings of Moore’s movie.
I did think it was interesting the number of people that didn’t lock their doors in Canada that were just across the border from the US. Maybe they know something we don’t.
An interesting point to me is that we get guns to protect ourselves from strangers yet most people are killed by someone they know. I think Moore’s point about media distortion of reality is valid.
To fight a little ignorance there are not “thousands of dollars” of fees to legally own a machine gun though it is extremely expensive these days. To legally buy a registered machine gun one must get approval from local law enforcement, usually the county sheriff, submit fingerprints and photo for a criminal background check then pay a $200 transfer tax (actually a stamp). This whole process takes about six months. One does not need to be a class III dealer unless they intend to selll machine guns, however with a class III license you would be able to own some specific dealer sample machine guns that cannot be sold to a regular joe.
The so-called gun owner’s protection act of 1986 banned the registration of any new machine guns for sale to civilians. This put a cap on the total number on the market and prices have gone up dramatically. Registered reciever M-16 rifles go for about $8-10k while an otherwise similar semi-automatic rifle could be purchased for as little as $750.
The 1934 national firearms act defines a machine gun among other ways as firing more than one round with a single pull of the trigger. The M-16A2 has a selector position for a three shot burst rather than the “full auto” of previous versions but for legal purposes it’s a machine gun like any other. The gun is essentially the same but some of the parts in the fire control group are changed.
Having not seen Bowling for Columbine I don’t feel I can comment on that much of it. For those of you that have seen it, I have a question based on what I’ve heard- there’s a scene where Michael Moore walks into a bank that’s running a promotion where if you sign up for a CD, you get a free rifle. The movie then shows Michael Moore walking down the street with said free rifle (lets ignore the fact that he fudged it as the bank doesn’t issue the firearm in question). What was the point of this scene?
And World Eater, here in DC private firearm ownership is illegal, yet we’ve got a much higher homicide rate than NYC. I don’t really feel much safer, but YMMV.
I’ve heard Canadians ask, “How many doors did he have to try to find some that were unlocked?”
I know some people in the US who don’t lock their doors, but they all live in rural areas where legal firearm ownership is very common.
When you hear statistics about how people are killed by “someone they know”, remember those stats count neighbors, members of rival gangs, hookers and their pimps, drug dealers and their customers, and even taxi drivers and their fares as “someone they know”. An abused woman knows the man she’s defending herself from, as do many women who defend themselves from rapists. Heck, some cops and criminals know each other by name.