Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Hooligan on April 28, 2003, 11:18:05 AM
-
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,85359,00.html
Hooligan
-
interesting to see if this works.
-
It may work if the Oscar people give a damn about the integrity of their 'best documentary' award.
There was a book published a few years ago which claimed to be a thorough analsis of US gun ownership over the years. It concluded that guns were not widely owned by US citizens until after the civil war, when surplus guns became cheap. The author was awarded the Pulitzer prize. Later the prize was revoked when it was found that much of his supporting documentation did not exist.
ra
-
Get the guy who runs the Baseball hall of fame to run the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences and it will be done in 10 seconds.
Lots of other Oscars would be revoked as well Im sure.
-
Lots of other Oscars would be revoked as well Im sure.
So you think 'Bowling for Columbine' meets the definition of a documentary?
-
I would be willing to bet that there are many Oscar winning documentaries that had questionable cuts and mislabeled quotes. Why "the Living Desert" by Disney was chock full of created scenes.
The NRA is just a much stronger lobby than the FBBL (Friends of the Blue Belly Lizard).
-
lol
-
Originally posted by Pongo
lol
Devastating reply.
-
Thanks Hooligan, great website.
BTW MT I don't see any lobby involved here. Except maybe in getting the link posted on Fox News. :)
-
ROFL! Never in the field of cinematography has so short a film made so many people upset for so long about so little.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
ROFL! Never in the field of cinematography has so short a film made so many people upset for so long about so little.
T'aint the film, it's the 'Best Documentary' Oscar which sanctifies it that's bothering people.
-
Originally posted by ra
T'aint the film, it's the 'Best Documentary' Oscar which sanctifies it that's bothering people.
I don't believe that. Why would gun fanatics give two hoots about the internal workings of the Academy Awards? That would be like drivers of Subaru WRX trying to disenfranchise Car and Driver as a magazine publisher because they published a test in which the WRX was beaten by the VW Golf R32.
-
We are dealing with hollywood afterall.
I have definitely noticed a few things. Apqrt from never watching Martin Sheen to begin with, my love of both Tim Robbins and Suzan Sarandons work has been severely jeapordized. I wanted so bad to enjoy the latest Sci-Fi "Children of Dune" but found myself constantly drawn away from the fiction by the presence of Sarandon. As well, the Shawshank redemption, one of my all time favs, has lost its appeal to me.
Its all about politics.
-
I don't believe that. Why would gun fanatics give two hoots about the internal workings of the Academy Awards? That would be like drivers of Subaru WRX trying to disenfranchise Car and Driver as a magazine publisher because they published a test in which the WRX was beaten by the VW Golf R32.
Because the Oscar folks are taking a blatant piece of political propaganda and declaring it not only a documentary, but 'best documentary'. Gun fanatics don't care about the Academy Awards except when it attacks the 2nd Amendment. There is no constitutional amendment regarding the right to own high performance cars.
ra
-
"attacks the second amendment" ??? :confused:
Please explain the nature of the attack. Sounds to me like the gun lobby is trying to attack the right to free speech. Or maybe it fancies itself as a self appointed body of film censors.
I saw a sign in an Indian restaurant once. It said "We have an agreement with our Bank. They don't sell food, and we don't cash cheques."
I suggest we let the Oscar awards be decided by those in the business of cinematography, and gun ownership rights to be championed by the NRA.
-
Please explain the nature of the attack. Sounds to me like the gun lobby is trying to attack the right to free speech. Or maybe it fancies itself as a self appointed body of film censors.
The nature of the attack is to present an anti-gun propaganda piece as a documentary. The idea is to convince those people who are politically on the fence regarding gun laws that we need tighter gun laws. The anti-gun people pull this kind of crap all the tiime.
As far as anyone attacking free speech, you have earned a gigantic :rolleyes:
ra
-
I think its best to ban the movie, its obviosly dangerous propoganda. And ban the showing of the movie too..just to be sure. If there was ever a book..we will have to burn them.
Ra could you please start orginizing your like minded friends of liberty and march in the streets a little to get things rolling?
I havent even seen it. But what is a good disinformation campaign without making sure to try to narrowly define what is acceptable in your culture.
-
Pongo,
This is one case where what is acceptable in my culture is the same thing that is acceptable in your culture.
-Moore freely makes an anti-gun film disguised as a documentary, and makes lots of money
-the Oscar folks freely decide to also pretend it is a documentary, and award it 'best documentary'
-other folks are angered at political propaganda being promoted as non-fiction, and freely try to pressure the Oscar folks to recind the award
-the Oscar folks are free to ignore this pressure
Everyone is still in possession of their rights, Moore, the Academy, gun owners. No one is banning anything. The argument is over the definition of what will from now on be called a documentary. If the Academy has its way, any kind of propaganda can pass as non-fiction, regardless of what liberties the filmmaker takes with the facts, so long as they are sympathetic with the filmmaker's politics.
ra
-
This is funny and tardriffic. The Academy is a farse and it always was. If you're gonna start tearing them apart, you might as well not stop at the documentary category - which were it not for Moore, hardly anyone would pay attention to it. I can't wait to see this movie...I hope it offends me enough to go crazy-stupid too!
SOB
-
Ra
"If the Academy has its way, any kind of propaganda can pass as non-fiction, regardless of what liberties the filmmaker takes with the facts, so long as they are sympathetic with the filmmaker's politics.
"
thats why I laughed.
your so brainwashed.
-
This thread is so ludicrous I'm not even going to reply.:rolleyes:
-
Isnt it too late for April's Fools?
-
ra - I don't see a problem. The NRA can produce its own film to counter that of Michael Moore. Indeed, I look forward to seeing that film.
Seems to me that America champions the right to freedom of speech/freedom of thought - but only if you happen to be in agreement with the "majority", by which I mean the most vociferous group to have an opinion on the issue. Look at poor Blitz - has people bearing down on him because of his stance on the war... but not me. I was in support of the war, but felt no need to ostracise Blitz. Hell, I have even had a beer with Blitz. The thing is that I have learned to tolerate the point of view of another, without feeling the need to ostracise or silence that person. Some Americans here have yet to learn how to do this.
Keep your guns, but please allow others to hold an opinion on the rights and wrongs of the American policy of guns proliferation and the 2nd amendment.
-
I think some of the hostility here is misplaced. I mean, getting upset that Moore edited in Charlton Heston speech which turned out to be not the same speech/place/day that Moore would have us believe?
That bit of fudging was merely a sympathetic and protective gesture to Heston. On the actual day in question, Heston was seen out in the middle of a Beverly Hills intersection directing traffic in his pyjamas.
-
Beet please show how anyone's freedom of speech is being compromised here? Freedom of speech applies to those who express political views, and it also applies to those who point out that they are full of ****. :)
Freedom of speech applies to those who create dishonest "documentaries" and it also applies to those who seek to discredit such dishonest work.
You seem to be arguing that free speech should be allowed only for those voicing minority opinions.
-
Any film that draws a connection with banks giving away $1,500 Weatherby Rifles to any customer who deposits $15,000 in a new account and the Columbine tragedy deserves to be called a documentary.
Any punk kid with an axe to grind can just waltz into those banks, plunk down several grand, walk out with a deadly weapon, and start massacring his fellow students. I see the connection between the two events.
Don't you?
Let the man keep his oscar. Just alter the thing so its' head is sticking up its...
Regards, Shuckins
-
Keep your guns, but please allow others to hold an opinion on the rights and wrongs of the American policy of guns proliferation and the 2nd amendment.
Well, Ok.
-
Originally posted by funkedup
Beet please show how anyone's freedom of speech is being compromised here? Freedom of speech applies to those who express political views, and it also applies to those who point out that they are full of ****. :)
Freedom of speech applies to those who create dishonest "documentaries" and it also applies to those who seek to discredit such dishonest work.
You seem to be arguing that free speech should be allowed only for those voicing minority opinions.
Well what I meant was Moore's freedom of speech - his right to make a doc... er, movie. BTW who the hell cares if it was a documentary or a movie? Well quite a few people, it would seem, but why??? :confused:
I'm just saying that Moore is entitled to make his own cinematographic production (for want of a more generic description) and for the folks running the Oscars to make the awards as they see fit.
Many years ago, the Eurovision song contest was won by a crappy Israeli entry. The British offering, a marginally less crappy record called Save all your kisses for me, by Brotherhood of Man, came last. Did I campaign to have the awards decision reversed? No. I quickly arrived at the opinion that the Eurovision song contest was a load of crap (not a huge leap to make) and never paid any attention to it again.
Instead of getting upset about the Oscars, the gun lobby should just ignore what happened, make their own movie, whatever.
I keep hearing that Moore's movie/documentary was "dishonest", and I think that's bullshit. How can a collection of interviews be "dishonest"? Oh wait, he got the KKK foundation date wrong by 5 years...:rolleyes:
But for the gun lobby to want to interfere with the machinations at the Academy Awards ceremony, oh puhleeeeze!!! Geez, guys, get a freakin' grip. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Toodle-Pip.
PS Yeager, nice location, but the correct spelling is "demarcation". :p
-
I keep hearing that Moore's movie/documentary was "dishonest", and I think that's bull****. How can a collection of interviews be "dishonest"? Oh wait, he got the KKK foundation date wrong by 5 years...
Read the second link on that website: http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html
Moore clearly did some things that cross the line from documentary to fiction.
Well what I meant was Moore's freedom of speech - his right to make a doc... er, movie. BTW who the hell cares if it was a documentary or a movie? Well quite a few people, it would seem, but why???
I'm just saying that Moore is entitled to make his own cinematographic production (for want of a more generic description) and for the folks running the Oscars to make the awards as they see fit.
Nobody is questioning or impeding his right to make movies. All they are doing is pointing out to the Academy that according to the Academy's own rules, the content of Moore's film was not appropriate for the category in which it won an award. To turn it into a free speech issue is ludicrous.
-
Oh poor, well meaning Blitz. He just wanted peace and harmony and the big bad war bullies were mean to him. Yep, never had an unkind word to say about anyone, but them bullies - err, us bullies picked on him anyhow. I, for one, am ashamed of myself.
SOB
-
Originally posted by funkedup
Nobody is questioning or impeding his right to make movies. All they are doing is pointing out to the Academy that according to the Academy's own rules, the content of Moore's film was not appropriate for the category in which it won an award.
I read the web page. You are wrong. They are not just "pointing out to the Academy that according to the Academy's own rules, the content of Moore's film was not appropriate for the category in which it won an award." They want to revoke the award. The site refers to this link: http://www.revoketheoscar.com/
I don't see the gun lobby getting involved in the analysis of the rights and wrongs of any other award, so why should they try to have Moore's Oscar revoked?
Storm in a tea cup, guys. Get over it. At the end of the day... who cares? I think the whole debacle is hilarious in the extreme! :D:D
-
Umm... beet1e... you need to stop acting like such a love muffin just because it suits you so well.
I don't believe anyone is calling for a ban on the movie. Nor is he even being sued for liable. Its a matter of wether the film was based on truth or not. Its as simple as that.
The data being presented by the web page and its links has not been adressed by you nor anyone else on the other side of the fence because you seem to acknowledge that portions of the movie were made up, based on lies or were simply wrong. Really... I've not seen a single thing from any of you refuting that.
Nor have I seen a single thing saying that Michael Moore should be put in jail for making the film, should have to give all the money he made off of the film back, or that the film should be pulled off of the shelves.
Someone is questioning its validity as a documentary. That is all. No "freedom of speech" issues for you to deal with here... just a hornets nest for you and your love muffin attitude to stir up.
MiniD
-
Ok the problem with saying a movie is fact when it is really fiction, too many people believe what the see on the boob tube and follow others opinions (herd mentality).
1. Did Moore have the right to make the movie?
Absolutely
2. Was is a documentary?
here is the definition
A work, such as a film or television program, presenting political, social, or historical subject matter in a factual and informative manner and often consisting of actual news films or interviews accompanied by narration.
Moore's film follows all the guidlines except for being factual in some instances.
3. Do people have the right to ask for the revoking of the Oscar?
Yup
4. Why should we care?
For the simpleton's in this country, ie. people who believe in the Edwards psychic guy for instance, will believe anything they see on TV, if the Academy Awards says Bowling is fact people will believe it is fact.
What if a "documentary" came out and said Hitler was justified in killing 6 million Jews?
Do any of you have any doubt that a fairly large number of people would bellieve it?
-
Its time to face the music!
I say we all protest the Patsy Awards given to that lying sack-o-crap - Lassie!
Lassie my eye! Laddy in drag is what HE was! It was all a farce I tell ya!
Sign up here at http://www.revokelassiespatsy.com
-
Hehe, MiniD is calling me a love muffin and all is well in the world. :) At least it shows he's still reading my posts. I am touched. ;)
SOB - if you cannot download it from Kazaa as I did, I'd be glad to send you the movie on a CD via airmail. Might be quicker than trying to download it - lol.
Narsus, your list is incomplete. In addition to 3, there should be a question asking "should the academy feel obliged to rescind its decision to award Moore his Oscar, given the pressure coming from certain groups of people?". And the answer should be "Nope".
As for point 4, ROFL. You want TV to be sanitised in such a way that everything shown is a true reflection of real life? If you did that to American TV there'd be nothing left! I personally blame TV for the false expectations many people have of their daily lives. They see homicide detectives solving cases in 50 minutes. They see soap operas in which every man is handsome and every woman is stunning, and think that's the way the world really is - except where they are. They might see war films in which good triumphs over evil in all of 3 hours - and then wonder why coalition forces in Iraq, whose land area is greater than California, cannot find WMD in two short weeks. Yes, the simpletons are swayed by TV, but not just by Moore's movie. For you to single that out indicates bias, and you clearly have an axe to grind. Because if you're serious about sanitising TV for the sake of the simpletons of the world, you'll need to do more than revoke Moore's Oscar.
Speaking of bias, I still think the gun lobby has got its head up its arse on this one. Just look at that website. It analyses the figures presented by Moore compared with figures from their own sources, and uses the discrepancies in an attempt to discredit Moore and his movie. Look at the comment for Australia - an entire paragraph given to debating a discrepancy of 1. Was it 65? Or was it only 64? :confused: Maybe it was 66! :rolleyes: I'll reproduce the page here as best I can, and continue my post after it.
(http://www.alanadsl.legend.yorks.com/comparison.jpg)
And yet I can produce figures showing a 25 year period in which there were more than 300,000 gun related homicides in the US! Think about that for a moment. That's the equivalent of the entire city where I was born being wiped out by gun crime in 25 years! :eek:
And what does the NRA/gun lobby have to say about this? - Big fat NOTHING. And what do the gun lobbyists on this BBS have to say about this? Not much. I have seen the gun crime death tally of America dismissed as a "pittance", and "a price worth paying to maintain freedom and the right to bear arms". Or "most of those homicides were of blacks by other blacks". (Great - does that mean it doesn't matter?) Or "many of those gun homicides were committed by criminals against other criminals". Oh well that's all right then - except if you get caught in the crossfire, as happened to some unfortunate teenage girls attending a party at a hair salon in England not long ago.
