Bowling for Columbine

[veganinohio]

Check out the trailer:

http://www.bowlingforcolumbine.com/

[Michael]

I'm not familiar with his work, and even though I had seen his face before I had never heard the name "Michael Moore" until Tame told me about his website. Anyway, that looks very interesting, I'd definitely go see it.

[veganinohio]

Rent "Roger and Me" and see what you think. I think it's a must see.

[MinnieFay]

Michael Moore....he's the same guy that did TV nation, coorect? I have a feeling it will be a while before bowling comes to my area...we only have 2 art-house theatres, and they've been showing my big fat greek wedding for like the past 4 months.

~becca

[Kreeli]

i can't wait to see this flick!

[veganinohio]

It's supposed to get a wider release this weekend. Apparently it is setting box office records for a documentary film.

[Bankruptor]

The term "documentary" implies something based on fact, not emotion and hype, and as such I question whether such drivel qualifies as an example. Michael Moore is a self promoting egomaniac who twists "facts" to evoke emotion and support whatever political position he chooses to foster. That said, I am forced to rely on what others tell me about this movie, as I certainly will not support it by paying money to see it.

Bank, NRA Life

http://www.indiewire.com/film/reviews/rev_02Cannes_020522_Bowl.html

[veganinohio]

Hee hee. I'm sorry, but when someone criticizes a movie and then refuses to see it, I just have to laugh. I believe you were saying that Michael Moore doesn't know what he's talking about right before you wrote that. Haw!

And yeah, why should anyone care about gun control in this day and age?

The fact that anyone would be proud of being in the NRA this month makes me sick.

By the way, did you include that link to the film review as support for your criticism? I read it, and it seems very much like a positive review to me. It does point out some flaws, but nothing as strong as your accusations of fact-fudging and egomaniacal behavior. The review on salon.com is much more negative if you're looking for a good one.

[Thalia]

The review also states that the film points out many paradoxes, such as Canada having the same rate of gun ownership but much less violence. It sounds as if according to the review, the movie is focused more on looking for the source of a violent culture, with more emphasis on the media than gun ownership, itself.

So if you are implying that the movie is simply anti-gun propaganda, I think you may have pre-judged.

[Bankruptor]

Guys, I concede that I haven't seen it, though I saw TV Nation on a whim many moons ago and am somewhat familiar with his "work". I'm also sorry that support of the NRA makes you sick, is this just one more item on a long list? I'm sickened that people would still deny others the means to defend themselves this month but hey, I've got a pretty long list myself ;)

Thalia, you may be right and no doubt the link implies such. We'll see (or not). :)

[Thalia]

Are there more moderate lobbies for gun owners? Surely someone can support the 2nd amendment without believing in everything the NRA believes in right? Just like not every pro-lifer belongs to Operation Rescue, or ARA to PETA. Being Pro-NRA is somewhat more provacative than just saying you are for gun ownership rights of some sort or pro-2nd amendment.

Bankruptor, are you an actual dues paying member of the NRA? Can you tell us about what they support, specifically?

[Bankruptor]

Thalia, I'm a Life Member, which means I paid the fee (I think it was like $500) 20 years ago or so and don't have to pay any more dues, though this doesn't stop them from constant solicitation for more, believe me. :)

I am one of the the "true believers" that thinks the NRA doesn't go far enough and that they often appease the gun control crowd with compromise. I also think that their positions are often portrayed as radical and, in support of this argument, the media and politicians often take specific positions out of context that most people would agree sound pretty radical in and of themselves without viewing the entire picture. I'm sure you've seen similar occurrences with political organizations which you support as well.

As to their exact positions, the NRA is a pro firearms organization that furthers the shooting sports and private firearms ownership. This is accomplished through lobbying efforts and political support/contributions to pro 2nd candidates, through firearms safety education and training for youth, and through legal representation and support of various challenges to legislation or judicial decisions that infringe on these rights, among many other practices. If you want some specifics about what they are presently pursuing I'd refer you to their website and www.NRA.org. One of the projects that they are focused on at the moment is the defeat of the renewal of the magazine capacity ban, which expires in 2003, which in my view was one of the more idiotic kneejerk reactions enacted into law. This will likely be characterized as something like "The NRA is opposed to renewal of the Crime Bill" or some such . . . :D

[veganinohio]

Yeah, I guess that is just one thing in a long list. So what?

[Bankruptor]

So, we're both kinda activist types, just with different agendas. That's all.

[veganinohio]

edit: (I'm going to back out of what I said here--it was stupid and just not true--I'll leave the following sarcasm, though). Everything's just peachy!

[Bankruptor]

Au contraire, I'm all in favor of changing MANY things, even my diet (well, a little . . . )

[Thalia]

So how many bullets can a magazine hold now, and what limit if any would the NRA like to see, if technology or whatever could allow unlimited bullets per magazine?

What is the reasoning? That it is a form of infringement on the 2nd amendment?

