"Bowling for Columbine"

[axeman]

Continue to blame the gun instead of the individual
and you will never solve the problem.

Should I post 10,000 newsclips on defense uses
of guns that went right?

Let's leave the media clips out of this.
For every clip you can provide that shows a misuse
of a firearm, I can provide 10 that shows a good use
of a firearm. Its the larger statistical picture that counts.


peace

axeman

Quote from Siwash:

So was this a case of 1 gun too many or 1 more needed??

 

[tampa]

Quote from rlb21079:


The only major issue which comes to mind is the war on drugs. Discussion is sparse from mass medias and for the most part politicians stay well clear of the issue. Voices from the far left and right both denounce the purported 'war,' and there is general support for the lifting of certain restrictions. There is little question though that not much will change in the near future. Except maybe further restriction.

May I digress, and address your point that it is the politician, or the media that sets the agenda for discourse. I quite disagree. Both the politician and the media are at the mercy of the public - they either "talk" about what the public wants to hear, or they perish.

Take the "war on drugs" that you cited. You hear very little about it - pro or con - because it has little or no real effect on the average person.

Let me give you an example. I once loved to drop acid. God how I loved it. I don't trip any more - not because I wouldn't like to, but because I can no longer afford the luxury. You see, back then I needed almost a full day to prepare, a day to do the deed, and a day to recover. I can no longer afford three days to trip out, so I really don't care if it is legal or not. It has no effect on my life. I am the one who votes, buys newspapers, and watches the news. It would be foolish to try to incite me one way or the other. It ain't gonna happen.

Most folks just don't want to admit it, but they get what they want and therefor, deserve.

 

[axeman]

"To answer your question : I am stating emphatically (not implying) that guns are designed to kill people, innocent or otherwise. Killing is the intention, the goal."

And to this I answer SO WHAT??? Your point is meaningless.

F16's are designed to kill people, yet we allow our military to have them.
The atomic bomb is designed to kill A LOT of people, and yet
it ended WWII.
Sherman tanks kill lots of people, and they were used to find
the nazis.
Guns kill people, and yet will allow our police officers to
walk the streets with them to subdue violent criminals.

The point is.... YES guns are designed to kill people, and for
GOOD reason.

But guns in themselves are NOT evil. They dont run around
and shoot people by themselves. It takes a CRIMINAL
to cause a crime WITH the use of a firearm.

A criminal could take an SUV and drive it through a crowded
NYC parade killing HUNDREDS of people.

Are you going to tell the crying mothers that its no big
deal because cars weren't DESIGNED TO KILL PEOPLE?
They could care less. The intent is has nothing to do
with this argument.

Were airplanes DESIGNED to be flown into large buildings
killing thousands of americans on our soil???
The INTENT is meaningless.

Guns are overwhelmingly used for GOOD purposes in this
country VS bad.

This is the HUGE hole in your argument.


" Yes, cars take innocent lives, but so do balconies, jet airplanes and small pox vacinations, but that is an unfortunate but necessary risk to assume in today's society. Guns have no such redeeming quality. Guns are manufactured BECAUSE guns kill and kill efficiently."

I just proved that this is wrong. Guns protect the innocent.
Guns freed our country. Guns are used in self defense.
Guns are used by our military to protect our nation.
Guns DO have redeeming qualities. Guns are used to save lives
every day.


"Now you may argue we need guns to protect ourselves, the personal self-defense argument. Protect ourselves from what? The irresponsible proliferation and dissemination of Other guns, that's what! It seems the toothpaste is now out of the tube, and it is damned hard to get it back in. But arming everyone to the teeth is not the way to do it. That makes for a very dangerous situation as is evident on the streets today. To "protect" the World would you arm each and every country to the teeth with nukes? "

The swiss prove your wrong. They are loaded to the brim
with assault rifles and guess what?? LOW LOW crime
and gun violence.
In case you haven't noticed, there are a LOT of gun toting
criminals in the united sates. THAT is who you need to
protect yourself from. The police won't do anything until
AFTER a crime has been committed...aka, you've been shot.


As for nukes... think it would have been a good idea
to get rid of all our nukes when the soviets had them all?
What about during the cuban missle crisis??
No one wants to see everyone with nukes, but it would
be a very bad idea to give ours up when others have them.