So there you have it. 300,000 gun homicides in a 25 year period are dismissed as a "pittance", and yet here in the anti-Moore website we see people arguing over a double digit stat, a discrepancy of ONE, and the supposed wrongul ownership of a freaking 12 inch statuette. There isn't a rolleyes icon big enough to express my feeling about that.
Get a sense of proportion already!
-
My god beet1e... was the only real fault you could find with it that you feel they over reacted to a discrepancy?
Do you have any idea how ironic that is?
MiniD
-
Originally posted by Mini D
was the only real fault you could find with it that you feel they over reacted to a discrepancy?
No, I could have gone and on, but I like to keep my posts as brief as possible. ;):D
-
No.. you couldn't have gone on. That pretty much defines you beet1e. You are incapable of supporting the bs you spew, and thus are aptly labeled a love muffin.
MiniD
-
No bullshit, MiniD. I have all the docs that were used in other threads - all derived from government data. What have you got, apart from a stiff wrist?
-
LOL! ya.. sure you do beet1e. sure you do.
That's why you have to go to the "freedom of speech" card so often. Even when it doesn't apply.
You can very easily prove me wrong beet1e, instead you choose to prove me right. The ball's in your court.. so put up or shut up... or continue being a love muffin.
MiniD
-
BTW beet1e... we have a saying (as does the rest of the world): "Based on a true story". Basically, don't concern yourself with finding where the movie was accurate, that's not really what's being adressed by the web site linked in this thread. Find the data that proves those highlighting inaccuracies wrong.
"They over reacted" is not showing them wrong. Technically, the movie itself can be defined as an over reaction depending on who is looking at it. All you've really done is call someone that found a discrepancy with an over reaction "over reacting".
Damn.. you are truly a peice of work.
MiniD
-
And yet I can produce figures showing a 25 year period in which there were more than 300,000 gun related homicides in the US! Think about that for a moment. That's the equivalent of the entire city where I was born being wiped out by gun crime in 25 years!
And what does the NRA/gun lobby have to say about this? - Big fat NOTHING. And what do the gun lobbyists on this BBS have to say about this? Not much. I have seen the gun crime death tally of America dismissed as a "pittance", and "a price worth paying to maintain freedom and the right to bear arms". Or "most of those homicides were of blacks by other blacks". (Great - does that mean it doesn't matter?) Or "many of those gun homicides were committed by criminals against other criminals". Oh well that's all right then - except if you get caught in the crossfire, as happened to some unfortunate teenage girls attending a party at a hair salon in England not long ago.
So there you have it. 300,000 gun homicides in a 25 year period are dismissed as a "pittance", and yet here in the anti-Moore website we see people arguing over a double digit stat, a discrepancy of ONE, and the supposed wrongul ownership of a freaking 12 inch statuette. There isn't a rolleyes icon big enough to express my feeling about that.
Get a sense of proportion already!
Translation: It's OK to lie if it's for a good cause.
-
hes a fukn dirtbag.. i would virtually stab along with the completly idiotic-morons like Blitz-weazel and i guess beetle also..you guys support some true poor excuse for a human flesh bags..Soddom-Chirac-Moore-Streisand-Fonda-and a bunch mor morons...
fuk spelling ..and burn uin hellL:)
my hand id brokn so i reaaly hate u noiw:D
Love BiGB
o yaa i signed it
LONG LIVE the NRA..the 2nd Amen is what protects the First
-
Originally posted by beet1e
Seems to me that America champions the right to freedom of speech/freedom of thought - but only if you happen to be in agreement with the "majority", by which I mean the most vociferous group to have an opinion on the issue.
Fortunately the NRA doesn't speak for the majority of the Americans but unfortunately they are amongst the loudest whiners in the States and sometimes people think they do speak for the American people. NRA and the gun lobby think if they scream the loudest they speak for the majority.
Ack-Ack
-
Originally posted by Mini D
BTW beet1e... we have a saying (as does the rest of the world): "Based on a true story". Basically, don't concern yourself with finding where the movie was accurate, that's not really what's being adressed by the web site linked in this thread. Find the data that proves those highlighting inaccuracies wrong.
"They over reacted" is not showing them wrong. Technically, the movie itself can be defined as an over reaction depending on who is looking at it. All you've really done is call someone that found a discrepancy with an over reaction "over reacting".
Damn.. you are truly a peice of work.
MiniD
Mini, I don't know what the hell you're talking about. FWIW, I didn't take the movie that seriously myself. After all those threads with Lazs and Toad, I'd done one hell of a lot of stats research, and I noticed right away that Moore's figures did not quite tally with the ones I'd found. Eg 11,127 gun homicides, but what the hey - some years the tally was 13,000+. Here in the relatively gun free Royal Free State of Limeyland, we never have had more than 100 gun homicides in a year - actual figure closer to 60. So who cares if America's total was 7000, 9000, 13000, ...or 11,127. No-one. We get the message. Only the pro-gun-discredit-Moore-at-all-costs-hair-splitting-turn-it-around-self-appointed-academy-awards-board-of-adjudication-wannabe-oh-my-god-300000-gun-homicides-in-25-years-what-the-hell-can-we-say-about-that-guess-i'll-just-sit-on-my-cold-dead-hands gun nuts need to scrutinise Moore's movie to such an extent to have various websites dedicated to just that.
Speaking for myself, I was content to watch it, and observe a few new angles on an old debate. It is YOU who are getting bent out of shape, entering into the machinations of the Academy, its rules, its definitions.
Put your money where your mouth is, MiniD. Go and contribute a few $ to the making of that forthcoming pro-NRA film that Hardy wants to make. I'll watch that too. And I couldn't give a stuff whether it wins an academy award or not.
You can piss off now.
And when you've done that, piss off again. :D
-
Moore getting an Oscar for a "documentary" makes as much sense as Nicole Kidman getting Best ACTOR.
It just doesn't compute.
-
I didn't even watch the film because to me it is just a cheap use of "Columbine" to get people to watch his film. Another person exploiting tragedy for personal gain....
-
Originally posted by BGBMAW
hes a fukn dirtbag.. i would virtually stab along with the completly idiotic-morons like Blitz-weazel and i guess beetle also..you guys support some true poor excuse for a human flesh bags..Soddom-Chirac-Moore-Streisand-Fonda-and a bunch mor morons...
fuk spelling ..and burn uin hellL:)
my hand id brokn so i reaaly hate u noiw:D
Love BiGB
o yaa i signed it
LONG LIVE the NRA..the 2nd Amen is what protects the First
I think you need to take another handful of anti-sociopathic tablets
-
And it was actually not a bad movie. It used documentary footage (i.e real people, not actors, real places not studios) but it was certainly a polemic.
Did it get an oscar? Nice one!!
-
Originally posted by Toad
Moore getting an Oscar for a "documentary" makes as much sense as Nicole Kidman getting Best ACTOR.
It just doesn't compute.
Agreed! But who cares? I know I don't.
-
If you don't care then why are you spending so much time arguing about it?
-
Ah beet1e... my how your story changes over the course of having your love muffinedness highlighted.
I see you've dropped the whole "freedom of speech" aspect of things. I also see you are beginning to concede that moore's movie was indeed in part fiction. Nice to see you coming around.
Now... if you could just do it without making yourself look like even more of an bellybutton you'd be making real progress. Instead, you chose to try to take the thread in a direction where you do have some numbers to back up your arguments... instead of adressing the initial point of the thread.
Oh well... love muffin is as love muffin does.
MiniD
-
Originally posted by beet1e
Agreed! But who cares? I know I don't.
Um... did you miss the title of this thread beet1e?
-
It was a well made film. Thats why it won the Oscar.
Go check out Olympia, Leni Riefenstahl's documentary about the 1936 Olympic games in Nazi Germany. It is beautifully filmed, incredible footage, great editing,,, and chock full of propaganda! Is it worthy of the Oscar? Heck yes! Is it factual? Well....mostly.
The real issue with Moore is that he attacked guns. How dare he!
-
Originally posted by Mini D
I see you've dropped the whole "freedom of speech" aspect of things.
Well there's no need to labour a point. I said it once. And that's enough for most people, except those who don't listen.
Midnight Target - Well said - of course that's the real reason.
MiniD - I repeat, I don't give a stuff whether BFC wins an Oscar, or bombs at the box office. But what I do find to be a major source of irritation is those NRA crybabies throwing all their toys out of the pram and pissing their nappies in protest at the way Academy Awards folks run their own show. Butt out already!!! MiniD, you're just like one of those LA7 whiners who has had his butt kicked and cannot accept a death.
Got a beef with BFC? Make your own movie. Include as many lies and as much deceit as you like.
Anyway, why am I talking to you? I thought I told you to piss off. Oh well, if you won't, I'll have to. Getting late...
Toodle-Pip
_____________________________ __________________
"From my cold dead hands" - visualises Mini D brandishing a gas pump nozzle. Let 'em have it with the unleaded, Mini.
-
LOL beet1e... keep trying to spin your reaction into a positive light.
You, yourself, butted into this thread. No invitation necessary. You, yourself, started spewing your standard anti-gun its-all-a-conspiracy anti-freedom-of-speech rhetoric. Damn... delved deep into your repoitior for this one.
Then you try to come of like it didn't really matter, when in fact, you simply couldn't prove a point.
Its hard to argue in a thread titled "Help revoke Bowling for Columbine's Oscar" that you don't really care about the oscar. Just as it is hard to try to discredit the website they are linking to by use of opinion while attempting to counter their facts. You accuse a website entitled "revoketheoscar.com" as having an agenda. My god dude.. do you even read the crap you spew?
You've made such a coninuous bellybutton of yourself that I am somewhat suprised you keep going on. I guess pointing it out again and again is somewhat useless.
My money says you reply again... only to say you really weren't an idiot previously, while at the same time demonstrating that I have understated it.
MiniD
-
Originally posted by Mini D
ew?
You've made such a coninuous bellybutton of yourself that I am somewhat suprised you keep going on. I guess pointing it out again and again is somewhat useless.
MiniD
Perhaps, MiniD, there are as many people as sick to death of your ongoing pontification and superiority complex as there are at Beetle.
Why can't you just stick to the argument instead of calling people names? You seem to have the mental agility to engage in debate, but your posting content serves only to make others feel embarassed for you!
-
Ah.. I'm sorry I hurt your feelings in the "let's find new ways to kill poeple" thread. I'm sure you'll get over it.
MiniD
-
Originally posted by Mini D
Ah.. I'm sorry I hurt your feelings in the "let's find new ways to kill poeple" thread. I'm sure you'll get over it.
MiniD
ROFLMAO! You are so condescending and superior, if you think you got anything close to what it takes to hurt my feelings, bring it!
:eek:
Only quit calling people names. It ain't dignified!
-
Then again... maybe not.
Oh well.
MiniD
-
Originally posted by ra
The nature of the attack is to present an anti-gun propaganda piece as a documentary. The idea is to convince those people who are politically on the fence regarding gun laws that we need tighter gun laws. The anti-gun people pull this kind of crap all the tiime.
As far as anyone attacking free speech, you have earned a gigantic :rolleyes:
ra
You're right. The NRA doesn't oppose free speech, it opposes the use of fabricated "facts" in the exercise of free speech.
Ya see the difference Beet1e?
My regards,
Widewing
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
It was a well made film. Thats why it won the Oscar.
Go check out Olympia, Leni Riefenstahl's documentary about the 1936 Olympic games in Nazi Germany. It is beautifully filmed, incredible footage, great editing,,, and chock full of propaganda! Is it worthy of the Oscar? Heck yes! Is it factual? Well....mostly.
The real issue with Moore is that he attacked guns. How dare he!
And of course his acceptance speech just added more ammo!
I liked Bowling, I thought it was a worthy winner, even so this push (if you could call it that) to revoke his oscar is world championship class tard'ness.
Tronsky
-
Originally posted by Mini D
You've made such a coninuous bellybutton of yourself that I am somewhat suprised you keep going on. I guess pointing it out again and again is somewhat useless.
My money says you reply again... only to say you really weren't an idiot previously, while at the same time demonstrating that I have understated it.
MiniD
Well it would be rude not to reply. :D But I don't think there's much left to say. Hard to reply to a guy who's run out of things to say, and can do nothing more than reiterate the same personal insult, over and over and over again. But that's OK, MiniD. I've got your measure. You can call me a love muffin as much as you like. It won't make me go away. But let's not get off topic.
This thread is about wanting to revoke Moore's Oscar - something about the true definition of a documentary. The Gun Lobby doesn't really care about that. That's just a smokescreen. What the GL really wants is to flex muscle and exert some form of triumphalism over Moore for having portrayed as evil an issue close to so many hearts in the GL. Forget about sanitising TV for the simpletons - that's another smokescreen, but nice try. I have been told that there are historical and other inaccuracies in Pearl Harbor. Do we hear the GL mounting a campaign to set the record straight on that? We do not.
_________________________
The NRA/Gun Lobby is in no way threatened by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, it's just plain redikulolous. :D
-
IIRC, Pearl Harbor did not compete as a documentary. If it had, I'm sure the same sort of thing would have been heard, particularly from PH vets.
As for BFC being a "good movie"..... puhlease. Filming wasn't even good "cinema verite" and thematically it just hopped around like a deranged rabbit as Moore set out to prove one thing and then wandered in and out of blind alleys never really proving anything.
If that's the best "documentary" of the year it says pretty sad things about the state of documentaries.
-
Originally posted by Toad
IIRC, Pearl Harbor did not compete as a documentary.
No, but that was not my point. My point was that (I am told) it contains many historical inaccuracies which would mislead its audience...
... but I hear no calls for this to be rectified.
-
PUh-leez Beet1e, you're more intelligent than that.
The basis of this thread is that BFC shouldn't get an Oscar as a documentary because it is in no way a documentary.
No one said Hollywood dramas are historically accurate; nor does anyone with an ounce of common sense expect them to be. But a documentary, by the very nature of the genre, is supposed to be accurate. It's supposed to "document" the facts.
Further, if you seach this very BBS you'll find folks slapping PH around for it's historical inaccuracies back when it came out. But that has NOTHING to do with an Oscar for an entertainment-genre film.
I'm not sure PH got an Oscar; I'll admit I don't track the doings of the Hollyrock Glitterati like I probably should.
Anyway, your injection of "hey PH was a smarmy attempt at turning war into a chick-flick and it was historically inaccurate!" is merely a red herring.
Worse, you know it and keep trolling the stinky old red herring bait.
Shame on ya!
-
Although i did not see this film, one thing is very clear. Beetle is just awful at argument. Not in the sense of being persistant to jump in a debate mind you, but just failing miserably at making a point during one. It's uncanny how he misses to get a edge at almost every chance so completely. And I do think he's a nice guy... but damn. Perhaps this is the 'wrong forum for the right guy' type of thing.
-
Well hes over matched by toad for sure. I still think this thread is funny just from the stand point of gun rights supporters complaining about moore twisting facts.
-
some of you lefties are missing the point...
Any opportunity to discredit the lef, moore and the hollywood should not be passed up. When the opportunity is so blatantly obvious then it behooves us to really rub their face into it and embarass them.
