Figured we needed another gun thread!

[lazs2]

beetle.. you asked why moore got booed off a stage for a "documentary" that was not, as it turns out, a documentary... As has been shown... it was a huge bald faced lie... that in itself is enough to be booed.

now... if you would have asked did we find that lieing sack of dung moore.... 'amusing'.... well... I problyu would have still said no... not without him admiting that he made everything up and that he had produced a satire.     As a satire it was mildly amusing.
lazs

[beet1e]

To paraphrase Dick Cheney, when asked if the US had chemical weapons to hand for deployment in Iraq, I said what I said, and I was very careful in what I said.

Let's not be disingenuous Beetle. Look at the title of your thread and consider the history of such threads.

Ah yes, I notice you use the word "disingenuous" after having had to backtrack following a false accusation. Give a dog a bad name, eh? Things are not always what they seem. We've had our gun arguments/"debates" in the past But it seems that the very mention of Bowling for Columbine is enough to start a "debate". As I said in my initial post, the very discussion of this topic seems to be a taboo for some, and not just the topic itself.

According to the BFC cartoon, yes - the enslavement of blacks was a key factor - a precursor in the construction of a social time bomb. But it was not the only factor in creating war zones like South Central Los Angeles. There, in addition to social/economic deprivation of blacks, we see major drug trafficking - and lots of guns...

You recently mentioned the nerve agent Sarin in the Peter Arnett thread. I take it you know that Sarin is composed of a number of chemicals or precursors, each of which is harmless on its own?

So yes - America's enslavement of blacks in the 19th century was instrumental in the construction of a social time bomb. But racial mixing and/or social deprivation on its own does not necessarily mean mass murder. We have racial problems here in Britain. I won't deny that. But our social time bomb, unlike the American version, has yet to detonate. Sure, it smoulders, and there are a few sparks from time to time. But don't try to shift the blame for a high homicide rate on to blacks and other ethnic groups, as that is only part of the problem.

[Toad]

I think that was Rumsfeld. But we digress.

Please show me where I backtracked, if other than to get you back on track.

I think you knew this would start a discussion. Deny it if you like. If the topic was taboo, why are we this far down the thread? People are willing to discuss it; readily in fact. However, not everyone's going to agree and there's nothing wrong with that. Unless, of course, you're one of those guys that understands "free speech" to mean "I get to say what I want but the rest of you don't." And there's plenty of those on this BBS.

So... race is only part. As I said, if you want to delve further into the "race card" aspect of gun violence, you may want to compare Canadian stats to US stats before you opine.

Which finally gets us back on track.


So, what did you make of the Canadian conundrum then? They've got as many guns as we do, much less homicide. Is it the guns then?


You haven't really addressed this yet, other than to now say "race is only part of it". Indeed.

So, what's the rest of it?


BTW, you never did give us a review of the "wall-o-text" critique of Moore's dishonesty now that you've read it. I'd appreciate reading that.

Toodly-pip, old shoe!

[beet1e]

Hehe. Blimey, Mr. Toad. We're starting to sound like a couple of politicians! Yelling at eachother across the despatch box without solving anything. I've never set foot in Canada, so I'm not familiar with it.

I think that was Rumsfeld. But we digress.

No, it was Cheney. I was referring to a 1991 interview I saw on British TV. You nibbled at the bait but didn't swallow the hook, so well done! Didn't Cheney have the job in 1991 that Rumsfeld has now?

So, what did you make of the Canadian conundrum then? They've got as many guns as we do, much less homicide. Is it the guns then?


You haven't really addressed this yet, other than to now say "race is only part of it". Indeed.

So, what's the rest of it?  
 

Well let me ask you something:

So, what did you make of the British conundrum then? We've got a lot of blacks (and other ethnic minorities), much less homicide (than America). Is it the blacks then?

You haven't really addressed this yet, other than to cite the Canadian conundrum. Indeed.

So what's the rest of it?

[GtoRA2]

Beetle it is a wank fest because this thread is all about you. It is about your need to be in the spotlight.

You could have posted to any of the other threads, but no, you had to start you own.

Thats ok, you are going on the ignore list with people like blitz and Eagle CZ.... lol

[beet1e]

GTO - goodbye and good shut! (as my Lancashire grandmother would have said - lol)  Geez, was wondering how long it would take that guy to figure out the ignore function. He's a slow learner, but he's OK really.

[Mini D]

So you're officially back to your old ways now beatle?  Well... it was nice while it lasted.

MiniD

[Toad]

Originally posted by beet1e
 No, it was Cheney.

From the Washington Times, Rumsfeld Warns Syria:

Asked whether the comments meant the United States was prepared to take military action against Syria to stop the shipments, Mr. Rumsfeld said, "I'm saying exactly what I'm saying. It was carefully phrased."

Didn't bother to look up Cheney. This is the recent version to which I thought you were referring.

And now you answer a question with a question. Come now old chap. Let's be proper, eh? After you, Alphonse. I believe you were the one taking the "too many guns" stance in similar threads?

But what of the Canadians, eh? Prime role in the film you just watched, don't you agree? Focus for Moore, no? So what conclusion do you draw?

Do explain the Canadian conundrum.. because Moore surely never did. In fact, that's where the movie starts to wander about aimlessly. IMO.

And I still await your impression of the posted article the chronicles Moore's blatant dishonesty.

Toodle-pip.

[beet1e]

MiniD  I've never had a thread locked, and have never been banned from the BBS.

Mr. Toad!

Didn't bother to look up Cheney. This is the recent version to which I thought you were referring.

