Author Topic: Help revoke Bowling for Columbine's Oscar (Read 5895 times)

Toad · « **Reply #165 on:** May 01, 2003, 09:50:59 PM »

I find it interesting that the NFA cites

Quote

The government's own estimate in December 1976, published as part of its gun control campaign was 6 million owners with 18 million firearms.

10 million firearms got disappeared or destroyed since 1976? With importation in the ~ 200K range?

Man, I don't know about Canadian gun owners but US gun owners LIKE old guns. They're "collectible". They don't get tossed. Heck, I've got an unshootable Belgian double shotgun from ~1890. Wouldn't throw it out.

Secondarily, review what started this whole tit for tat with you and I.

I said: "Canada, high guns, low homicide"

This in comparison to

"England, low guns, low homicide.

US, high guns, high homicide."

Now, where is that incorrect?

England has a lower per capita than either US or Canada and lower homicide than both IIRC.

Canada may not have more guns per capita than the US. But using the 21 million, one would have to say that's "high" relative to England which is the point of the comparison. I think 2 guns per 3 folks is more than England, eh?

The US is definitely "high" in comparison to England in both categories.

beet1e · « **Reply #166 on:** May 02, 2003, 04:52:13 AM »

Funked

Quote

Tiny is relative. 300,000 over 25 years is 12,000 per year. That's .004% of the population of the US. That's pretty tiny to me.

Sandman made a good point with the cocaine thing. Yes, Tiny is relative. America is a tiny little country - its land area is less than 2% of the earth's surface!

midnight Target · « **Reply #167 on:** May 02, 2003, 10:28:52 AM »

Quote

Moore's problems with veracity date back to "Roger and Me," in which he famously shifted the actual timeline of events for dramatic effect. While garnering some criticism, most notably from the New Yorker's Pauline Kael, the distortions didn't get too many people riled up;

Here is the real point in all this bruhaha. Moore is an entertainer. He used real footage to create a film. He has manipulated the facts in the past, in fact he is famous for it. Many DOCUMENTARY film makers bend the facts a little, changing timelines or restaging scenes. Is Moore's level of manipulation any more than others? Maybe, maybe not.

It is the NRA as the point of the Right Wing lobby that is pushing for the revokation of the Oscar. They don't care one whit about the accuracy of the documentaries made in this Country. They keep harping in all the websites about how the film doesn't qualify as a documentary, or how we have been duped by Moore.
Paaleez. Its all about whatever agenda has the bucks to back it.

beet1e · « **Reply #168 on:** May 02, 2003, 10:43:42 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by midnight Target
It is the NRA as the point of the Right Wing lobby that is pushing for the revokation of the Oscar. They don't care one whit about the accuracy of the documentaries made in this Country. They keep harping in all the websites about how the film doesn't qualify as a documentary, or how we have been duped by Moore.
Paaleez. Its all about whatever agenda has the bucks to back it.

Amen to that - agreed 100%.

Funked - I meant to ask you before. You say that the deaths of 300,000 people who were victims of gun crime in a 25 year period is "a price worth paying for the your freedom to have a gun". Then you commented that perhaps I (and by inference, MOST people in the civilised world) don't take my "freedom" as seriously as you do. Well what about those 300,000 people, and what about their freedom to live a full life, without being shot? What has the 2nd Amendment done for them? No need to answer - I'm sure Mini D will do it for you.

lazs2 · « **Reply #169 on:** May 02, 2003, 11:11:44 AM »

beetle... yes... 300,000 peoples deaths in 25 years, most of whom were scum, is well worth my freedom to defend myself. Is 50MILLION deaths worth keeping hitler from power?
lazs

funkedup · « **Reply #170 on:** May 02, 2003, 11:14:05 AM »

Beetle like I said, freedom has risks. I'm more than willing to tolerate an 0.00004 chance of dying by gunfire each year. Death is inevitable anyways. And there are many ways to go, which are more likely than gunfire. If I get shot, my dying words won't be "Damn 2nd ammendment!" If I get run over by a car, my dying words won't be "Damn internal combustion!" If I have a heart attack my dying words won't be "Damn corn dogs!"

If other Americans don't feel the same, they can move to Canada or England. Because our God-given right to defend our selves and homes is guaranteed by the Constitution, and that's not going to change anytime soon.