Maybe the next lefty who feels that the truth is not as important as the message will think it over a little moore? Maybe the next time a left wing group gets all wet and gushy over such drivel and tries to elevate it... they will think again..
this is nothing new... belles..bellis... belis somebody had multiple awards revolked over his highly acclaimed and patently false book "the arming of america"... the lefty book crowd, critics and awards people, heaped praise on this "research" and then had to eat it when, like moores work, it was found that the work of fact was.... fiction.
if moore wan't to write movies and satires... fine... if they award him film awards.... fine... if he claims to make a work of fact and then produces this drivel.... ignore him... or... give him awards at your peril.
lazs
-
think of it this way... I have no problem with "pearl harbor" getting best special effects award but would be pissed if it got "best documentary". moors "documentary" is about as much of a documentary as pearl was.
moore is a lying idiot... hollywood is full of lying idiots... embarassing either is good for everyone.
lazs
-
Moore is a member of the NRA.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Moore is a member of the NRA.
Proof please.
If he is, he's a spy!
-
From here http://www.ericdsnider.com/view.php?mrkey=1591
Moore's politics do come through, but they're balanced. He grew up in hunting-happy Michigan and is a member of the NRA, but doesn't seem opposed to the idea of reasonable gun control. Mostly, he is perplexed: Canada has 7 million guns in 10 million homes -- a very high per-capita rate of gun ownership -- yet only a couple hundred gun-related deaths per year. In the United States, there are 11,000 gun deaths every year. What is so different about America that makes us kill each other?
-
and here
http://www.skymovies.com/skymovies/article/0,,12078076,00.html
Famed documentary-maker, American left-winger, marksman and lifelong NRA member Michael Moore returns with his first feature film in five years - and it's a winner.
-
Originally posted by Pongo
Well hes over matched by toad for sure. I still think this thread is funny just from the stand point of gun rights supporters complaining about moore twisting facts.
Not twisting them... creating them. Pretty major difference.
And I think its funny that while arguing moore's film was "just well made and deserved an Oscar for that", people continue to use to slap gun rights supporters across the face with it.
Hell, some people can even read an entire thread about the inaccuracies of the movie, then start a post about how great it was without even seeing it first, just because they know it will get people riled up.
Its odd. People have said a website with a very clear goal has an "agenda". People have said the NRA has an agenda. I just don't get it. I simply cannot remember the NRA showing up with a gun at my door and asking me if I could hold onto it for them.
Then movies get made with fictitious "facts" and faulty assumptions based on timelines with events that either did not occur when said, or did not contain the statements being quoted, or only had parts of speaches quoted. Then people who criticize it get accused of having an agenda? I wonder how people continually fail to realise just exactly who has an agenda right now. You don't need an agenda to keep the constitution the way it is.
MiniD
-
god bless michael moore.
great movie.
was a shame seeing heston disgraced retreating from civil conversation. i wonder how much he got paid to torture thos folks.
p.s. im a gun lover and nra cirtified range instructor but wont join the nra specificaly for stunts like that. moors right depoliticise the nra. loose moses.
-
depoliticise the nra
depoliticise Oscar.
-
OK, OK... I've turned off my troll light. And I only had it half on before. ;) I agree partly with Creamo - I'm not really making a good point, but that's because I don't know what I'm arguing against. By which I mean that I'm puzzled as to why people want to rescind Moore's Oscar. I believe the reason to be one of the following, or a combination of one or Moore of these factors, but I don't know for sure which one, or the proportional breakdown should more than one reason apply: [list=1]
- A movie was released as a documentary, but some people are angry because they feel it was not really a documentary.
- A movie which was released as a documentary has won an award which many believe it did not deserve and who are angry about the lead figure having been awarded an Oscar.
- The content of the movie deals with a subject close to the hearts of many Americans, and quotes statistics about which many every day folk are unaware, the main one being the 11,127 gun homicides. (Like many of the movie's critics, I could find no year in which 11,127 was the actual figure. Sometimes more, sometimes less)
- Moore is seen as an NRA infiltrator who his using his knowledge of that organisation to garner support against it, and to champion the cause for more gun control.
- The NRA/gun lobby is upset that guns and even gun lobbyists have been portrayed in such a bad light, and now seek to discredit Moore in any way they can. Were they to actually succeed in getting Moore's Oscar rescinded (unlikely) they will have something tangible that they can hold up in front of the American public and say that "it was all lies! Guns are great after all!"
Assuming that the movie was reclassified in another category, it would still exist. Even if Moore's Oscar award was rescinded, the movie would still be available for all to see.
I am reminded of a situation that arose back in the 1980s. Former MI5 agent Peter Wright had written an inside account of his service, released in a book called "Spycatcher". The then Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, had it banned! So what happened? An otherwise nondescript book became an overnight bestseller. I bought my copy in Chicago, and brought it back. Boring as hell, I only got about one third into it. My point is (Creamo pay attention now!) that the book became a best seller because of all the publicity, and not because it was an interesting book - it wasn't.
I see the same thing happening with BFC. The furore created by the NRA and other gunlobbyists and "rescind the oscar" campaigners has given this movie/documentary/cinematographic work a springboard to fame. I might never otherwise have heard of it. Bet you wish I hadn't! I downloaded it from Kazaa. Ban Kazaa!!
Midnight Target - have you seen BFC? You mention Moore's NRA membership, and indeed he does mention it himself when introducing himself to Heston. Heston gives a nod of approval. :) I wondered if you had seen that part.
The NRA/Gun Lobby is in no way threatened by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, it's just plain redikulolous. :D
-
Assuming that the movie was reclassified in another category, it would still exist. Even if Moore's Oscar award was rescinded, the movie would still be available for all to see.
Wow.. way to go... now you are starting to come around. What was that you were saying about freedom of speech earlier?
Oh yea... and your complete and total failure to realize that an accadamy award for best "documentary" does lend a film more legitimacy than is deserved is duly noted.
Other than that, the rest of your point is "why even bother"... after some 20 posts from you in this thread.
Many people don't aprove of the "Acadamy's stamp of aproval" for a film with made up and doctored facts. It just seems there is a debate over just how much weight that stamp carries. But, you cannot deny that it does have some value.
MiniD
-
Moore is seen as an NRA infiltrator
Anyone can join the NRA, it's not like you have to pass a polygraph and a marksmanship test to get in.
-
By the way beet1e... did you ever stop to wonder why you had to come up with a completely different set of points for this, your 20th post in this thread?
The hub-bub about the movie may or may not be making it more popular and giving it more exposure. The acadamy award did for sure... but you say that really doesn't matter.
Of course, you also take the chance to slap the movie back in people's faces whenever you get the chance, while saying its only them that are giving the movie more exposure.
Irony abounds today.
MiniD
-
Originally posted by ra
Anyone can join the NRA, it's not like you have to pass a polygraph and a marksmanship test to get in.
Yes, but you need the polygraph to learn the secret handshake and be included on the NRA's plan for world domination.
Well, for not having an agenda, anti-gun people have made the NRA a viled household name. Whenever there is a shooting, the NRA is called and asked to "support" it. Damn those villains. When ever another gun is banned, the NRA is called and asked why they faught against the ban... Damn those villians to hell.
Its just amazing how many people either actively or whitlessly sit back and watch people chisle away at the constitution. Its even more amazing how these people respond when called out on it.
MiniD
-
There isn't a moral highground here for the "banners"(edit - "revokers").
While I mentioned Disney's "Living Desert" as a lark earlier, it is well known that many scenes in nature documentaries are staged. That often animals are placed in proximity to prey to facilitate a kill. That some of the shots **gasp** are staged in a studio.
So why not a move to recind the Oscar for best documentary of 1954?
One reason.... GUNS.
-
OK... I'm not supposed to let this secret out but
The NRA and PNAC are one in the same! Sshhh!
(whop, whop, whop, whop....)
Arggggh! The black helos! I forgot the foil helmet!
Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
There isn't a moral highground here for the "banners".
While I mentioned Disney's "Living Desert" as a lark earlier, it is well known that many scenes in nature documentaries are staged. That often animals are placed in proximity to prey to facilitate a kill. That some of the shots **gasp** are staged in a studio.
So why not a move to recind the Oscar for best documentary of 1954?
One reason.... GUNS.
I'm sorry... is that movie being used as a political tool these days MT? As much as you keep trying to say it is the same thing... I have to disagree.
Guns? Yes... that is what the movie (BFC) is about. Gun ownership. People aren't upset because its about guns, people are upset because it misrepresents them and their organization in more than one instance.
Tell me once again what organization that disney movie was targetting?
MiniD
-
So why not a move to recind the Oscar for best documentary of 1954?
Was there footage of polar bears in 'The Living Desert'?
-
Originally posted by Mini D
Yes, but you need the polygraph to learn the secret handshake and be included on the NRA's plan for world domination.
Hehe Mini D, three consecutive posts from you, and in none of them did you call me a love muffin. As you say, things are progressing!
As for that secret NRA handshake, why don't they just go around with one trouser leg rolled up to the knee. ;)
The NRA/Gun Lobby is in no way threatened by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, it's just plain redikulolous.
-
No need beet1e... you're calling yourself love muffin these days.
MiniD
-
Originally posted by beet1e
As for that secret NRA handshake, why don't they just go around with one trouser leg rolled up to the knee. ;)
Because we're not BRITISH, of course!
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
There isn't a moral highground here for the "banners"(edit - "revokers").
While I mentioned Disney's "Living Desert" as a lark earlier, it is well known that many scenes in nature documentaries are staged. That often animals are placed in proximity to prey to facilitate a kill. That some of the shots **gasp** are staged in a studio.
So why not a move to recind the Oscar for best documentary of 1954?
One reason.... GUNS.
Of course it's about guns. Makes little difference that Moore's rant was mostly lies and only fools those that wanna be fooled.
Certainly guns are misused, as are autos. Lot more folks die in needless auto accidents than in misuse of guns. You wanna give up driving?
-
Originally posted by lord dolf vader
god bless michael moore.
great movie.
was a shame seeing heston disgraced retreating from civil conversation. i wonder how much he got paid to torture thos folks.
p.s. im a gun lover and nra cirtified range instructor but wont join the nra specificaly for stunts like that. moors right depoliticise the nra. loose moses.
Minus, this account hacking must stop.
If it's for real, (HTC, check IP's) please Toad, acknowledge LTV, before he finally jumps up and down and says "Looky at me!" and adding more completely out of context , diptard, foolish reply's.
-
Originally posted by Mini D
I'm sorry... is that movie being used as a political tool these days MT? As much as you keep trying to say it is the same thing... I have to disagree.
Guns? Yes... that is what the movie (BFC) is about. Gun ownership. People aren't upset because its about guns, people are upset because it misrepresents them and their organization in more than one instance.
Tell me once again what organization that disney movie was targetting?
MiniD
So... "Political tool usage" is the key? It (BFC) seems to be a political tool for both sides in this debate. I thought the issue was innacurate depictions of actual events? Thats what the revoker's websites are touting. "This isn't a legal documentary!" Paaaleees! Accuracy isn't the issue, its guns.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
So... "Political tool usage" is the key? It (BFC) seems to be a political tool for both sides in this debate. I thought the issue was innacurate depictions of actual events? Thats what the revoker's websites are touting. "This isn't a legal documentary!" Paaaleees! Accuracy isn't the issue, its guns.
MT, stop being obtuse.
The movie is being used as a political tool that is misrepresenting the organization it is targetting. It is not part of an "agenda" to respond to those inaccuracies. It is a necessity. Lies left alone turn into truths.
And, once again, THE MOVIE IS ABOUT GUNS! jeez... QUIT ****ING SAYING THAT THIS WHOLE THING IS ABOUT GUNS! NO ****ING **** ITS ABOUT GUNS!
This particular incident is what happens when one side lies about the other... and how the other side responds to it.
One side was inaccurate with their facts. The other side is calling them on it. This is the most notable way to do it. If someone gets an award for something that is by definition "fact based", then those being targetted are oblidged to point out that its not fact based and thus not elegible for the award/certification.
MiniD
-
A documentary is based on solid fact in my eye. I haven't seen the film, but it sounds like it isn't. Therefore, it isn't a documentary.
Besides, Moore is an IRA supporting f***wit and I wouldn't piss on his rotund bellybutton if it was on fire.
So there.
-
Originally posted by Dowding
Besides, Moore is an IRA supporting f***wit and I wouldn't piss on his rotund bellybutton if it was on fire.
Yes, the fat would most certainly be in the fire then!
I seriously doubt any amount of pissing would put out a conflagration of that magnitude!
Creamo, did he say something?
-
:D I made Mini-D yell...:D
from http://www.revoketheoscar.com/
What are arguments which WILL fly in my letter to the Academy?
1. This is not a documentary--it's fiction. Rule 12.1 of the Academy Awards competition defines what is entitled to compete in the documentary class, and it begins: "An eligible documentary film is defined as a theatrically released non-fiction motion picture. . . ." This is the core rule which separates the documentary competition from all other competitions.
2. The documentary class is set aside so that creators of nonfiction, of education rather than entertainment, would not be competing against entertainment and fiction. To award the Oscar to a film which employs lots of fiction does an injustice to the other competitors in the class. They played by the rules and submitted creations which stuck to the facts.
3. Maybe the Academy found Bowling entertaining -- but that's why they have a separate class for documentaries. A real documentary on battlefield surgery shouldn't have to compete against "MASH;" a real one on the Holocaust shouldn't compete against "Schindler's List."
What are arguments which WON'T fly in my letter to the Academy?
1. Moore's politics. The Academy likes to believe it has no politics, and simply awards its fellow artists for their art. In practice, its politics are largely the same as Moore's. A person might as well complain to NewsMax that one of its writers is conservative. The reader will just laugh and discard it.
2. Ditto for firearms, if you're a gunny.
3. Probably the same for arguments about bias and unfairness. The Academy accepts that a documentary can be biased. What a documentary cannot be, by definition, is fictional or untrue. A writer can give one side of the truth, so long as that one side is true.
4. It goes without saying, be polite.
So the issue is accuracy and not guns? Then why not attack Olympia? or The Living Desert?
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
:D I made Mini-D yell...:D
So the issue is accuracy and not guns? Then why not attack Olympia? or The Living Desert?
MT, you are joining beet1e in dip**** of the century status.
Read what you quoted again very carefully. Very carefully, not in a manner to see only what you want to see. I'm not going to explain the text you yourself quoted and are either being too ignorant or assenine to decipher yourself.
MiniD
-
Originally posted by Mini D
MT, you are joining beet1e in dip**** of the century status.
Read what you quoted again very carefully. Very carefully, not in a manner to see only what you want to see. I'm not going to explain the text you yourself quoted and are either being too ignorant or assenine to decipher yourself.
MiniD
And you are approaching Hortlundesque condescension. Nice use of **** BTW.
So if the issue is the accuracy of the items in the film, as stated ("its fiction") then lets address them. It is obvious to me however, that very little would be made of these inaccuracies if the film had been about boating deaths or dangerous toys for 3 year olds.
(don't get yer panties in a wad... its only pixels on a screen)
-
MT.. the issue is accuracy in this film. The people being misportrayed are going to have the major beef with it. When they present to the Academy, they can only present based on accuracy of the movie because the acadamy is not concerned with anything else.