Ah, well there you are! Yes, I saw the Rumsfeld bit, and it reminded me of what Cheney had said 12 years earlier. The point I was trying to make was that there are times when I say something, and people believe I'm alluding to something else. Just the mention of BFC, and people think I'm on an anti-gun crusade, for example. Wasn't trying to trip you up. I especially liked the way you avoided the preposition at the end of the sentence above, so you are forgiven. (BTW Churchill once said that a preposition at the end of a sentence was something "up with which we should not put".)

Answer a question with a question - maybe, but as you were the first to bring up the topic of conundra, I thought it appropriate for you to go first. But it doesn't matter. In case it was not clear from above postings you seem to be saying that guns on their own (no social/racial unrest) do not give rise to a huge homicide rate. And I'm saying the same about social/racial unrest on its own (no guns present). Those are the Canadian and British conundra. But what of the American conundrum? Social/racial unrest AND guns present. That's what we should be looking at.

I have now read Walls 3 and 4. Wall 3 began to look interesting, but degenerated into a splitting of hairs about individual stats and their method of collection. For example:

To pound home its point, Bowling flashes a dramatic count of gun homicides in various countries: Canada 165, Germany 381, Australia 65, Japan 39, US 11,127. Now that's raw numbers, not rates, but let's go with what Bowling uses.

I believe the movie also quoted a value of 68 for gun related homicides in the UK. This is not mentioned in Wall 3. (note that this value of 68 is less than half the Canadian value, despite the fact that the UK population is more than double that of Canada). Wall 3 makes the somewhat benign observation that the values are raw data, not rates, in an apparent attempt to mitigate the impact of the American gun related homicide tally, given as 11,127. Admittedly, I don't know what period was being referenced. But it doesn't really matter. After all the stats research I had to do in those earlier threads, the figures are close enough. In some years the American gun related homicide was more than 11,127. In other years it was less. The relatively small deviations are not sufficiently significant to deflect my interest from the movie. In your own parlance, Wall 3 begins to wander about aimlessly. The aimless wandering continues in Wall 4. But just going back to Wall 3, who cares whether the KKK was formed in 1866, 1871, or any year in between? These are details which the various walls-o-words seize upon to discredit Moore and his movie.

More to come, but I now give way to the honourable Mr. Toad.

[Mini D]

Still unchanged beatle.  No real point or argument.  What did the Americans do to deserve your scorn this time beatle?

MiniD

[beet1e]

Originally posted by Mini D
No real point or argument.  

I agree! My initial thread simply records the fact that I saw BFC and found it interesting. Fairly innocuous, I would have thought. Not intended as a wank fest. But thanks for reading, MiniD. I am touched by your interest in my threads, and grateful for the punt(s).

[Mini D]

No problem beatle... afterall.. that's all you really want now isn't it... reaction?

I mean... its not like you picked out a topic that was just beat into the ground a few days ago and tried to put one of your old spins on it.

Nah....

MiniD

[Toad]

Originally posted by beet1e
you seem to be saying that guns on their own (no social/racial unrest) do not give rise to a huge homicide rate.

Yes. Said it many times before too. IIRC in Moore's... whatever..... he started down that road but the Canadian Conundrum put him at a dead end there. So he then wandered in the desert, much like Heston did as Moses in that movie.


 

And I'm saying the same about social/racial unrest on its own (no guns present).

Quite possibly. But then you must consider the "sharp instruments" conundrum, eh?

Social/racial unrest AND guns present.

Ah.. but If A is true, and B is true, that doesn't necessarily make A+B=C is true when high homicide rates (C) appear unrelated to either A or B. It's an area one would have to research but there's no "automatic answer" there either.


I believe the critiques dalliance with homicide numbers is merely to underline the basic premise that this is no documentary of any sort. If it were, Moore's numbers would be easily verified. The critiques point is that NONE of Moore's numbers can be found anywhere in those exact amounts. They're a hodgepodge of "close" and "no where close". Hardly a hallmark of an accurate documentary.

Same with the KKK/NRA dates.

However, what do you think of him "constructing" a Heston speech from a number of speeches, deliberately and clearly taking Heston out of context and "spinning" the result to Moore's own purpose?

[beet1e]

Mr. Toad -

Quite possibly. But then you must consider the "sharp instruments" conundrum, eh?  

Hehe, yes, but you must also consider that not all American gun homicides occur within socially deprived ghettos, and that whites also commit gun crime, often against other whites.

However, what do you think of him "constructing" a Heston speech from a number of speeches, deliberately and clearly taking Heston out of context and "spinning" the result to Moore's own purpose?

That is very bad, and I have seen that done elsewhere. I didn't pay particular attention to the Heston speeches, so was not swayed by this in any way. As I said before, I was more concerned with the various interviews. If Moore did indeed seek to distort matters by rearranging speeches and the like, I would say that he would have been better to leave out that material altogether, rather than being discovered to be a fraud later. BUT!!! The acid test will be for the NRA to produce its own film, and for the Moore lobby to produce 4 walls of text in rebuttal. Then we will have a level playing field.

I think we are agreed that the film is not a documentary within the accepted parlance of the word.

But if Moore was a scoundrel, there would be no need for the American public to be so outraged by his work. There would be no need to boo him on the stage at the Oscars. The very fact that he won an Oscar, was booed on stage, and infuriated his critics in such a way that resulted in 4 walls of text demonstrates amply to me that the presentation of his subject matter has hit a few raw nerves. I know exactly how Moore must feel. I get people on this BBS telling me I'm full of **** and how they're going to ignore me from now on... - but they still keep coming back for more.

[Nash]

The "I said what I said, and I was very careful in what I said" bit I'm almost certain was Ari Fleischer, last week.... and was he said what he said, and he was very careful in what he said when he said it. Or something like that.

Ok... carry on.