If Americans really wanted to change it, they could. Three fifths majority in both houses of Congress can do it. If guns were such a terrible menace, all we'd have to do is vote in Congressmen who feel the same way. But that hasn't happened has it? Maybe because the vast majority of us think freedom is worth the risk.

funkedup · « **Reply #171 on:** May 02, 2003, 11:22:59 AM »

NRA as point of the right wing lobby LMAO!!!!
You've got it bass ackwards my friend. NRA is not a lobby. NRA are law abiding firearms owners and users who pool their resources to protect America's First Freedom. We simply used the GOP as a tool to fight the Clintonistas' onslaught of quasi-legal attempts to circumvent the 2nd Amendment.
Now if we can just get Ashcroft to read the REST of the Constitution.

Imp · « **Reply #172 on:** May 02, 2003, 11:24:29 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by funkedup
Beetle like I said, freedom has risks. I'm more than willing to tolerate an 0.00004 chance of dying by gunfire each year. Death is inevitable anyways. And there are many ways to go, which are more likely than gunfire. If I get shot, my dying words won't be "Damn 2nd ammendment!" If I get run over by a car, my dying words won't be "Damn internal combustion!" If I have a heart attack my dying words won't be "Damn corn dogs!"

If other Americans don't feel the same, they can move to Canada or England. Because our God-given right to defend our selves and homes is guaranteed by the Constitution, and it's not going to change anytime soon.

I live in Canada.

I always thought I had the right to defend myself.

Because we do. We can own firearms. Gun registration does not prevent you from defending yourself or your family.

You can own rifles, shotguns and hanguns without much trouble.

It does prevent you from owning military weapons, which are of no use to civilians anyway.

midnight Target · « **Reply #173 on:** May 02, 2003, 11:26:08 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by funkedup
NRA as point of the right wing lobby LMAO!!!!
You've got it bass ackwards my friend. NRA is not a lobby. NRA are law abiding firearms owners and users who pool their resources to protect America's First Freedom. We simply used the GOP as a tool to fight the Clintonistas' onslaught of quasi-legal attempts to circumvent the 2nd Amendment.
Now if we can just get Ashcroft to read the REST of the Constitution.

Wake up little buddy.... you were dreaming again.

funkedup · « **Reply #174 on:** May 02, 2003, 11:28:19 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Imp
I live in Canada.

I always thought I had the right to defend myself.

Because we do. We can own firearms. Gun registration does not prevent you from defending yourself or your family.

You can own rifles, shotguns and hanguns without much trouble.

It does prevent you from owning military weapons, which are of no use to civilians anyway.

I never disputed any of those facts. The "move to Canada" statement was in reference to the much-trumpeted-in-this-thread statistics that Canada offers relative safety from death by gunfire.

funkedup · « **Reply #175 on:** May 02, 2003, 11:29:22 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by midnight Target

Wake up little buddy.... you were dreaming again.

Feel free to refute any of the facts I stated.

*sound of leaves rustling*

lazs2 · « **Reply #176 on:** May 02, 2003, 11:30:42 AM »

so imp.... who would define what guns are and aren't "much use to civilians"? Wouldn't an M16 or ar15 be very useful in a riot?
lazs

funkedup · « **Reply #177 on:** May 02, 2003, 11:39:25 AM »

Lazs are you trying to say that what's not useful to one person might be useful to another? Standards that apply in one situation might not apply in another? So maybe people who live in lily-white largely rural countries have no business telling people who live in "diverse" urban areas what kind of weapons they can or can not have?

midnight Target · « **Reply #178 on:** May 02, 2003, 11:58:16 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by funkedup
Feel free to refute any of the facts I stated.

*sound of leaves rustling*

Quote

"I see an NRA with wealth and political strength and vigor, led by [the] ILA, an NRA . . . so strong and so dedicated that no politician in America, mindful of his political career, would want to challenge our legitimate goals."
- Ronald Reagan

The ILA btw is the Institute for Legislative Action, a part of the NRA.

funkedup · « **Reply #179 on:** May 02, 2003, 12:01:03 PM »

If you are to refute you need to at least disagree with what I have stated.

ILA and NRA Foundation are not partisan. They will support a pro-gun Democrat over an anti-gun Republican any day.
Now obviously both of those species are few. But they are not invisible. When the ILA sent me my "who to vote for" sheet before the last general election, there were some Democrats on it.