Its that simple. Yet you try to confuse the issue at every opportunity.
The movie is about guns. It is about an attack on the NRA. Those being attacked are responding. Its that simple.
The academy itself does not care about the issues in the movie, but they should care if it is factual or not. Afterall, they have, in effect, certified it.
Now stop being a beet1e wannabe and do a little thinking MT. Sometimes your desire to stir **** causes the splashback to cloud your vision. Oh.. lookie.. another clever use for ****.
MiniD
-
The movie is about guns. It is about an attack on the NRA. Those being attacked are responding. Its that simple.
The academy itself does not care about the issues in the movie, but they should care if it is factual or not. Afterall, they have, in effect, certified it.
Nuff said.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
I'm not really making a good point, but that's because I don't know what I'm arguing against. [/color][/size]
THIS is the most FACTUAL statement in this thread, possibly the most factual statement ever, on this BBS. :)
-
the reason I havnt seen the movie yet is I really cant stand that guy..
lol
-
I've been wondering what all this **** business is about. And I think I've made a discovery. This BBS has an inbuilt truth filter.
MiniDick tried to call me a dipshit. But the board edited the statement to dip**** because the statement is false.
So then I tried my own tests - beet1e is a dip**** ???
- MiniDick is full of shit.
Yup, that would explain it.
________________
The NRA/Gun Lobby is in no way threatened by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, it's just plain redikulolous.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
I've been wondering what all this **** business is about. And I think I've made a discovery. This BBS has an inbuilt truth filter.
Unfortunately, blitz proves your hypothesis wrong every time he posts.
-
Originally posted by Mini D
The movie is about guns. It is about an attack on the NRA. Those being attacked are responding. Its that simple.
Now stop being a beet1e wannabe and do a little thinking MT. Sometimes your desire to stir **** causes the splashback to cloud your vision. Oh.. lookie.. another clever use for ****.
MiniD
Actually the movie is about violence, not guns.
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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
-
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. :confused:
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.
-
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.
-
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! :D
-
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
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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
-
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?
:rolleyes:
-
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!
;)
-
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!
-
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.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
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?
:rolleyes:
LOL! damn.. you continue to be as stupid as ever.
People with the exact same access to guns have drastically different homicide rates... yet you say the guns cause the elevation?
Please beet1e... stop and think about it for just one second. I can't believe you've ever actually done that.
I'll say this very slowly for you beet1e....
Country A has access to guns. Country B has access to guns. Country A has 10 times the murder rate as Country B. Is that because of access to guns?
Demographic A has access to guns. Demographic B has access to guns. Demographic A has 10 times the murder rate as Demographic B. Is that because of access to guns?
You use global stats to attempt to make a point, while ignoring those same stats when it stops proving your point. Its time to start using some basic algebra beet1e. The similarities cancel out. The differences are where the variables lay. You eliminate those variables and the murder rate drops by 80%.
MiniD
-
Originally posted by Mini D
People with the exact same access to guns have drastically different homicide rates... yet you say the guns cause the elevation?
I didn't say that. I have always acknowledged that US homicide is much greater in poor/black/socially deprived areas. But you have a gun policy/freedom/right/big mistake - whatever you want to call it - which is a nationwide policy. And even those legally held guns in your leafy white suburbs can get into the wrong hands. The kid interviewed in the pool hall in BFC said that he used stole a gun from a friend's house, and went to downtown Detroit where he could sell that and other stolen weapons for $50 - for a 9mm.
You have your 2nd amendment - fine. Take the rough with the smooth. That policy makes it easy for poor/black/socially deprived to kill eachother. And because that doesn't affect you, or Toad, or funkedup, or any other gun crime NIMBY, you're saying that makes it OK. Right. Now I know where we stand.
You keep asking me questions. So now let me have my turn to ask you one! Tell me exactly WHY you have so many gun homicides in the US. You say it's not guns, despite the fact that a handgun is the most commonly used murder weapon, was designed for that very purpose, and has no other use/.
Educate me, Mini "the omniscient" D - when you've got a free minute when you're not insulting Dowding and Saintaw in that other thread.
-
No.. you don't want to hear it beet1e. You've never wanted to hear it. It doesn't fit in with the rhetoric you attempt to pass off as fact.
Guns are not what make America a drastically different culture than G.B. Yet you seemingly maintain that they are.
Guns beget gun violence. Yeah. That's a really brilliant connection there beatle. With one minor exception... I've never seen a gun get up and kill anybody. I doubt anyone has ever seen any inanimate object actually get up and kill anyone.
If you want to ignor underlying causes and point to symptoms as if the solution lays there, then feel free. You're not curing anything. You're not attempting to cure anything.
And guns don't have a use... um... OK. You hold onto that one too. Except... why is it that your bobbies have sidearms again? I mean, they really just want to go around killing people?
MiniD
-
yep... anyone can join the NRA.. I would be happy to see any new members and their $35 bucks a year. They even get to vote for NRA officers. If dorf vader doesn't think Heston makes a good spokesman he can join and vote (Heston has retired BTW).
For those who believe in the 2nd ... and who cherish their fast erroding gun rights... this thread should make it very clear what we are up against and why you need to join the NRA to help out. they do good work... quit freeloading and making everyone else do the heavy lifting.
lazs
-
Oh.. I think that MT would agree that the best way for the U.S. to get Canadian like gun homicide figures is to make it illegal for black people to own guns and... illegal for anyone in a population center over 100,000 to own them. instant low gun homicide rate.
beetles figures of 300,000 deaths in 25 years (that is a quarter of a frigging century) are a bit strange also.. they don't reflect that gun violence has gone down per capita during those years... they don't reflect that 1-3 million crimes PER YEAR are prevented by firearms in the U.S.
lazs
-
"...Canada, high guns, low homicide. ...".
Canada, high guns? Give yourself a shake.
"...I've never seen a gun get up and kill anybody. I doubt anyone has ever seen any inanimate object actually get up and kill anyone. ..:.
A variation on "guns don't kill, people do". Gun owners have several valid arguments, you really don't need to use this one. It's catchy but it makes us (yes, I'm a gun owner) look like idiots.
bowser
-
Always playing the race card huh lazs?
I have no problem with gun ownership. I think the move to revoke the Oscar is silly, and a half witted attempt by the NRA to counterattack Moore.
But since the subject has been breached....
If its not the guns then why is our homicide rate so high?
they don't reflect that 1-3 million crimes PER YEAR are prevented by firearms in the U.S.
And this is a "good thing"? Is our society so screwed up that disarming through the law would lead to 1-3 million more gun crimes? (Only criminals would have guns).
Are guns and gun ownership a self perpetuating arms race in miniature?
The whole point of BFC was to explore the reason behind our admittedly violent society. Instead of saying over and over that it ain't the guns... what is it?
-
Originally posted by beet1e
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".
Freedom has risks. You can have a perfectly safe life if you surrender all freedom and take no risks... or you can have freedom and an interesting but risky life. A lot of us prefer the latter.
And as MiniD pointed out, it is indeed a tiny percentage of the population that has a problem with using firearms safely.
-
Originally posted by bowser
Canada, high guns? Give yourself a shake.
bowser
Are you saying Canada doesn't have a lot of guns in circulation?
Ask Beet1e ;) but I'm pretty sure I remember even Moore making that point in his "epic". In fact, that's why he takes his camera man to Canada.. because they a lot of guns but low homicide.
If you don't want to ask Beet, I think you can find gun ownership numbers pretty easily.
-
I doubt there is a big difference in homicide rates between Canada and parts of the USA with similar demographics - 90% white, low population density.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
And this is a "good thing"? Is our society so screwed up that disarming through the law would lead to 1-3 million more gun crimes? (Only criminals would have guns).
MT, he didn't say gun crimes....he said crimes, period.
And maybe our society is that screwed up, but it's not the guns that are screwing it up, it is us, the "society". Or more accurately, maybe it's a very small number within our "society" that are screwed up.
Why is it a race card if those are the facts?
And before I get accussed of being bad, when I say the small number being screwed up, I mean a small number no matter their race, creed, religion, ethnic background.
-
Hi, Mini! I'm home :)
No.. you don't want to hear it beet1e. You've never wanted to hear it. It doesn't fit in with the rhetoric you attempt to pass off as fact.
That's what I think about you. You don't want to accept that your 2nd amendment is what puts guns in the hands of those too irresponsible to own them. You can't handle the truth! And you haven't given me an answer on what are the causes of the high homicide rate because you don't have an answer. We don't need algebraic formulae. It's really quite simple. Imagine shipping 5,000 guns to the moon. Then wait a year, and then - wheyhey! No gun crime on the moon! "Proof" that guns are not the problem! :rolleyes: Still, MT has addressed that.
Lazs's answer not to arm blacks could work! No guns to blacks or criminals, but then a lot of people who keep a gun at home for security would no longer need one. Lazs, those stats were from the Home Office! That's why they sound funny. :);) I did not derive that 300,000 from averages - I added up the figures for the years available - every year in a 25 year period. I'll dig it out again if you want. Lazs, while you're here, you remember when you came to London but felt perfectly safe, unarmed - how do you reconcile that against your perceived need to keep several loaded guns within the security of your own home? -Not a trick question, just asking.
FunkedUp - I would agree with you - keep guns etc. if the problem really was tiny. But hell - we've just had a guns amnesty because the GOV is appalled at some 60-75 gun deaths each year! It pulled in 17,000 guns and over 400,000 rounds of ammo. Those guns are to be melted down. They will no longer be available to be stolen/sold on to criminals. If the US gun homicide were as tiny as ours, I'd agree with you. But it isn't. 90% white, low population density.
We have a high population density in the UK (2nd highest in Europe - Holland is the highest), and plenty of blacks. But low gun crime - so that's not the answer either.
Stringer! What happened to your "emotican" policy? ;) Or more accurately, maybe it's a very small number within our "society" that are screwed up.
Again, if we're talking about people who misuse firearms, the figures tell a different story, and the numbers are not what I would call small.
-
LOL Beet1e, I couldn't take it anymore and had to move to text!
If it is the misuse of firearms the figures do not tell a different story.
In the context of our "society" in its entirety, it is a very small segment.
Especially if we acknowledge the fact that it is, indeed, a small segment of our society who commit crimes, then parse that down further by segmenting those who commit violent crimes, and then parse it down even further by those who commit violent crimes using guns.
Now, my question to you is, why is your posting activity increased so much lately, your pets stopped listening to your speeches? :)
-
Beetle
If the US gun homicide were as tiny as ours, I'd agree with you. But it isn't.
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.
We have a high population density in the UK (2nd highest in Europe - Holland is the highest), and plenty of blacks. But low gun crime - so that's not the answer either.
The point I made was in regard to a comparison to Canada and the US, who both have similarly high firearms ownership rates. We weren't talking about Europe.
Again, if we're talking about people who misuse firearms, the figures tell a different story, and the numbers are not what I would call small.
Like I said, .004% is tiny. I don't know anybody who has been a victim of a gun crime. I've never seen a gun pulled in public, or any sort of gun crime. Any amount of statistics you produce are not going to convince me that gun homicides are a problem that is worth relinquishing my first freedom.
-
Stringer
His post activity is going up cause his tamato (http://www.realdoll.com) Broke or was stollen and now he is bored.
To bad he is no smarter.
He is getting destroyed in this thread and just does not see it.
It is funny though.
-
Also, there's an FBI study that shows most gun crime is done by people that have already been previously convicted of one or more felonies.
-
Back to the point.....
The point of the film is to determine why gun violence, especially that of children on children, is rampant in this country. At first, Moore is guided by the precept that easy access to guns is the cause. And, despite being a card-carrying NRA member, he is more than willing to point the finger at Heston and his cronies. But, along the way, Moore makes a discovery - there are more guns per household in Canada than in the United States, yet the death toll, even when adjusted to consider the unequal populations, is much lower. This forces Moore to conclude that, while the ready availability of firearms in the United States may be a contributing factor to the high number of gun-related homicides, it's not the primary reason.
Eventually, after conducting various interviews and hopping around the country (and out of it), Moore suggests that fear, enhanced by the media's obsession with death and violent crime, may be the root cause of America's death-by-gun problem. Americans are frightened. They live in gated communities and lock their doors at night. They sleep with loaded guns under their pillows because only a firearm at-ready gives them a sense of security. Fear makes people jumpy and apprehensive, and more apt to resort to violence. And there's no cure for it. It is a societal ill that is perpetuated by the evening news and reality TV shows like "Cops".
Maybe the NRA lobby should actually watch the film.
-
Or more to the point, maybe the Academy members should actually have watched the "documentary".
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Back to the point.....
Maybe the NRA lobby should actually watch the film.
LOL! Once again, I challenge your or beet1e to disprove what the "revoketheoscar.com" web page is alleging. The best you've managed to come up with so far is "its no big deal." Obviously, to some it is. So your wrong on that count too. No other way to say it really, and no need to say it another time... so this is the last.
MiniD
-
Bowser? You giving yourself a shake yet? Above the waist, I hope.
-
Help revoke Bowling for Columbine's Oscar
Nope, sorry won't do it. It feels very unamerican to try that.
Freedom of Speech and all that ;)
-
Originally posted by bowser
A variation on "guns don't kill, people do". Gun owners have several valid arguments, you really don't need to use this one. It's catchy but it makes us (yes, I'm a gun owner) look like idiots.
I disagree. To say otherwise it to absolutely fail to accept what is actually causing the violence.
Any idea why the murder rate using knives is 7 times higher with blacks vs whites in the U.S. and the murder rate using guns is also 7 times higher with blacks vs whites?
No... I don't think you have. The presence of guns are not making someone 7 times more likely to be killed than in another demographic.
MiniD
-
Edited: Math was never my strong suit LOL.
In US in 1997 there were 200 million guns and 60 million gun owners. Population now is 275 million.
In 2000, there are approximately 7.9 million firearms in Canada and 2.3 million firearm owners. Population now is 31 million.
Percent of households with a handgun:
United States 29%
Switzerland 14
Finland 7
Germany 7
Belgium 6
France 6
Canada 5
Norway 4
Europe 4
Australia 2
Netherlands 2
United Kingdom 1
So, according to these numbers, there are more guns per capita in the US...if my math is finally correct, which isn't a sure thing. :)
If somebody has other numbers, I'd like to see them.
bowser
-
Interesting....... but
I was directed to "give myself a shake" when I said "Canada (has a) high (number of) guns.
I believe that you will now agree that I was correct?
Thank you.
-
You shouldn't have been so trusting of my math skills.
If you have numbers from government web sites showing you are correct I would like to see them.
bowser
-
I quote from MT's post, above;
But, along the way, Moore makes a discovery - there are more guns per household in Canada than in the United States, yet the death toll, even when adjusted to consider the unequal populations, is much lower.
You agree this is true?
Ah.. I see you have edited.
Well then, you disagree with the sainted Michael Moore, Oscar winning documentary maker?
-
Sending a petition to the Motion Picture Academy to revoke an Oscar reminds me of something Douglas Adams wrote about attacking a lunatic asylum with a banana peel.
-
And you probably disagree with this guy:
Canadian Gun Law Offers Example for U.S.
