Author Topic: Help revoke Bowling for Columbine's Oscar (Read 5987 times)

Mini D · « **Reply #105 on:** April 30, 2003, 03:48:55 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by midnight Target
Actually the movie is about violence, not guns.

Now you're doing it MT.

Its about gun violence. "Not guns"... LOL! Oh wait... is the NRA now responsible for promoting violence in general?

MiniD

midnight Target · « **Reply #106 on:** April 30, 2003, 04:29:40 PM »

The NRA has changed from a gun safety promoter to one of the most powerful lobbies in Washington. Does it promote violence? Naw, but Moore seems to think it does.

The movie was (by Moore's description, and many critical reviews) a study on why "America is a violent society". Not sure I agree with the premise, but that is the basis of the film. Only a small portion of the film deals with the NRA.

Mini D · « **Reply #107 on:** April 30, 2003, 04:47:04 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by midnight Target
The NRA has changed from a gun safety promoter to one of the most powerful lobbies in Washington. Does it promote violence? Naw, but Moore seems to think it does.

Ah.. and therein lies the crutch. Moore thinking something is one thing, but doctoring dates, making things up and being generally misleading in order to prove his suspicions right is another thing all together.

And... did you ever notice that the most powerfull lobbies in the U.S. were about protecting the constitution and ensuring rights were guaranteed? NRA, ACLU... whatever?

I've watched the NRA gain in momentum and migrate into the political force it is today. Every action I've seen from them has been a response to some kind of attack (perceived or not) to the second ammendment. What does that say about the people doing the attacking?

MiniD

beet1e · « **Reply #108 on:** April 30, 2003, 07:17:40 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by midnight Target
And I have no desire to be a beet1e. I consider the need to post walls of text as the refuge of the witless. I try to make my point without boring you to death.

Doh!

I guess that means all book authors are witless.

With all the banter going back and forth about BFC, I decided to watch it again this evening. Hehe, good movie.

OK gun-lobbyists, we know that you don't think guns are responsible for America's high death rate at the wrong end of a gun. But for there to be gun crime, of which there is plenty in the US, there has to be guns. Blame the guy pulling the trigger, but what is responsible for that trigger being there to be pulled in the first place? Be sure to read my sig.

Until tomorrow - Toodle-Pip.

PS - has anyone read "The Culture of Fear" - mentioned in BFC? I tried ordering it from Amazon but it's out of print.

funkedup · « **Reply #109 on:** April 30, 2003, 11:44:15 PM »

Beetle it's a very simple principle: The idiotic actions of a tiny percentage of the population should not be cause for freedom being taken away from the responsible vast majority. Maybe you don't value your freedom that highly. We do.

beet1e · « **Reply #110 on:** May 01, 2003, 03:52:37 AM »

Fair enough, Funkedup. I was tired when I wrote that. (Had been fighting off rooks in the SW corner of the map for several hours, and the Bish organisation was going down the toilet)

That principle of which you speak - unabated gun proliferation - has led to 300,000 gun related homicides in a 25 year period. I think the problem is a little bit bigger than "tiny".

So I'll just pre-empt the inevitable SOB/ra response by saying that actually people do not kill people. People don't have bullets flying from the ends of their fingers. Only guns can launch a high speed projectile that can kill. It's a very simple principle!

Mini D · « **Reply #111 on:** May 01, 2003, 05:32:48 AM »

Of that 300,000 homocides, 70% occured in less than 20% of the population demographically speaking. Of that demographic, .16%-.20% of the populace was involved. Demographics that some countries chose not to include when doing these types of statistics because they tend to skew numbers there too.

Black people and White people run very similar risks of dieing in automobile accidents (17/100,000 vs 18/100,000). Black people run a 5.5/100,000 chance of being stabbed to death while white people are kicking in at .9/100,000. Black people stand a 23.5/100,000 chance of being murdered by firearms while white people are at 3.3/100,000. Who owns a majority of the firearms in America? Demographically speaking? And where is the majority of firearm related deaths occuring? Demographically speaking?

Correlate the presence of firearms as the root cause again beet1e... I dare you.

MiniD

beet1e · « **Reply #112 on:** May 01, 2003, 05:55:48 AM »

Mini D - I know that the gun crime problem is most prevalent (but not exclusive) to the socially deprived/poor/black/ethnic areas. I have acknowledged this before. I lived in Mt. Prospect,IL (NW Chicago white suburb), where there was no crime to speak of. But the in the south side of Chicago (definitely black) it was a very different story. Also some housing projects - Cabrini Green (11 murders in 9 weeks on that one housing project) things were so bad that Mayor Jane Byrne moved in to draw focus to the problem!

But Mini D, we have socially deprived/poor/black/ethnic areas here in Britain. We have racial tensions and the multi-cultural powderkeg. But we do not have thousands upon thousands of gun homicides year after year after year.

Correlate the presence of blacks and ethnic minorities as the root cause again Mini D... I dare you.

Mini D · « **Reply #113 on:** May 01, 2003, 06:04:00 AM »

You make it a point to highlight the difference between the presence of guns in the U.S. and G.B. as an explanation for the high murder rate, but fail to acknowledge the extremely significant statistical difference by demographics in a country where guns are equally available to everyone.

Its flawed to the core beet1e. Pure and simple.

MiniD

beet1e · « **Reply #114 on:** May 01, 2003, 06:46:08 AM »

I don't think so. You're just saying that your high murder rate is acceptable because it doesn't affect white suburbanites. It affects mainly blacks/poor/ethnic - maybe you feel these people are dirtbags unworthy of sympathy. In other words, you are a gun crime NIMBY. But don't feel bad - you are far from alone.

Mini D · « **Reply #115 on:** May 01, 2003, 06:56:16 AM »

I'm saying the high murder rate is acceptable? Where? Please show me where I said this.

I'm saying there is a significantly higher murder rate amongst blacks and whites that have the same exact access to weapons. While you maintain the weapons are the cause for the drastic increase in statistics.

I'm telling you that does not correlate. I didn't try to excuse the high numbers, I'm showing you that your sad attempt to correlate them to gun ownership is flawed to the core.

MiniD

beet1e · « **Reply #116 on:** May 01, 2003, 07:24:06 AM »

Quote

I didn't try to excuse the high numbers, I'm showing you that your sad attempt to correlate them to gun ownership is flawed to the core.

Well that's the most ridiculous thing you've said in this thread. How the hell would gun crime/gun homicide be possible if people didn't have access to guns?

Toad · « **Reply #117 on:** May 01, 2003, 07:24:48 AM »

Hey, wait you two....

Throw the "Canadian Conundrum" into this stat discussion.

England, low guns, low homicide.

US, high guns, high homicide.

Canada, high guns, low homicide.

Might as well use the full mix; it'll be more fun to watch.

Proceed!

beet1e · « **Reply #118 on:** May 01, 2003, 07:33:58 AM »

LOL Mr. Toad!

I don't have any figures for Canada. Do they have many non-Caucasian?

To paraphrase Mr. Toad...

Potassium Chlorate = safe (it's weedkiller)
Sugar = safe, unless you're diabetic.
The two mixed together? Not safe!

Toad · « **Reply #119 on:** May 01, 2003, 07:36:33 AM »

I'll let MiniD show you the fallacy in your science experiment, Beetle.

I just can't muster the necessary outrage lately.

He's doing just fine anyway.