[Bankruptor]

Thalia, since 1994, any newly manufactured magazine can't accept more than 10 rounds, per Federal law. Any that were manufactured prior to this time (and there are oodles) are grandfathered. Prior to that time the only limit was practical, as in how many can the firearm reasonably hold without becoming too cumbersome and unwieldy. The magazine capacity ban has done nothing to reduce crime (as expected) but it has proven to be a major hindrance to sport shooters who are forced to scour the used parts bins and other sources for "pre Clinton" mags. The only way that this bill was able to pass through Congress was with the stipulation that it would "sunset" (expire) in 10 years, and it will do so in 2003 if not renewed. My position, and I'm sure it is the NRA's as well, is that this is an unreasonable restriction with no evidence that it provides any societal benefit whatsoever, and further that it infringes upon Second Amendment freedoms.

Let me just say though that several of my own family members do not own firearms and will not allow them in their homes for what they perceive to be moral or safety reasons. That's fine and I support everyone's right to live as they please. However, when the government attempts to dictate how *I* choose to live, and further attempts to restrict or infringe any law abiding individual's ability to defend themselves or their family from crimes of violence, then its time for a change in my view . . . .

[veganinohio]

How many rounds does it take to kill a person?

I agree, it's definitely time for a change. The world perceives Americans as gun-toting freaks, and they're right.

[Thalia]

One reason I don't own a gun, nor does my family, is the statistic I have read several places that 51% of (human) deaths by shootings (not sure if just handguns or what) are suicides.

Not to mention death by drunk/angry/jealous etc. family members.

So by doing that I feel my family and I have emliminated a huge source of potential gun violence in our lives.

My parents used to have a dog to warn them (and possibly scare off) potential criminals who may want to enter and hurt us.

bankruptor says:

I'm sickened that people would still deny others the means to defend themselves this month...
I'm not sure if vio was originally referring to the sniper when he said "this month" or what. But I am sure there are plenty of gun owners to take out the sniper, the terrorists, etc. If only they knew where to point their guns. And if we knew that...

[veganinohio]

I will say that I would be uncomfortable living in a country where the only people allowed to own guns were the police and/or the military. I'm also very uncomfortable living in a country where the gun laws are so lax and where firearms are so prevalent.

However, the NRA's stance on just about everything is just plain stupid.

[Michael]

Personally I feel if you compare the statistics that you will shoot yourself (or someone in your family will shoot themselves), that your own gun will be used against you, that your gun will be stolen and used against someone else (either by a stranger or someone in your home), etc. etc. that it would dwarf the chances that you would ever get to (successfully) use your own gun for protection (and that's all assuming you ever even get the chance). Just seems like too much else could go wrong.

I did catch a guy breaking into my apartment earlier this year, and if I would have had a gun, I would have waited for him to get his ass in the window and I would have shot him. I'm thankful that I was never put in that position.

Either way, I don't really care. I don't like that the NRA is against making it harder to get guns, though I can see their point. I'm all for people having them but I want to make sure that to the best of our knowledge they are stable law-abiding citizens. And yes, I do know if someone wants a gun bad enough, particularly a criminal, they will get one.

[Bankruptor]

Guns have always been an emotional issue for many, and I agree that responsible possession mandates training and responsibility. Accidents can and do happen, with anything. The numbers clearly show, though, that more children are killed in swimming pools every year than by firearms. The reason you don't see the outcry against pools is that they don't carry the "image" that many associate with firearms.

VIO, I really don't know what you mean about "lax" gun laws. To date there are over 12,000 federal, state and local regulations that control firearms in the US. EVERY lawful buyer is subjected to a computerized background check prior to purchase of any firearm from a dealer in the U.S. unless, in my state and some others, you possess a special concealed carry permit like I do, which requires certified training hours, regular renewal and a background check just shy of an anal probe. The problem isn't too few laws, the problem is that criminals don't obey the existing laws. That is, after all, the very definition of "criminal". Laws just affect those that obey them . . . .

[Michael]

Bankruptor, you do have to admit that swimming pools also do not have that image because they serve an alternate purpose, unlike guns. ;)

[majake]

"Laws just affect those that obey them . . . ."

no no no this is simply not true, laws affect everyone, regardless of whether or not someone obeys them, the laws provide for a set of guidelines in which members of a society must follow in order to maintain harmony in that society, if someone doesnt follow the law it affects everyone, including that person and other criminals, the biggest effect on that person is that they now can be tried convicted and even killed, if not just locked up or fined or get a slap on the wrist for not following the laws set forth by society. Small effects are that the person may contribute to society creating more laws thus creating more laws for him to break, increased expenses for members of society and their businesses which mean higher costs of living and thus resulting in more crimes because people can not afford to pay for things they might have been able to pay for before. People feel less safe in a society full of criminals, even the criminals feel less safe in these societies.

Regarding gun laws, i should be able to own any kind of gun i want, that shoots as many bullets as i want, how anyone else uses them should not have any affect on whether or not i should be able to use one. guns arent just for killing anymore, shooting is an art, one that takes much skill and practice and even then you may suck at it. I agree with bank, the gov't should not be able to regulate what i can own, they should be able to regulate what i use it for and how i use it.

Bank, are those 12,000 gun laws only in regards to owning guns or do they include any law that includes a gun, such as murder with a firearm? if they do include laws about crimes with guns i think the NRA is piling it on a bit deep with that statement.


Michael, guns serve many purposes, swimpools serve the purpose of entertainment, sport and fitness. All these things can be accomplished with guns plus they can be used for protection, obtaining food, and as a hammer, plus many more i may not have thought of just yet.