Participants in the gun control debate often compare the United States with other countries. Some countries, like England and Japan have virtually no legal gun ownership, so comparisons are of limited value. Comparing Canada with the United States is much more useful. Most Americans know that Canada has a low crime rate and relatively strict gun control laws. What few people realize is that the number of guns per capita is roughly similar.
Nobody really knows how many guns exist in either country, but one estimate for Canada is 21 million guns owned by a population of 30 million people. In the United States, we have over 200 million guns and a population of 273 million.Michael S. Brown, O.D., November 1999
Canadian Gun Law Offers Example for U.S. (http://www.rkba.org/comment/brown/canada.html)
-
But that's what stats are all about, eh?
-
I'd like to see Mr Brown find anything close to 21 million guns in Canada.
I'd even throw in the first two world wars and squirtguns....
-
MiniD
No other way to say it really, and no need to say it another time... so this is the last.
Rgr. You're leaving this thread? Never did get that answer. Just a suggestion that algebra be used to solve a conundrum whose answer is bleedin' obvious. :rolleyes: Oh well, don't let the door hit you in the arse on the way out.
Toodle-Pip.
-
Oh well, don't let the door hit you in the arse on the way out.[/B]
WHERE THE HELL IS MY ROYALTY CHECK????
:D
-
Originally posted by funkedup
WHERE THE HELL IS MY ROYALTY CHECK????
:D
ROFL Funked!!! That was what - WB2.6 1999?
Hey, guess what I heard today? Clue: Flashlight....Red light!....Neon light.... Stop light!
-
Originally posted by funkedup
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.
Like I said, .004% is tiny. I don't know anybody who has been a victim of a gun crime. I've never seen a gun pulled in public, or any sort of gun crime. Any amount of statistics you produce are not going to convince me that gun homicides are a problem that is worth relinquishing my first freedom. [/B]
Well... they've managed to justify the drug war with an even smaller figure. IIRC, annual deaths to cocaine is around 3,000 and it's the big killer.
FWIW, AMPAS doesn't select award winners using a popular vote from the masses. If Hardy doesn't like it, he can always choose not to vote for Moore for the American Choice Awards. :D
-
LOL Sandman,
I just HAD to click on where it said "Don't click this"
:D
-
The reason Canada has much lower gun violence is simple:
You have to register your guns.
Which means:
If you get really pissed off at somebody and have a gun on you, you wont shoot because the gun is registered to you. Its an incredible concept.
As for criminals: They have to register there guns, so we always know who did it. Another incredible concept.
Two for one for only one billion dollars, what a bargain.
P.S.: Sarcasm intended.
-
Thanks but I'll take the numbers of the Canadian government's Canadian Firearms Centre over Michael S. Brown…whoever the heck that is.
http://www.cfc-ccaf.gc.ca/en/general_public/news_releases/survey-08202002.asp
"...There are approximately 7.9 million firearms in Canada, according to a comprehensive study released today.
The study is based on a national survey undertaken in the autumn of 2001 by GPC Research at the request of the Canadian Firearms Centre. Dr. David Zussman, President of the Public Policy Forum, an independent, non-profit, non-partisan organization, was asked to review the study methodology employed by GPC, as well as the survey's results and findings. The review was conducted by Dr. Zussman and an independent statistical expert appointed by the Forum.
This study provides an updated estimate on the number of firearms in Canada. This objective and independent data will be particularly valuable to the Canadian Firearms Program in monitoring progress as the January 1, 2003 deadline for firearms owners to register all of their firearms approaches.
This estimate was based on a survey of 3,011 of Canada’s 2.3 million firearm owners. The findings are a complementary piece to an earlier GPC Research study in the autumn of 2000, which surveyed 6,145 Canadian households in order to estimate firearm ownership in Canada. At that time, findings indicated that 2 million (17 percent) Canadian households had at least one firearm owner....".
bowser
-
Originally posted by beet1e
MiniD Rgr. You're leaving this thread? Never did get that answer. Just a suggestion that algebra be used to solve a conundrum whose answer is bleedin' obvious. :rolleyes: Oh well, don't let the door hit you in the arse on the way out.
Toodle-Pip.
Never did get that answer. That's a very good way to put it beet1e. It has been answered repeatedly, but you will never get it. That's your own personal choice.
Kudos to the out of context quote too. Run of the mill for you.
MiniD
-
Originally posted by Torque
I'd like to see Mr Brown find anything close to 21 million guns in Canada.
Mr. Brown must have talked to
Garry Breitkreuz, MP for Yorkton-Melville (http://www.garrybreitkreuz.com/breitkreuzgpress/fire43.html)
"I’m even giving the government the benefit of the doubt in these calculations," said Breitkreuz. "I used their low-ball estimate of 7 million firearms in Canada. Most reputable sources estimate the number of firearms in Canada at closer to 21 million.
-
Or, maybe he talked to
National Firearms Association Of Canada (http://www.nfa.ca/Journalist/JournalistNumberFirearms.html)
The National Firearms Association has come to conclusion there are approximately 7 million owners with 21 million firearms. The NFA figures were calculated using three different methods.
The NFA figures were calculated using three different methods.
1. There were 1,221,179 restricted firearms in the RCMP registration database FRAS in December 1993. The unrestricted to restricted firearms ratio is at least 20:1. Conservatively that means 24.4 million unrestricted plus 1.2 million restricted firearms. Allowing for errors in the RCMP's FRAS registration system, we strike off 220,000 registered firearms as non-existant, reducing the total to 21 million firearms with 7 million owners.
2. The government's own estimate in December 1976, published as part of its gun control campaign was 6 million owners with 18 million firearms. During hearings on the Campbell bill, officials from the Ministry of Justice testified that the long-term average net annual importation was 190,000 firearms. Therefore, adding 190,000 firearms per year to the 1976 total of 18 million, we get 21.6 million firearms as of December 1993. Subtract 610,000 firearms as an allowance for firearms destroyed, dismantled or worn out and we arrive back at the 21 million figure with 7 million owners.
3. Restricted firearms ownership increased from 861,000 in December 1984 to 1.22 million in December 1993. This is an increase of 41.7% over nine years. Those figures are solid because they are taken from the Annual Report on the Commissioner of the RCMP. The NFA estimates that the 1976 figure for total firearms owned, 18 million increased to 21 million by 1993, representing a total increase of only 16.6% in 17 years. This, obviously, is a very conservative estimate.
None of the above estimates include any figures for illegally imported firearms, which are known to have increased sharply each time restrictive, costly, and/or vague legislation has made legal firearm ownership more complicated, expensive and/or more risky.
-
But I still can't believe you're not taking the word of the sainted Michael Moore... who is, I believe, the subject of this thread.
I mean a guy who won an OSCAR for a "documentary" on guns said it!
Who ya gonna believe? :D
-
Isn't the Internet wonderful? You can find statistics to back up just about anything. Well, you have your sources, I have mine. It really comes down to whose has more credibility. You have Mikey and some politician and I have a government agency whose job it is to know how many guns there are in Canada. We'll let the readers decide.
By the way, even using your numbers, there are more guns per capita in the US. You do realize that don’t you? :)
P.S. I'm not here to defend Michael Moore. I haven't even seen the documentary. Unlike most here though, I did not blindly accept his belief that Canadians had more guns. Why did you? Do you only agree with him when it suits your argument?
bowser
-
Strange bowser... you never listed your source for the information. You challenged others to come up with numbers and they did, listing their sources. You then criticize them for blindly believing something.
I find that incredibly ironic.
MiniD
-
Click the link in my post.
bowser
-
Ah.. was looking for the reference where posted the data.
I like the link you posted. Especially the "less tha 6000 gun owners surveyed" and "estimated" parts.
Give this link a try:
http://www.garrybreitkreuz.com/publications/GunsinCanada.htm
See if you can find error in the government sources he cites. This was not made up data... it was provided.
Once again, you can chose to blindly accept something or you can check it out for yourself.
MiniD
-
I find it interesting that the NFA cites
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.
-
Funked
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! :eek:
-
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.
-
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. :rolleyes:
-
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
-
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.
-
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. :)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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*
-
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
-
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?
-
Originally posted by funkedup
Feel free to refute any of the facts I stated.
*sound of leaves rustling*
"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.
-
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. :)
-
yep... anti gun republicans are shunned by the NRA and ILA.. The ILA and NRA are concerned only with our 2nd ammendment rights. They make enemies and friends based solely on that. How is that a threat to anyone?
lazs
-
Feel free to refute any of the facts I stated.
NRA is not a lobby.
I think that is the fact I was plinking with my .22
-
OK you winged me. :)
-
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!"
Nicely said Funked. BTW, I think I'll better be able to avoid having a heart attack since I'm not diving in this thread like I do most gun-control ones. :D
There is no constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered by criminals or madmen. It is monstrous if the state fails to protect its residents against such predators but it does not violate the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, or, we suppose, any other provision of the Constitution. The Constitution is a charter of negative liberties; it tells the state to let the people alone; it does not require the federal government or the state to provide services, even so elementary a service as maintaining law and order.
Bowers v. DeVito, 686 F.2d 616 (7th Cir. 1982)
The principle feature of contemporary American liberalism is sanctimoniousness. By loudly denouncing all bad things - war and hunger and date rape - liberals testify to their own terrific goodness. More important, they promote themselves to membership in a self-selecting elite of those who care deeply about such things. People who care a lot are naturally superior to we who don't care any more than we have to. By virtue of this superiority the caring have a moral right to lead the nation. It's a kind of natural aristocracy, and the wonderful thing about this aristocracy is that you don't have to be brave, smart, strong or even lucky to join it, you just have to be liberal. Kidnapping the moral high ground also serves to inflate liberal ranks. People who are, in fact, just kindhearted are told that because they care, they must be liberals, too.
P. J. O'Rourke - Give War a Chance, Introduction (1992)
-
Lazs, Funkedup - I might not always agree entirely with what you say, but I appreciate your honesty and candour. :)
DUNE I think I'll better be able to avoid having a heart attack since I'm not diving in this thread like I do most gun-control ones.
ROFL! Know what you mean. Since I've started an ignore list, my blood pressure has dropped! Hehe, the Spanish Rioja helps. ;)
-
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!"
Funkedup,
Nice!!! ~S~!
******************
Amazing that many anti-gun people don't get the fact that law-abiding citizens with guns also PREVENT people from getting shot or further crimes being committed. I wonder if there are statistics for further violence from being committed after a gun is drawn?
-
Originally posted by funkedup
OK you winged me. :)
(I may have a few scars here too)
You may return to your base Red Baron, and we both live to fight another day.
:)
-
LOL Cheers :)
-
Originally posted by funkedup
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.
Ok, sorry about that, thought you were saying that gun control prevent people from defending themselves.
Lasz, most military weapons are overkill. A guy who defends his home with an M60 is an idiot. Imagine the number of bullet holes in his house. Might as well built a new one.
M16 bullets are designed to go through armor, how many criminals have that?
The right to own firearms carries responsabilities, kids can get hurt when people arent careful. I know it happens once in a while in Canada. The US is probably alot worse.
You have the right to own firearms, but some are not designed for civilian use.
Military weapons should never be owned by civilians. How do you control what they use it for? You just cant.
Freedom is a double edged blade.
-
imp... please don't tell me what I can and can'[t do with the .223 nato round. I can load it so that it will do anything I want it to. Piercing armor is not one it's strong points tho... piss poor round for that. I would love to have an M16 in a riot tho.. allmost a perfect weapon for that.
simply because you have no idea of ballistics or reloading or cartridge versitility is no excuse for you to spout off here.. better that you simply shut up and not prove how ignorant you are. There is no crime in being ignorant of a subject.. the problem comes in when you try to tell those of us who know about firearms what they are good for.
Truth is... if you bothered to learn about them you wouldn't be so fearful of em in the first place... it's pretty ironic really.
lazs
-
M16 bullets are designed to go through armor, how many criminals have that?
He's right Lazs, we don't need that much penetration. A UMP45 or MP5/10 should be sufficient for "rioter" control. Beta C mags of course.
-
only people who "control" riots like that are the communist chinese. fire hose would be more fun anyway you can knock the same guy down over and over :)
-
M16 bullets are designed to go through armor...
LOL the .223 is a VARMINT round. When was the last time you saw a prairie dog wearing Kevlar?
Hooligan
-
Originally posted by Imp
Lasz, most military weapons are overkill. A guy who defends his home with an M60 is an idiot. Imagine the number of bullet holes in his house. Might as well built a new one.
M16 bullets are designed to go through armor, how many criminals have that?
The 5.56 ammunition you could buy in any given store that sells such ammunition is very different from the ammunition you are talking about ('designed to go through armor'). Military issue 5.56x45 ammunition (which has some AP variants) is very tightly controlled. Lot numbers are tracked, spent brass is counted after training, etc. Many civilian weapons chambered in 5.56x45 could not handle firing military 5.56x45 ammunition. The 'designed to go through armor' argument is akin to arguing that certain pistols should be outlawed because there are military/LE 'only' AP rounds available for them. Not a valid argument.
As for M60s, do you know how difficult it is for a civilian to own a fully automatic weapon? Permits, insurance, etc. Very, very resrictive and difficult for your average person to own even a fully automatic 9mm MP5 variant. When was the last time you heard of someone using a fully automatic weapon while commiting a crime where the criminal actually had permits for the weapon?
The bottom line is that people involved in writing books and making movies for a living know that someone who sees their 'product' and does not have personal knolwedge of the topic will often take the 'lessons' that were 'learned' while reading or watching said 'product' and form their entire opinion on a given topic from that one-time exposure to the subject matter. They have a responsibility to at least accurately label the 'product' as fiction or non-fiction. Not everyone has equal access when it comes to getting books published and/or movies produced 'in the mainstream'. The people who have such access have great power over the (on a given topic) uneducated and all too often they are totally lacking in the responsibility that should come hand in hand with such power.
Mike/wulfie
-
Originally posted by funkedup
A UMP45
(schlugschlug...schlugschlug.. .schlug...schlug)
FunkedUp: "Wulfie, the whole point of using firearms to break up a riot is to let them know you are shooting at them!"
Wulfie (gleefully crazy grin on his face): "Whoops! CLUMSY ME!"
:)
Mike/wulfie
-
Calm down.
I dont know the exact law in the US. Why should I, I live in Canada.
I just used extreme exemple to show that fully automatic weapons cause collateral damage. You know like killing innocents.
I was responding to lasz who seemed to be saying no weapons should be controled.
I sure hope they dont sell military AP rounds for the M16.
Are those M16 fully automatic or are they semi automatic versions sold to civilians?
I dont have a problem with semi auto M16 without AP bullets.
I know exactly what size the 5.56mm is, its almost the same as .22 cal. The bullets are small but 22 LR as incredible velocity.
5.56 x 45 probably as High Velocity also since AP depends on velocity.
Most anti terrorist units use 9mm weapons (MP5 is very common).
5.56mm and 7.62mm penetrates too much and could kill hostages.
-
Originally posted by Imp
The reason Canada has much lower gun violence is simple:
You have to register your guns.
Which means:
If you get really pissed off at somebody and have a gun on you, you wont shoot because the gun is registered to you. Its an incredible concept.
