Bri, I’m going to avoid getting into another gun control debate, but if you are going to make a question able statement, back it up. It ain’t so that more guns means less crime.
Difference being that they aren't in power in Europe... not yet.Yes indeedy… I agree completely.
I think Bowling for Columbine had the potential to be a good hard look at the “culture of fear” in America. Parts of the film, in fact were exactly that. Whether or not the culture of fear exists in the first place is one of the questions I think it was trying to answer. However, in the end the film lacked focus, and as edwino points out, it oversimplifies and generalizes to the point of being ludicrous, as seen in the South Park bit. Some of the segments just came off as stupid stunts (such as the bank segment, or the opening people’s doors thing), while others just seemed to be completely tangential to the issue at hand (such as the K-Mart thing or the segment on America’s international “history” of the last 50 years or so).
In the end, the message of Bowling for Columbine was muddled, at best. It had potential, but it was mostly squandered.
I will say one thing in favor of the film: the segment with Barry Glassner made me at least curious to read his book, and I’m always happy to find something new to read.
DSeid:
Fair 'nuf.
In this spirit of intellectual honesty and integrity, I notice that you didn’t feel the need to call Rashak Mani for:
I guess you’re just too myopic and narrow-minded to see your own hypocrisy.
No. One is an opinion about what the movie is about; about what Moore was trying to say, independant of whether or not his point has validity. I think that such an opinion is defensible as a statement of Moore’s probable POV. Even if his POV is questionable. Another is a statement of something as fact, a comment about whether or not what Moore posits is in fact valid, and a hijack of this thread into yet another gun control thread. The op wanted to avoid that here (and who can blame him, it’s been beaten to death)
It is, to say the least, debatable, as to whether gun ownership increases or decreases crime. I have my assessment; you have yours. We both know we aint going to change each others POV. (It too quickly degenerates into accusations that the medical establishment and the CDC are all whoring themselves for the anti-gun forces.)
But relevant to this thread, the threat of the unknown bad guy invading your home is small even if the fear is great. The threat of a gun in the house causing death to its inhabitants is small, although others have great fear of it. Car accidents cause lots of deaths. Guns bought legally and somehow finding their way into the hands of punks (stolen or resold or whatever) are used to cause lots of deaths especially among teenagers and young adults, especially among those involved in the drug trade. West Nile and SARS have killed very few but skin cancer will kill many. But seatbelts and sunscreen aren’t news to get people afraid about, even though both can save many lives.
Sorry the NRA is an open minded, modern and progressive association… sorry
Rashak
While I agree America is farther right than those European countries, I wouldn’t equate the US leaders with people like Zhironovsky and Le Pen. Tom DeLay, maybe. Pat Robertson, definitely. But those people do not monopolize power. While I despise Bush, his administration, and his policies, I would say that he still has to deal with quite formidable (and increasing) opposition when it comes to things like Gitmo and the Patriot Act. He is not nearly as isolationist and xenophobic as the European right-wing. Parts of his administration are non-isolationist to a fault: in case you missed it, there is this neoconservative streak that advocates invading dictatorships in order to build liberal democracies.
I would also say that while he uses “security” to sell everything from his domestic economic plan, his broken educational plan, and a ludicrous defense budget, it isn’t run through without opposition. Look at somewhere like Israel for an example of how the US could become. The entire domestic policy of Israel is paralyzed due to the intifadeh – all labor negotiations, all domestic expenditures are held up in relation to it. All failings are blamed on Arafat, all successes attributed to progress in security.
The US is certainly well down the highway of fear. But I don’t think that this one fact explains all gun violence. It certainly is an ingredient, but I don’t follow Moore in saying that if the local news and politicians were more touchy-feely and selective in their reporting, we would all leave our doors unlocked at night.
Moore uses extremely biased viewpoints, anecdotal examples, and interviews given under seemingly false pretenses in order to advance a point. His point isn’t exactly clear, but he is certainly not the kind of person the left should hold up as an example. For someone who is attempting to make a career addressing and fixing social ills, he takes a very beguiling and round-about course. The best reformers are straight shooters: they don’t sugar coat their message, they are straightforward in their means, and they don’t aim to deceive. Moore, to me, has none of these traits.
hhmm… I didn’t compare Bush to Le Pen and other European rightwingers. Especially because there are significant differences. Europeans right wingers tend to focus on racial and immigration aspects… not fear exactly. They are also more extreme right naturally… which is why its hard for them to get into power.
Moore does need some focus in his film… but just the fact that he brought these issues out makes the film very valid IMO. He is a comedian more than a documentarist which kind of explains his excesses a bit.