"I think it quite obvious I am not in favor of taking more innocent lives but in saving more of the same. "

It is NOT obvious, and in fact, it is the OPPOSITE if you
are in favor of removing firearms from civilians.

"AND I am also in favor of ridding society of dangerous devices, devices that are designed and manufactured solely because they are dangerous to people."

Ah yes... these devices which save MORE lives than they take.
You are in favor of DEATH then.

"We need tighter controls over dangerous weapons of all kinds, not a bazooka in every living room. "

Yes in some cases, no in others, you need to be more specific.

peace

axeman

 

[axeman]

tampa: I once loved to drop acid. God how I loved it. I don't trip any more - not because I wouldn't like to, but because I can no longer afford the luxury. You see, back then I needed almost a full day to prepare, a day to do the deed, and a day to recover. I can no longer afford three days to trip out, so I really don't care if it is legal or not. "

Well now THAT explains a lot!


" It has no effect on my life. "

SOME would beg to differ LOL


peace

axeman

 

[Mr. Bollinger]

Quote from axeman:

"To answer your question : I am stating emphatically (not implying) that guns are designed to kill people, innocent or otherwise. Killing is the intention, the goal."

And to this I answer SO WHAT??? Your point is meaningless.

F16's are designed to kill people, yet we allow our military to have them.
The atomic bomb is designed to kill A LOT of people, and yet
it ended WWII.
Sherman tanks kill lots of people, and they were used to find
the nazis.
Guns kill people, and yet will allow our police officers to
walk the streets with them to subdue violent criminals.

Yes but civilians are not allowed to have F16's parked in their garage. You want to fly an F16? Join the military. You want a gun? Become a police officer. The point is police officers and the military go through extensive training before handling such weapons. I'm not anti-gun, I just think people should be trained and tested before given a gun.

 

[tampa]

Quote from Mr. Bollinger:



Yes but civilians are not allowed to have F16's parked in their garage. You want to fly an F16? Join the military. You want a gun? Become a police officer. The point is police officers and the military go through extensive training before handling such weapons. I'm not anti-gun, I just think people should be trained and tested before given a gun.

They go through MORE than extensive training - they also go through on-going psychological evaluations...

Seems only reasonable to me that if you want a weapon, you prove your competence with it, and with yourself...but I am sure that our paranoid gun lovers will disagree...

 

[rlb21079]

Quotes from tampa in bold:

May I digress, and address your point that it is the politician, or the media that sets the agenda for discourse. I quite disagree. Both the politician and the media are at the mercy of the public - they either "talk" about what the public wants to hear, or they perish.

A valid point. What I believe is more truthful though is a middle ground. A politician or media person cannot solely set the agenda for discourse. They do however, as individuals within the public have a certain degree of authority in setting this discourse. I would argue that they, as a result of their public standing, have a greater influence than the average individual. Collectively the public has greater power - however this power exists for the collective entity and can only be exercised collectively. And, since the public rarely acts collectively for an agenda of its own will, since its will is naturely divided, it is the politician or media person who most often puts a name and thus a direction to this will.

A politician, for example, is presented with an issue. Say gun control. He/she is lobbied by the appropriate constituents on either side of the issue. If neither lobbying party has a clear advantage an intelligent politician will then look to his/her constituency. Or, if their is significant risk in alienating a large part of his/her constituency they may be "consulted," regardless. The process of "consultation," here is multi-faceted. Polling to get an idea of current opinion, speaking publicly to test ideas and promote platforms, advertising and appealing to media outlets to influence marginal opinions are all put into effect. Contrarily, issues which can be solved to the advantage of the politician without the use of public discourse will be - if for no other reason than efficiency.

Take the "war on drugs" that you cited. You hear very little about it - pro or con - because it has little or no real effect on the average person.

I would disagree in general, although as far as LSD is concerned you are probably correct. Millions in this country smoke marijuana for recreational and medicinal purposes (more the former than the latter). Billions of dollars are made by the US government distributing and controlling traffic of this and other illicit substances. Were the substances legalized and controlled crime would decrease, safety of use would increase, and profits could be distributed along capitalistic lines.

Most folks just don't want to admit it, but they get what they want and therefor, deserve.

I couldn't agree more. The fact is most people don't want to think. It appears to be a biological function of the mind to conserve energy. It results in a willingness for the average individual to allow other to think and decide on their behalf... whether or not it is in their own best interest.