As for criminals: They have to register there guns, so we always know who did it. Another incredible concept.
Two for one for only one billion dollars, what a bargain.
P.S.: Sarcasm intended.
Interesting.The criminals have to register their guns.How exactly do you enforce that?
-
Funked - just going back to that freedom thing - you like the "freedom" to own guns. I like the freedom not to. By which I mean that because of our relatively low homicide rate, people are able to relax at home and sleep well at nights, without the need for a loaded .44 Mag under the pillow - like that crazy Nicholls guy in BFC.
Another example of the double sided freedom concept is the issue of smoking in restaurants. What was it - 1995 (?) when all restaurants in NYC became non-smoking by law. Some might see this as an infringement upon the freedom of smokers, when in fact it extends the freedom of non smokers to breathe clean air. Smokers are a minority in Britain - same things is probably true in the US. (hehe, I read your "only in Kalifornia" thread :D)
I was hoping that Lazs would answer why he feels perfectly safe unarmed in a rough area of London, but feels the need to keep loaded guns at his residence in CA.
Anyhow, you're happy with your US style freedom, and I'm happy with the Euro version. :) We have a win/win situation! Mr. Toad will fully approve!! :D
-
dumb vader... I am not into controling riots... just keeping them from controling me.
As a civilian... I actually have more choice so far as loads go.
and imp... I do not believe that law abiding citizens should have any restrictions on types of firearms owned. there should however be restrictions on how you use them.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
dumb vader... I am not into controling riots... just keeping them from controling me.
As a civilian... I actually have more choice so far as loads go.
and imp... I do not believe that law abiding citizens should have any restrictions on types of firearms owned. there should however be restrictions on how you use them.
lazs
The police have no way to enforce the laws limiting the use of firearms. Its easier to control types of guns that can be owned.
They will always be illegal weapons of course. Limiting them makes it less likely someone will be killed by them.
Maybe its time the US adopts a law similar to what Canada as not long ago. It makes membership to criminal groups a crime. We used it against bikers (Hell's Angels). That might help with street gang violence problems. Send them all to jail so they cant kill anyone.
Sox62
rotflmao, did you read the post scriptum?
I was being sarcastic. Next time ill add these :rolleyes:
What it meant is this: There is no way a criminal will register is gun which makes the registration useless. It wont prevent crime but it cost us 1 billion dollar (which is alot here in Canada.)
Also if someone gets angry at someone and decides to shoot him he wont think about is gun being registered so it wont prevent anything.
So basically its a useless law which cost us alot of dough.
They adopted it to please some whining women group :mad:
-
Originally posted by beet1e
Funked - just going back to that freedom thing - you like the "freedom" to own guns. I like the freedom not to. By which I mean that because of our relatively low homicide rate, people are able to relax at home and sleep well at nights, without the need for a loaded .44 Mag under the pillow - like that crazy Nicholls guy in BFC.
Another example of the double sided freedom concept is the issue of smoking in restaurants. What was it - 1995 (?) when all restaurants in NYC became non-smoking by law. Some might see this as an infringement upon the freedom of smokers, when in fact it extends the freedom of non smokers to breathe clean air. Smokers are a minority in Britain - same things is probably true in the US. (hehe, I read your "only in Kalifornia" thread :D)
In the U.S., a large # of crimes are prevented by the potential victims every year thru the use of those guns kept under the pillow, clipped beneath the bed, etc. Just because a single idiot, targeted by the film maker because he is an idiot, happens to follow the practice of hundreds of thousands of rational individuals does not make that practice an unwise one. Also, you'd think that in a documentary such a statistic (crimes prevented by legal gun ownership - before there is a victim, as opposed to after which is usually the case with police intervention no matter how dedicated the police may be) would be mentioned at least once.
The smoking equivalent exists for guns as well. You cannot decide to plink with your .22 pistol 'anywhere you feel like plinking'.
The problem with Moore and others like him is that they follow a classic pattern - they aren't arguing a point with facts. They are flooding the airwaves, soundwaves, etc. with false accusations and lies presented as facts to win popular (uneducated by personal experience) opinion over to their point of view. They know that once the laws are signed it's 100x harder to get the injustices imposed 'fixed'. The bottom line is that firearms are treated with great respect and great responsibility by the vast majority of those who own them legally in the U.S. And if lazs, or funkedup, or myself were to commit even a minor infraction when it comes to storage, use, or transportation of a firearm the firearm would be taken by the police and there would be serious fines and jail sentences involved.
And lazs would feel perfectly safe walking unarmed in a number of cities in the U.S. I'll bet, and in certain parts of certain cities and in certain parts of London if he knew the town like a local he wouldn't feel safe walking there no matter how he was armed.
America is not a wild west Nation held at the mercy of irresponsible gun toting psychos. Moore doesn't care to own firearms or shoot them, and he can score 'fight the establishment' points with his ilk by slandering a group of people that they know don't give a rat's bellybutton about their fame or the pseudo-power they wield due to that fame. Moore doens't give a damn about the kids killed at Columbine. He doesn't give a damn about the people killed in drive by shootings every week. He cares about them about as much as Jane Fonda cared about the people of Vietnam. Both used the suffering of people they didn't give a damn about to attack a hated enemy (the NRA, gun owners, the U.S. government) with false accusations of responsibility for the suffering of the victims.
I've been shown some training material that came from the Columbine shootings. The main cause of the majority of the deaths was that the 2 deputies who arrived on the scene had been so hamstrung - so mentally cowed - by the constant focus on 'liability' as opposed to finding the bad guys and shutting them down - that they sat and waiting for the proper support and authorization while people died...which is exactly what they had been trained/conditioned to do. Contrast that to the hostage situation in a German school a little over a year ago, where one of the first police officers on the scene basically 'made a gut check' and went into the situation without support as soon as he got there - and wound up saving a large # of lives.
Moore uses the alleged 'culture of violence' in the U.S. to explain the deaths at Columbine. It's the actual 'culture of don't make a call lest the 2d guessing people with no personal experience sue us into oblivion' that kept the very forces that could have ended the situation almost immediately from ever being used. But that doesn't sell movies or get you into swank parties in certain parts of hollywoodland.
"It is an occupational habit for actors on the political stage to distort the truth, for reasons and in way that vary with the nature of the power they hold. Autocrats, in direct control of all means of communication and expression, disguise the present and rewrite the past. Democrats, whose influence depends, happily, on their persuasiveness, expend so much energy trying to show their undertakings in the best possible light that they eventually lose the habit of thinking about the issues' substance. Their skill in presenting their case almost entirely replaces their interest in the facts. So that in free societies the past is sometimes misrepresented, not, as in slave societies, by crude censorship and lies, but suavely, through legitimate persuasion and the free propogation of an adulterated or entirely bogus version of an event. With repetition, this version joins the body of accepted ideas, those the masses believe; it acquires the status of truth, so firmly that hardly anyone thinks of checking the original facts for confirmation."
- Jean-Francois Revel, from 'How Democracies Perish' (1983)
Mike/wulfie
p.s. lazs - have you checked your healey email lately?
-
Originally posted by Imp
Sox62
rotflmao, did you read the post scriptum?
I was being sarcastic. Next time ill add these :rolleyes:
What it meant is this: There is no way a criminal will register is gun which makes the registration useless. It wont prevent crime but it cost us 1 billion dollar (which is alot here in Canada.) [/B]
Sorry,I wasn't sure which way that sarcasm was pointed-my bad.
I'm still not sure what some people think registration would accomplish though.Even if they do the "fingerprint" bs,anyone who knows anything about firearms can easily alter the ballistics of a weapon after it's been fired.
In my mind,registration has one purpose only-to be able able to locate weapons if it's decided we aren't allowed to own them anymore.
-
You have to register a car - why not a gun?
-
Originally posted by beet1e
You have to register a car - why not a gun?
Cars are used far more - were talking orders of magnitude here - than guns are.
Your average person living in any urban or semi-urban area in the U.S. is far more at risk of being killed or injured thru idiotic car usage than idiotic gun usage.
Cars have impacts on roads (wear and tear), environment (emissions), etc. Car registration $$$ is applied to the cost of maintaining car related infrastructure and towards maintaining records dealing with necessary enforcement of car operation (driving record, liability insurance, etc.) among other things.
It's more important because misuse of cars kills far more people every year in the U.S. than misuse of guns does.
As far as gun registration, I'm fairly sure that the purchase of any new gun from a dealer results in effectively 'automatic' registration in the U.S. today. It's been awhile since I bought a new firearm someone more current feel free to correct me? From what I know (and I'm not as well read/learned/etc. on the topic as some of the NRA members on this BBS, not an NRA member yet) the argument was against passing registration rules that would allow some Grandpa in Arkansas to be thrown in jail because he listens to the radio 1x a week at most and forgot he needed to drive all the way to the big city to register his 65 year old deer rifle. What's the point?
Mike/wulfie
-
Originally posted by beet1e
You have to register a car - why not a gun?
Because a car is a privilege-not a constitutional right.
-
Originally posted by wulfie
... the argument was against passing registration rules that would allow some Grandpa in Arkansas to be thrown in jail because he listens to the radio 1x a week at most and forgot he needed to drive all the way to the big city to register his 65 year old deer rifle. What's the point?
Mike/wulfie
You say that, but I remember many years ago a bunch of elderly residents at an old people's home in Florida being arrested for gambling! :eek: The were having a private game of cards, and playing for money. Apparently, freedom in America does not extend to gambling. Well maybe things have changed since. Here there is no such restriction, although in a public place gambling is limited to small stakes games - cribbage, shove ha'penny, and that sort of thing.
-
According to the oscars website, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, a professional honorary organization of over 6,000 motion picture professionals, was organized in May, 1927, as a non-profit corporation chartered under the laws of California.
The corporation's rules for their awards state:
Rule Twelve
Special Rules for The Documentary Awards
I. Definition
1. An eligible documentary film is defined as a theatrically released non-fiction motion picture dealing creatively with cultural, artistic, historical, social, scientific, economic or other subjects. It may be photographed in actual occurrence, or may employ partial re-enactment, stock footage, stills, animation, stop-motion or other techniques, as long as the emphasis is on fact and not on fiction.
2. A film that is primarily a promotional film, a purely technical instructional film or an essentially unfiltered record of a performance will not be considered eligible for consideration for the Documentary awards.
V. Voting
1. All eligible documentaries will be screened for Documentary Branch Screening Committees. The Preliminary Screening and Semi-Final Committees will be made up of active and life members of the Documentary Branch who serve on a volunteer basis.
2. Nominations will be determined by an averaged point system of voting using 10, 9.5, 9, 8.5, 8, 7.5, 7, 6.5 or 6. Those films receiving an average score of 8.0 or more shall be eligible for nomination. However, there may not be more than five nor fewer than three nominations. Final voting shall be restricted to active and life Academy members who have viewed all of the nominated achievements in a theatrical setting. Viewing Documentary entries on videocassette will NOT qualify a member for voting purposes in the Final voting stage of these categories, with the exception of Screening Committee members who have participated in the Preliminary and/or Semi-Final voting process.
3. The Documentary Branch Executive Committee shall determine and resolve all questions of eligibility or submissions for this year. Additional or altered viewing procedures may be issued to accommodate such annual factors as the number of entries, total viewing hours, size of viewing groups, available venues, or other considerations.
The italic bold bits are my emphases. Source (http://www.oscars.org/75academyawards/rules/rule12.html)
I really don't see the problem with a corporation vetting entries for it's own awards the way it wants to, but if the NRA and pro gun guys want to give the film and Michael Moore a whole bunch of extra publicity for free, then they should go for it and try to get the Oscar revoked. Personally, until I saw all the uproar, I had no desire to see the film - indeed I hadn't even heard of it - but I'm tempted to go pick up a copy now. So there's a couple more bucks going into Michael Moore's pocket because of this revocation campaign. He is no doubt laughing all the way to the bank.
IMO, going for the revocation of the "best motion picture" award going to "Chicago" would be much more worthwhile cause, and to my mind on much less dodgy territory. It was appallingly trite, gash nonsense - an adult version of Bugsy Malone, but without any of the wit, originality, plot, acting skills or splurge guns. The cinematic equivalent of a trip to the accountant to sort out 5 years' worth of returns- and all the naughty underwear in the world couldn't make a difference. Even if Bowling for Columbine was proven to be complete fiction, its winning best documentary award, is much less of a stretch than Chicago getting best picture. I console myself with the annual Oscar mantra: "It's the Oscars, for fediddle's sake. They wouldn't know a good film if it bit them."
-
Personally, until I saw all the uproar, I had no desire to see the film - indeed I hadn't even heard of it - but I'm tempted to go pick up a copy now.
Same here. Anyway, dead, I would be happy to burn you a copy of the movie, and send it to you.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
Funked - just going back to that freedom thing - you like the "freedom" to own guns. I like the freedom not to...
...Anyhow, you're happy with your US style freedom, and I'm happy with the Euro version. :) We have a win/win situation! Mr. Toad will fully approve!! :D
It's very simple.
More Freedom = Less government restriction of my behavior.
More government restriction of my behavior = Less Freedom.
If you want to redefine freedom in some other manner, go ahead, but I won't follow you.
PS Everyone in the USA is free not to own guns. I don't own any at this time. It's not in the budget right now and I don't have a need for them.
-
funked...unless you live in the downtown core or hunt for food NOONE needs a gun...nothing like suburbanites with a gun that they will never use and if they ever need it will probably shoot themselves
all of that is irrelevant
unless theres some kind of scandal behind him winning it doesnt matter...
-
Originally posted by vorticon
funked...unless you live in the downtown core or hunt for food NOONE needs a gun
And noone has a right to tell me what I do or don't need and can or can't own.
-
So a desire to target shoot would not be a legitimate need for a gun?
The people who participate in over 6000 Amateur Trapshooting Association sanctioned meets, for just one example, don't have a need for a gun?
Not to mention, Skeet, Sporting Clays and the various and numerous rifle and pistol competitions?
-
Originally posted by Sox62
Sorry,I wasn't sure which way that sarcasm was pointed-my bad.
I'm still not sure what some people think registration would accomplish though.Even if they do the "fingerprint" bs,anyone who knows anything about firearms can easily alter the ballistics of a weapon after it's been fired.
In my mind,registration has one purpose only-to be able able to locate weapons if it's decided we aren't allowed to own them anymore.
The fingerprint thing is a great idea. Someone steals your weapon and cant use it. How can this be a bad thing?
Registration allows cops to track the owner of the gun easily.
It does not prevent crime, it can help solve them though.
-
By fingerprinting,I am referring to ballistics.A shot is fired and saved in case the gun is used in a crime.
Besides the enormous cost of such a program,there is no guarantee that it would work.
Ex:I use my beretta in a crime.I go home,scrub the barrel with a stainless steel brush cleaner,then spend a whole sixty seconds swapping the firing pin.Guess what.The ballistics on the "fingerprint" shell are now worthless.
You want to have a useless fingerprint program,fine-just don't ask me to pay for it.Let the anti-gun people fund it if they find it worthwhile.I think they'd find that it would be an enormously expensive program that would yield almost no results.