Also Moore does sell himself as a worker's man. (Yep a bit of bull there too) Something which in the US is rarely popular. Bush represents to much big business. Should he get reelected and then you guys start living in a strong oligarchy like Brazil you will appreciate better the damage done. Opposition has been too low vs. Bush... again in my opinion. (Could be democratic party fault of course). I might be going into discussions more related to the Stupid White Men book thou...
You guys dont want to live with a goverment all geared to benefit certain schemes and groups. Politicians using government machinery and the judiciary only for this.... its very frustrating scenario.edwino says
No, but that was the only consistent point that Moore made amidst his alternately going “Hmmm.” and grandstanding/exploitation.
As to the causes of gun violence … I have become increasingly convinced that gun violence follows the drug trade and the ramp up in fire power associated with the War On Drugs. I’d love to see gun owners be held to standards of responsible ownership (storage etc), and I’d love to see consistent federal guidelines, but I think that such would have a small effect at best.
Which leaves me depressed. What are the answers? Win the War On Drugs? Yeah right. Legalize some pot and de-emphasize the Drug War with attention to increased punishements for the use of weapons while committing other crimes and lesser punishments (other than economic) for the drug offenses themselves? Na-gonna-happen. Have an economy so good that few are tempted by the allure of drug money? Uh huh.
I have no more answers than does Moore.
Not that I expect you to come back here, as you never seem to reappear to either provide cites when requested, or to acknowledge the fact when they are shown to be false, when the cites are provided by others, I’ll provide these in case anyone else is interested.
According to the UCR (Excel Spreadsheet), when you discount the unknowns, the number one cause of murder is arguments between acquaintances, followed by arguments between strangers, followed by arguments where the husband shoots his wife.
That is a very true statement.
DMC: why discount the unknowns?
Michael Moore made it perfectly clear what his point was by the title of the movie, since the kids went bowling before committing the murders, then bowling had as much to do with them committing crimes as anything else. His point was that neither guns, nor bowling, had anything to do with what those murderers did.
The war on drugs has been going on for 90 years, and things are worse not better.
20,000 gun control laws has not made criminals obey those laws.
Giving more punishment to those who commit crimes with guns, does no good for those of us who have had loved ones murdered by other weapons.
Why should the murderer of your mother get out of prison earlier(no increased punishment if you kill someone with a non gun weapon) if he kills your mother by repeatedly beating her head in with an iron frying pan, or stabbing her a hundred times with a knife, instead of shooting her with a gun?
Who’d have thunk I’d agree with ExTank but it seems that your cite mainly shows how little we know:
Unknown relationship to victim is more than twice the next entry which is acquaintance which is more than 50% higher than the next one, strangers. Unknown relationship is almost half of all murders.
Even as to causes, the biggest entry is unknown. Followed by
arguments … of unknown type.
And I can’t see where it says that these are arguments between who. They are seperate lines.
Susanann,
Sorry if I was unclear. No. Murder is murder. I’m talking a ramping up of the differential between armed robbery with a gun and robbery armed with a frying pan, say.
And I have no proof of belief that the ramp up of the drug war is more than a correlation. All in all Moore’s point that you emphasize. We have lots of correlations but little causations.
sorry, I still dont understand.
Are you saying that people who rob/attack with frying pans should get out of prison earlier? Is being beaten with an iron skillet up to the point of death “better”, and to be punished less, than being near fatally shot, or even just being threatened with eiher weapon? Would you prefer to be a paralized vegetable for the rest of your life from being beaten with a frying pan than from a gunshot wound? If so, then why is it better being in a coma from being hurt from different weapons?
There already is a difference between armed, and unarmed robbery, but even that law fails to take into consideration a young 6foot6 300 pound male attacking/robbing a 5foot 100 pound 90 year old woman. Adding additional jail time to mitigate young 6foot6 males from carrying weapons while attacking/robbing 5foot 100 pound 90 year old women isnt going to do anything.
Why not just make murder and robbery itself illegal and heavily punished regardless of how it happens, while allowing honest and decent innocent citizens defend themselves as best they can with whatever self defense weapon they choose to carry?
The movie was originally going to be about guns. Then 9/11 happened, and Michael Moore couldn’t get over the fact that those many people were killed by a box cutter and some rudimentary flight training. The fact is, the gun ownership rate in Canada is about a seventh of the US gun ownership rate. So is the murder rate.
…except that the Canadians who live in the United States(many of them here in Florida) as resident aliens and who can get/carry all the (hand)guns they want here have a much lower crime/murder rate than those Canadians who live in Canada where guns are more restricted and where Canadians in Canada cant even get handguns. The Canadians who immigrate to a land which has 7 times the gun ownership of Canada, commit far fewer murders than Canadians in Canada.
Susanann: Can you provide any numbers for that last statement? I’m curious what you mean by “far fewer”.