 

[tampa]

Quote from rlb21079:



May I digress, and address your point that it is the politician, or the media that sets the agenda for discourse. I quite disagree. Both the politician and the media are at the mercy of the public - they either "talk" about what the public wants to hear, or they perish.

A valid point. What I believe is more truthful though is a middle ground. A politician or media person cannot solely set the agenda for discourse. They do however, as individuals within the public have a certain degree of authority in setting this discourse. I would argue that they, as a result of their public standing, have a greater influence than the average individual. Collectively the public has greater power - however this power exists for the collective entity and can only be exercised collectively. And, since the public rarely acts collectively for an agenda of its own will, since its will is naturely divided, it is the politician or media person who most often puts a name and thus a direction to this will.

A politician, for example, is presented with an issue. Say gun control. He/she is lobbied by the appropriate constituents on either side of the issue. If neither lobbying party has a clear advantage an intelligent politician will then look to his/her constituency. Or, if their is significant risk in alienating a large part of his/her constituency they may be "consulted," regardless. The process of "consultation," here is multi-faceted. Polling to get an idea of current opinion, speaking publicly to test ideas and promote platforms, advertising and appealing to media outlets to influence marginal opinions are all put into effect. Contrarily, issues which can be solved to the advantage of the politician without the use of public discourse will be - if for no other reason than efficiency.

Take the "war on drugs" that you cited. You hear very little about it - pro or con - because it has little or no real effect on the average person.

I would disagree in general, although as far as LSD is concerned you are probably correct. Millions in this country smoke marijuana for recreational and medicinal purposes (more the former than the latter). Billions of dollars are made by the US government distributing and controlling traffic of this and other illicit substances. Were the substances legalized and controlled crime would decrease, safety of use would increase, and profits could be distributed along capitalistic lines.

Most folks just don't want to admit it, but they get what they want and therefor, deserve.

I couldn't agree more. The fact is most people don't want to think. It appears to be a biological function of the mind to conserve energy. It results in a willingness for the average individual to allow other to think and decide on their behalf... whether or not it is in their own best interest.

Thank you, Jesus, thank you...at long last, an ET member that I can agree with (well, close enough to call it agreement - you can't have everything)!

I guess that your point on weed is more or less valid. The only thing I might say is that since it is radially available, and since most middle class Americans have little or no fear of prosecution, there ain't a lot of incentive for talking to the streets. And, since I am told, the quality of the shit is so much better these days, I suppose that one could argue that those directly effected just can't get it together enough to let their voices be heard...

ahh dude, you wanna pass that thing over here...

 

[axeman]

A civilian has no need for an F16 for personal defense,
so that is not applicable here. Civilians dont have them
for the same reason police officers dont have them.
They both need to be able to defend themselves against criminals.

The point I was making is that weapons are not inherently evil.
I wasn't trying to say that everyone should be able to
own an F16 or bazooka.

As for training... I have been through extensive firearms
training and unlike your average washington DC cop
with a GED, and some with previous drug use and minor criminal
offenses, I am college educated, drug free, and crime free.
There is no rational reason why someone should trust
a police officer over me with a firearm.

Also... the statistics show, that per capita, police
accidently shoot the WRONG person at a much higher
rate than home owners. They seem to be trigger happy
due to the nature of their jobs. So even without the
additional training, it seems your are morel likely to be
accidently shot to death by a police officer than your neighbor.

But I would also like to see a better system for allowing
gun ownership by private individuals.

I would REMOVE many restricitve gun laws, and replace
them with reasonable licence requirements, including
firearms safety courses, etc.

I would NOT have a waiting period though, because
many times people need guns ASAP. Many examples of
wives/girlfriends running to the gun shop and purchasing
a firearm the DAY their pyscho EX calls them and tells them
they are going to kill them. Which of course, the police
can do nothing about until after the fact.

But I would have an X day grace period where you would have
to take the training after purchasing the firearm, at least for
emergency situations.


peace

axeman

Quote from Mr. Bollinger:



Yes but civilians are not allowed to have F16's parked in their garage. You want to fly an F16? Join the military. You want a gun? Become a police officer. The point is police officers and the military go through extensive training before handling such weapons. I'm not anti-gun, I just think people should be trained and tested before given a gun.

 

[tampa]

Axie, would you allow drug users (recreational), alcoholics, mental deficients, Alzheimer victims, or people suffering from dementia to have guns under your plan?