But what the Hell,why stop there?Let's fingerprint every person who resides in America.So what the cost?If it catches one killer,it's worth it,right?
-
we tried gun registration...major flop...billions of dollars (no im not overexagerating) and it pretty much did not and does not work...and is a record of the ballistics of every gun in america even feasable...
amazing how every post gets turned into a gun control war or pot discussion...
-
Fingerprinting bullets for guns? LOL!
with difference to imp,
Does anyone here have any idea where the bullet picks up its "fingerprint"? I'll give you a clue... take an automatic pistol apart and hold that barrel in your hand. That's it... 100% of it. One piece that can be removed and replaced in less than 30 seconds... by anyone. No scrubbing or firing pin replacements necessary. Its akin to being able to pop your fingerprints off your hand and put them on someone else's without them knowing.
Wow... this one was better than "M-16 bullets are designed to be armor piercing".
It does highlight the major problem with most anti-gun regulations (and gun registration regulations) being introduced... they are being introduced by people who have no idea what they are talking about. No idea on the subject matter and no idea of the impact nor of the possible results. Imp highlights that to the n'th degree.
MiniD
-
Originally posted by Mr. Toad
So a desire to target shoot would not be a legitimate need for a gun?
The people who participate in over 6000 Amateur Trapshooting Association sanctioned meets, for just one example, don't have a need for a gun?
Not to mention, Skeet, Sporting Clays and the various and numerous rifle and pistol competitions?
Mr. Toad, Those needs can exist and still be met, even in a country with "draconian" gun laws like those of Great Britain. Well, like most of the world actually. 98% of the world exists outside the US. But let's see, you yourself have been on hunting/shooting trips in England, so you know all this. Are you sure you should not have included a smiley/rolleyes in the above post?
;):D
-
Originally posted by Mini D
Fingerprinting bullets for guns? LOL!
with difference to imp,
Does anyone here have any idea where the bullet picks up its "fingerprint"? I'll give you a clue... take an automatic pistol apart and hold that barrel in your hand. That's it... 100% of it. One piece that can be removed and replaced in less than 30 seconds... by anyone. No scrubbing or firing pin replacements necessary. Its akin to being able to pop your fingerprints off your hand and put them on someone else's without them knowing.
Wow... this one was better than "M-16 bullets are designed to be armor piercing".
It does highlight the major problem with most anti-gun regulations (and gun registration regulations) being introduced... they are being introduced by people who have no idea what they are talking about. No idea on the subject matter and no idea of the impact nor of the possible results. Imp highlights that to the n'th degree.
MiniD
Sorry sox62, thought you were talking about those guns with fingerprint readers on it. You have to put your fingerprint in it for it to work.
The gun striation registry would not be very useful to catch smart criminals. They could erase them or sell the guns to someone.
MiniD, whats the standard bullet for the M16 in the military?
Heres a clue: Its made of hard metal. This type of bullet has collateral damage (eg. killing innocents) tattooed all over it if fired in a residential area.
You have the right to defend your house, not to kill innocents.
Im not talking about other types of bullets that are sold, since I dont know the types being sold. I imagine there are alot of types.
I was refering to military weapons and ammo. Like those AP bullets.
Striations on bullets come from the barrel being designed to make bullets spin, which gives a better trajectory(gyrostabilization). Firing and Ejecting also leaves marks on the casing (is that the correct word?).
Not everyone uses english in everyday life MiniD. I could use French, but I doubt you would understand :D
I might not be using the right terms.
As for your insults, I wont dignify thoes with an answer :rolleyes:
-
LOL IMP! Man.. you really need to find another topic.
Did you really say "This type of bullet has collateral damage (eg. killing innocents) tattooed all over it if fired in a residential area." ?
ROLFMAO!
Even a full metal jacket .223 round (standard military ordinance) is not going to do anything near the damage that a 30.06 or .308 or .243 or .270 or... well.. just about any ordinance out there. It was not touted for its armor piercing capabilites. Maybe something teflon coated or with some kind of hydroshock, but those bullets aren't really available on the market for .223.
As far as it singling out innocents when fired in a residential area... well... that statement is just so stupid that I cannot begin to undestand just why you are posting in this thread. Damn dude... do you really think about what you post? Are you really arguing with lazs on the qualities of a gun in order to use it for riot control (by private citizens)? Stop and take a break to think it through there big guy.
Here's a tip. Before singling out the M-16 as a particularly lethal weapon when firing it into a crowd... do a bit of research. Maybe on the M-16 and as many other guns as you can look up and then at the likelyhood of firing it into a crowd.
MiniD
-
Originally posted by Mini D
LOL IMP! Man.. you really need to find another topic.
Did you really say "This type of bullet has collateral damage (eg. killing innocents) tattooed all over it if fired in a residential area." ?
ROLFMAO!
Even a full metal jacket .223 round (standard military ordinance) is not going to do anything near the damage that a 30.06 or .308 or .243 or .270 or... well.. just about any ordinance out there. It was not touted for its armor piercing capabilites. Maybe something teflon coated or with some kind of hydroshock, but those bullets aren't really available on the market for .223.
As far as it singling out innocents when fired in a residential area... well... that statement is just so stupid that I cannot begin to undestand just why you are posting in this thread. Damn dude... do you really think about what you post? Are you really arguing with lazs on the qualities of a gun in order to use it for riot control (by private citizens)? Stop and take a break to think it through there big guy.
Here's a tip. Before singling out the M-16 as a particularly lethal weapon when firing it into a crowd... do a bit of research. Maybe on the M-16 and as many other guns as you can look up and then at the likelyhood of firing it into a crowd.
MiniD
A military M16 is fully automatic. So if you fire AP bullets with it it can kill innocents. Its more dangerous than 9mm. Which wont go through as much. Thats why most anti terrorist units use MP5 which uses 9mm.
Im talking about military M16, ive never seen a civilian one since I live in Canada. We dont have many of those around :rolleyes:
Some SWAT team might use them. I was not talking about civilian one.
If you use a soft bullet with semi automatic, its fine.
If you use automatic with those AP bullets then it can be very dangerous. I never said it was the most dangerous weapon.
Of course the 30 06 as more power, but its not automatic. Its a great hunting gun, but in a house its a bit big. A shorter gun is more practical in most such cases. Shotguns are very effective weapons in a house, although they can cause alot of damage to your house. :D
So calm down and stop throwing insults. Read all my posts, I already said I dont have a problem with civilians semi auto M16.
-
Originally posted by Imp
A military M16 is fully automatic. So if you fire AP bullets with it it can kill innocents. Its more dangerous than 9mm. Which wont go through as much. Thats why most anti terrorist units use MP5 which uses 9mm.
True AP bullets aren't even legal here in the US. Only the military (and law enforcement?) has access to that kind of stuff. According to FBI tests, the 5.56mm bullet is actually less likely to blast through walls than pistol bullets - due to a combination of the former's high velocity, lesser mass, and bullet construction. This includes the standard stuff issued to our military.
-
Imp, you are coming off less than half edjucated and refusing to admit it.
Talk about the possibility of collateral damage to innocents when firing an M-16 set to full auto using arming piercing bullets in a residential area all you want. It serves to validate the first sentance in this reply. It almost makes people forget you made the "M-16 bullets" comment.
But, alas, its still a stupid statement.
With the horrible lethality of an m-16 set to full auto using armor piercing bullets in residential areas you'd think you'd see more about them in the news. Unfortunately, most of what you see involves those harmless 9mms and equally not as worrisum hunting rifles/shotguns with non armor piercing ammo... even in residential areas involving innocents.
One common tactic of the less than edjucated is to pick and extreme and stick with it. Extremes are easy to understand because its so painfully obvious. If you can convince people that the extreme is bad, then you can convince them that the next thing down is bad too. AR-15s (the "civilian" version of the M-16) is a bad gun that looks just like an M-16 and should be banned. Good, that's been banned, but really, the Ruger Mini-14 is essentially the same gun (semi-auto, .223 with clip) and should be banned too. And if you thought those were bad, let me tell you about the badness of semi-automatic browning .308s, and semi-automatic shotguns, all pistols and anything else.
Its those damn M-16s. They're the real killer of innocents.
MiniD
-
Mr. Beet1e:
I thought it was so apparent that my post was in reply to this line
Originally posted by vorticon
unless you live in the downtown core or hunt for food NOONE needs a gun
that not even you would try to sidetrack the answering of my question.
It's not a matter of gun law. This gentlemen suggests there is "no"... as in "none"... need unless you "live downtown or "hunt for food".
Now, if you'd like to address the validity of his "need" statement, please do.
You are bored, aren't you?
-
LOL!
From CNN on the Dems Candidate Debate:
Stephanopoulos challenged Lieberman to defend the proposal that presidential candidate Al Gore had when the two ran on the same ticket in 2000 -- the licensing of all newly bought handguns.
Surprisingly, Lieberman said he never supported the proposal, which he said Gore came up with before he came on board.
"The American citizens have a right to own firearms," he said. "Licensing, registration, in my opinion are bad ideas and violations of that fundamental right."
Sen. Joe Lieberman, left, former Sen. Carol Moseley Braun, center, and Dean. When Stephanopoulos then asked whether any of the candidates would support licensing and registration of handguns, Sharpton was the only one to say that he would.
Well, their handlers have them talking the talk at least. I'll wager they don't really walk the walk though..........
-
nope toad.. all they have to do is answer the questionaire that the NRA sends out and they will reach 3-5 million voters with their stand.
imp.. you really have no idea of what you are saying. several ought six and 308 guns are semi and full auto. my M1 Garrand is a semi auto. A murder or a manslaughter is still the same no matter what caliber of gun you use. or... even if you use no gun at all.
Most cars are designed to be impervious to damage while running over people... A car that get's away from someone could kill dozens of children in without even being damaged. A woman named Ford used a Lincoln (car that is)to prove that point in downtown Reno once... A woman used a Colt 1911 in .45 to kill a Ford (president that is)and didn't succeed in killing anyone.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Imp
A military M16 is fully automatic.
No it is not.
The M-16A2 that is issued to our troops is single shot semiauto,or three round burst.
-
yes very bored
-
my idiot list
imp
deetle1
imp...u know what a m1-a1 is?? no you dont..its a semi-auto 30-06
anyways....MORONS!!!!!
impy says--M16 bullets are designed to go through armor, how many criminals have that? [The right to own firearms carries responsabilities, kids can get hurt when people arent careful. I know it happens once in a while in Canada. The US is probably alot worse.
CLASSIC..."Probably worse" FUK canada..I boycott there crap
You have the right to own firearms, but some are not designed for civilian use.
LIKE WHAT?? A TANK!??
Military weapons should never be owned by civilians. How do you control what they use it for? You just cant.
Moron- Cars kill more people..so no what? What military weapons do we get? ya I guess the 9 mil is a reallly bad gun..
Freedom is a double edged blade./QUOTE]
YA an idiot like you doesnt hold it by the Handle huh??
beetlemoron-You have to register a car - why not a gun?
..complete idiot..Golly-geeit..now they know who u are and where your guns are..fuk..u are dumer then evere..
DO YOU UNDERSTAND OURCONSTItution!!....HOW CAN YOU HAVE FREEDOM LIKE THAT??..YOU CANT..THIS PREVENTS GOV FROM BEING your oWNER/...moron
You peopl are the same ones saying President Bush is Like Hitler..im not one of these nice guys..I would split your lip for saying such sht to my face:D...seriously..But the more you talk..the bettr we are..cause you say Golly-gee stupid sht..This does prove morons can stay alive!!
whaa stay out of our Country..we will continue to recruit your smartest from you countries and keep making us such a SUPERIOR Country.!!! I LOVE USA!!!!,,Burn in hell to all our enemies
-
IMP you truly are clueless, and typcial of how the last 10 years of Liberal Government has brainwashed the public as to what is, and what is not dangerous.
Fully Automatic fire is no more or less dangerous to the public than a single shot .22 rifle. It comes down to the user, and his intentions, and his skill.
Of course the 30 06 as more power, but its not automatic.
Oh really? Ever here of the BAR? It's chambered in 30-06, and is full auto. Please, stop trying to make arguments with things you don't know about or understand.
As for "armour piercing" ammunition, the only type of AP ammo banned by law in Canada is for PISTOLS only. Grap a copy of the criminal code and firearms act and read it yourself. We sell thousands of rounds of AP rilfe ammo out of our shop every year.
Also, in terms of penetration, ANY high powered rifle that is firing a non-frangible bullet (99.9% of the ammo out there, at least) will penetrate any civilian body armour here in Canada, every Armoured Car you've ever seen here, as well as multiple walls/dwellings. Of the 15 million + firearms in Canada, over 8 million of them are high-powered rifles. They are no more or less dangerous to the public than an AR-15, of which there is at least 500,000 in civilian hands in Canada. Just shops I worked for alone represent over 100,000 units moved in 15 years of this variant of rifle. I have 10 different variants of the M16/AR15 in my vault in my basement, and that is miniscule compared to some people in Canada.
As for pistol rounds being better for defence than rifle rounds in an urban environment, that is likely true.
That said, most Tac units out west here have moved to a M4 Carbine in .223, including Vancouver city, Calgary TAC and numerous others. Using the proper ammunition, the public is put no more at risk than from pistol caliber fire, and there is much greater chance of stopping the suspect, especially at longer ranges. This puts officers AND the public at less risk.
IMP, you shouldn't comment on things in the USA regarding this issue when you are uninformed with regards to it in your own country.
http://www.canadiantactical.ca
http://www.theshootingedge.com
Fav IMP quote:
It does prevent you from owning military weapons, which are of no use to civilians anyway.
Haha, ahahahah.
http://www3.telus.net/public/gcorn1/Mar26%2304.JPG
http://www3.telus.net/public/gcorn1/Jan07_20.jpg
http://www3.telus.net/public/gcorn1/Nov28_01.JPG
http://www3.telus.net/public/gcorn1/ar15A2-1.JPG
http://www3.telus.net/public/gcorn1/g36-2.jpg
http://www3.telus.net/public/gcorn1/m4_203.JPG
I can go on.
As for the number of guns/gun murder ration in Canada, rest assured that 8 million guns isn't even half of what is here. Based on sales figures from Western Gun companies in the last 25 years, there is that many in Alberta and BC alone.
There was about 850 deaths from firearms in 2002. 85 were NOT suicides. Of those, over 50 were a "visible minority".
Still, take the lie-beral stat of 8 million firearms and divide it by 85 deaths. Good reason to "register" all those dangerous firearms, it's for the children after all, and it may save "just one life".
-
Imagine if we could harness all that brainpower all you gun nuts have expended studying and learning about guns. A truly untapped source of genius.
A cure for world hunger maybe?
bowser
-
LOL! Sounds like a veiled insult.
You assume that is my only hobby, or that shooters are not as intelligent or educated as you eastern Liberals?
I'm a private pilot, I golf, I play PC games, I write/read, I play Chess. I was a Pro Paintball player, I've played in the worlds #1 Drill Bagpipe band for 15 years. The only place I've ever came under attack is with firearms. Why is that?
Why not flip your question around Bowser? If all you anti-gun people spent the time and money you do on trying to destroy one of my hobbies, you could cure cancer. Considering the Canadian government spent nearly one and a half billion on a gun registry that has no hope of preventing crime, and less than 33 million/yr on Cancer research since C68 was initiated, you should probably look in the mirror before starting a circular argument like that Bowser.
The side you support spends 471$ per cancer death per year for research.
They also spend 250,000$ per gun related death per year implementing the firearms act.
-
Attention Bowser, you have been PWN3D. :)
-
Go easy on him gman. His stats got thrown back in his face and he's a little sensitive right now.
Hell.. maybe he'll even take the time to read the initial post in this thread. If he has the attention span for it that is. Then maybe he could go solve world hunger.
MiniD
-
conservative dogpile 234,624
also no way to argue.
-
Originally posted by Gman
Fully Automatic fire is no more or less dangerous to the public than a single shot .22 rifle. It comes down to the user, and his intentions, and his skill.
2 users, same skill, same intentions... I think I can say 'nuff said'.
-
BTW Gman... "Proffessional Paintball Player". Best to leave that one off the resume you dork.
MiniD
-
Originally posted by bowser
Imagine if we could harness all that brainpower all you gun nuts have expended studying and learning about guns. A truly untapped source of genius.
A cure for world hunger maybe?
bowser
Perhaps if you anti-gun people spent as much time doing the same,instead of ridiculing us you might achieve the same.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
2 users, same skill, same intentions... I think I can say 'nuff said'.
???
-
Haha Deja, don't worry, that's never made my resume. I only brought it up because Paintball is very sociably acceptable here in Canada, yet shooting sports are not.
Mid Targut, you're right. What I was trying to get over the table to the person that was directed at is that a firearm of any type and description is lethal when used by a trained person against a crowd of unarmed people, while the reverse, a full auto M16 used by someone who had never touched a firearm would result in a lot of noise, 90% misses, and fewer dead than the anti-gun movement would have the public believe.
-
Originally posted by Mini D
???
!!!!
:p
-
Originally posted by Gman
Haha Deja, don't worry, that's never made my resume. I only brought it up because Paintball is very sociably acceptable here in Canada, yet shooting sports are not.
Mid Targut, you're right. What I was trying to get over the table to the person that was directed at is that a firearm of any type and description is lethal when used by a trained person against a crowd of unarmed people, while the reverse, a full auto M16 used by someone who had never touched a firearm would result in a lot of noise, 90% misses, and fewer dead than the anti-gun movement would have the public believe.
Yeah man I can't hit anything on full auto in Raven Shield. :D
-
Originally posted by Erlkonig
True AP bullets aren't even legal here in the US. Only the military (and law enforcement?) has access to that kind of stuff. According to FBI tests, the 5.56mm bullet is actually less likely to blast through walls than pistol bullets - due to a combination of the former's high velocity, lesser mass, and bullet construction. This includes the standard stuff issued to our military.
Thanks for the info. With no insults???? What happened here????
A BAR is fully auto matic? No kidding, I thought he was refering to hunting rifles. So my comment refered to those only. If you dont know what im talking about, maybe you should ask instead of throwing insults.
If the 5.56mm is such a bad round then why the hell are you using it? I thought the US military used it because it was good, guess I was wrong. I also thought the M16 had fully auto setting like most sub-machinegun, thanks for the info.
I never claimed to know more than anyone else here either.
A fully automatic weapon fires more bullets which means more chance to hurt innocents. Thats all I was saying. So why dont you put your insults away and discuss like civilized folks.
I didnt send insults to anyone who disagreed with me, did I.
I know that the M16 without AP is used by SWAT teams. But they dont use those AP rounds for a reason, because it could go through some criminal and hurt innocents. Thats all I was saying.
I said the military M16 (with AP ammo) was dangerous because it could go through people and hurt others (like a family member in the wrong place.)
Why do you always assume I mean in every situations.
Next time I will write sentences that cover every possible situation :rolleyes:
-
Cover every possible scenario imp? How about you just cover one possible scenario. Or at the very least, a realistic one.
You can argue that automatic weapons fire sprayed throughout a communitity can cause collateral damage all you want. Its not a scenario that has happend in the U.S. that I know of... anyone else that knows of it happening?
You can argue about the now mythical armor penetration of the .223 too as if somehow that round is the end all be all of lethality. Its one of the smallest centerfire rifle rounds available. It doesn't have a magical bullet in it that goes through stuff much better than any other round. Its just a bullet. A small one.
Actually, I find bowser's statement in regards to how much thought gun-rights people put into the whole debate somewhat amuzing. Its a really neet way to excuse people like yourself, that don't really put much thought into it at all.
MiniD
-
Originally posted by Mini D
Cover every possible scenario imp? How about you just cover one possible scenario. Or at the very least, a realistic one.
You can argue that automatic weapons fire sprayed throughout a communitity can cause collateral damage all you want. Its not a scenario that has happend in the U.S. that I know of... anyone else that knows of it happening?
You can argue about the now mythical armor penetration of the .223 too as if somehow that round is the end all be all of lethality. Its one of the smallest centerfire rifle rounds available. It doesn't have a magical bullet in it that goes through stuff much better than any other round. Its just a bullet. A small one.
Actually, I find bowser's statement in regards to how much thought gun-rights people put into the whole debate somewhat amuzing. Its a really neet way to excuse people like yourself, that don't really put much thought into it at all.
MiniD
I never said it was the most lethal bullet around. I only said that military AP could go through a guy and kill another. Since they are restricted, they dont pose a problem.
How many people in the US own working BAR?
What use do they make of it? Its not good for hunting, or defending your house. A non working one would be just as good a showpiece. The only use I can see is to use it at a firing range.
All I said was that automatic weapons fire more bullets which means more chances of someone being hit by accident.
Which is true no matter how you put it. I never said gun owners were all idiots who would fire wildly. I just said the possibility existed.
The US as gun violence problems that make many other countries' problems seem like a joke. There as to be a way to reduce that violence. Its not just street gangs, we have plenty of those in Canada.
Anti gang law adopted by Canada would certainly help the US.
So why isnt anyone in the US pushing to adopt one. Have they heard of the law? Are they unwilling to adopt a concept from Canada? No problem is unsolvable if you try to solve it of course.
I just dont see much will to do that in the US. Thats unfortunate, your country would be so much better if it had less violence.
I never said people in the US fired auto weapons in a crowd either. But how many times do you see crazy shooter in the US?
Compare that to Canada (taking into account population ratio of course.) Why is it that much higher? Its not the black people's fault. All races are involved. Why is that happening?
-
3600 shootings in the greater Toronto area since Jan 1 1997. Care to explain that?
Of these 80% involve someone with a previous violent criminal record. 80% of these are a visible minority.
Sorry, but it IS a racial problem. Solution = kick them the **** out of the country.
-
“…Sorry, but it IS a racial problem. Solution = kick them the **** out of the country….”.
Congratulations, I knew you had it in you. You are now an official card-carrying gun nut.
P.S. And to think you almost had me fooled with that impressive resume.
bowser
-
solution = kick racist pigs outta the country
-
Anti gang law adopted by Canada would certainly help the US.
So why isnt anyone in the US pushing to adopt one. Have they heard of the law? Are they unwilling to adopt a concept from Canada? No problem is unsolvable if you try to solve it of course.
I just dont see much will to do that in the US. Thats unfortunate, your country would be so much better if it had less violence.
Isn't that the law where you deport gang members to the U.S.?
MiniD
-
Please, what idiocy.
You assume because I'm of the gun culture and say kick out immagrants with criminal records that I'm a "racist". Typical left wing garbage, and right out of the little red book playbook.
My fiancee is a minority (Jewish). My best man for our wedding is Asian. My former partner and best friend is black, currently serving with 2 Para in the Brit Airborne. Out of the 20 employees working at my shooting range, 3 are East Indian, 3 are Asian, 1 is from Singapore, I'm part Jew, and the rest are tightie whities. Major racism going on there, better call the CBC for a special documentary.
By the way, my fiancee was sexually assaulted at her place of work once while closing down at 2 am about 3 years ago. A Somalian, with over 20 dings on his record. Good thing our liberal "diversity" kept him in the country. Of the 20 shootings in Calgary since Jan 1 this year, EVERY ONE has involved Asian gang members. Of the 3600 shootings in Toronto in the last 6 years,, nearly 2800 of them have involved racial minorities, and in particular gangs. Is it racism to think that these violent offenders with past records should be deported? As I just stated, it IS A RACIAL issue when well over half of all shootings involve people who have immigrated to Canada. Instead of giving them short or no sentences, they should be tossed out on their ears.
If you disagree with this, please tell me why.
The thousands of other immagrants who do nothing but tap the system and run up unreal criminal records should be tossed, but NOT the people who come here to make a better life, and are productive people in society.
So Bowser, be a good liberal and put your hands on your hips and purse your lips, and tell me what is good for me and that I'm a racist if I disagree. After all, facts can't help you as they are all on my side of the argument, all you liberals have left is the racism card, and you'll rise up and take that bait at the first instant it is offered, as noted in the above few posts from you and Vorticon.
edit> As for our vaunted "gang law", nice to see how well it has worked so far. It's responsible for less than a dozen Hell's Angels in jail at the moment, and maybe 100 or so arrests total. Nice how they haven't gone after the imported crime gangs huh? Oh ya, like Bowser said, that would be "racist", as they are immigrants.
P.S. Bowser: You never had me fooled, I knew you wouldn't fail me from the start.
-
I was only saying it could help, if they use it of course.
I never said gang violence didnt exist, on the contrary it does happen. I just said we had alot less, although in the last few years it seems to be climbing higher every year.
Criminals with records are there because our laws are too forgiving. This problem comes from criminals being liberated too easily. Which is a easily recognized problem in Canada.
Gangs should be given the same treatment as the Hell's Angels got. The law needs to be used alot more. We dont need those dirtbags around here.
Our immigration laws are pathetic, a few years ago we kicked out a family that had found work. I thougth people who work spend that money, which helps the economy.
Of course I could be wrong :rolleyes:
The problem comes from our bad laws. Maybe they should kick out any immigrant that commits a crime (like a probation period). That way we can get rid of some bad apples. If we enforce it, of course.
MiniD, that as nothing to do with it. Although that does sound like a good idea. We could just dump our problems on you guys. :D
-
well... actually... we had a gang law of sorts here in the 70's and 80's where known criminals couldn't consort. I was a biker and seen it work.. it virtually killed the organized crime end of biker "clubs"... we couldn't ride three abreast without being pulled over and rousted and... we all had warrants or were "consorting" with fellow parollees or whatever and ... the public and the ACLU was not about to worry about our "rights" as a bunch of ex con nazi's... A lot of club members loosened up the recruiting so that they could use "prospects" to go to jail for the regular members... prisons are full of "prospects".
flash forward... Mexican and black gangs swooped in to fill the vacum... Gang laws no longer work becaus they lack enforcement ability... rousting known criminals cars if "profiling"... you must allow themn to continue on their way... parole violations hardly exist... there are hardly any parole violations possible... you don't have to be employed for instance to be out on parole... you can visit your fellow criminals and hang with em...
gman is correct... as your racial mix get's higher so will your gun crimes including murder... to make the law abiding defensless will not be a viable solution. Here in the U.S. we have firearms preventing from 1-3 million crimes a year. you may need to prevent crime there too... hopefully you will have the tools.
I'm sure MT would agree that if we only allowed whites to have fierarms the U.S. rate of homicide and gun crimes would drop to canada levels..... increase minorities in canada and your rates for gun crime and homicide will approch ours. I doubt that such a simple solution will be adopted since it may seem slightly racist to some.
lazs
-
Without getting too hot...
I hope you all realize that the issue has nothing to do with RACE!
In the mid-late 19th century it was the Irish
Then it was the Italians
Then it was the Jews
Do ya think maybe crime might have something to do with poverty? Unemployment? Opportunity or lack thereof?
Match crime rates to the economy... direct correlation.
-
Only let whites have guns? May seem racist to some? I believe that is an understatement lazs, and highlights the pure fault in your logic:
A) You admit that guns are the problem and removing them is the solution.
B) It is racisist and bigoted. No perception needed.
I think the problem is thinking that if minorities cannot behave themselves, we keep removing privileges and rights until they see the folley of their ways. Seems lack of hope is what causes most of the problems in the first place.
MiniD
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Without getting too hot...
I hope you all realize that the issue has nothing to do with RACE!
In the mid-late 19th century it was the Irish
Then it was the Italians
Then it was the Jews
Do ya think maybe crime might have something to do with poverty? Unemployment? Opportunity or lack thereof?
Match crime rates to the economy... direct correlation.
On this one... we are in direct agreement.
MiniD
P.S. I notice you didn't list "availability of hanguns" as one of the problems there;)
-
Ok then... we won't discriminate. Everyone can enjoy their second ammendment rights and only those who commit criminal acts will be punished.
fair enough?
lazs
-
agreed....
And making a one sided Documentary is hardly criminal. :D
-
And he's not being punished for making the film. Just for calling it a documentary. :D
-
Thinking on MT's Disney documentary comparisons....
Did Disney ever have the mouse kung-fu the rattler in mid-strike and then end up having roast rattler with Mrs. Mouse and the kids in the movie?
That might be a more direct comparison to what Moore did.
:D
-
(http://film.onet.pl/_i/news/duze/m/mighty_mouse_1.jpg)
It could happen. :cool:
-
But did it happen?
And did they get an Oscar for "documentary" with that particular one?
I'm thinking... no, no Oscar.
-
Jokes aside Toad,
"The Living Desert" did win the Oscar in the '50's and I would be willing to bet the ranch and the rent money that many if not most of the "natural occurances" depicted in that movie were either staged, scripted (by editing), or never happened as described.
So how exacly is that different than Moores Documentary?
-
The difference is that while some of it may have been staged, it still represented factual occurances.
The mouse did not eat the rattlesnake. The snake always ate the mouse.
-
And what was not "factual" in the same sense as a staged mouse feast?
"From my cold dead hands" - is often quoted as a departure from the facts. Heston said it, but Moore leads us to believe it is said in Denver. Factual, yet not. Kinda like the mouse feast.
-
Factual?
I refer you to the long page of things that were not "factual" in the movie that has been posted in another thread and is available on the net.
-
Apparently the movie isn't even about bowling. Have you guys ever seen The Big Lebowski? Now there's a great bowling movie.
bowser
-
Living Desert - We see something that actually happened, yet are misled as to when and where.
BFC - We see something that actually happened, yet are misled as to when and where.
well?
-
http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html
Read that again and get back to me. Moore portrays a lot of stuff that never actually happened.
The mouse never gets to kill the rattler in a Disney Documentary. The mouse would exterminate all rattlers within 100 miles in a Moore flick. Not sure if he'd have the mouse kung-fu the rattler though.. maybe just beat it in a fair fight of fang vs. tooth and claw.
-
I'm trying to move house this summer. Looked at one yesterday, but too small. But I noticed in one of the bedrooms a paperback copy of one of Michael Moore's books - Stupid White Men I think it was - lying on the bedside table. Started me wondering - how is the campaign going to revoke the Moore Oscar?
-
Gun nuts have a very short attention span. They've moved on.
bowser