Bowling for Columbine
 

I just saw this movie and it brought up some interesting points.

In case you have not seen the movie, it is a film by Michael Moore that attempts to probe why the U.S. has over 11,000 murders every year and why other countries with similar amounts of guns and gun laws (Canada, Germany, France, Britain) have fewer than 200 gun-related murders each year. Moore's theory was the media; the media displays every single night more and more crimes.

When you turn on the 5 o'clock or 6 o'clock news, what is the news story that it usually displayed? Someone being shot, a robbery, or someone donating to a local charity?

Or how about George W. Bush's #1 priority being the war, and not domestic problems.

Comments?

I think this movie has been discussed to death before. I'll just say it was entertaining.

Re: Bowling for Columbine
 

We beat this 'documentary' to shreds a few weeks back, and I don't think we need to do it every time someone new watches it. (not a flame of you, just that it gets old)

You can check here

http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html

and here

http://www.mooreexposed.com/

and any number of other places. They cover Mr. Moore nicely.

With the search feature being disabled I wasn't able to search for it. I did have a feeling that this was discussed before but I had to give it a try.

I think its a good film. I wouldnt say he offers any great insight into the tragedy of America's gun problems, but I enjoyed parts of it, thought parts of it were cheap.

I guess, at the end of the day, the fact that thousands of Americans are being shot every day makes him angry, and that is something I find a lot more admirable than people who cling on to a long outdated piece of a constitution that they interpret to say they have the right to own weapons of destruction.

I suppose, the question is, which maybe the film really poses after everything else (and whatever misrepresentations of evidence Moore is accused of) - we know a great many people are being killed in America by guns... is it worth it?

Of course, if you are determined to kill someone, you dont need a gun, but there can be no doubt that the widespread ownership of a weapon that can kill very easily creates more death and violence and fear...

So to people who love their guns, they must all ask, how many deaths, per year, is my right to own this weapon worth? Where do you put the number? 100, 10, 1,000. 10,000? How many lives do we need to know will be saved by controlling the ownership of guns before as a people you decide to give them up?

criminals will always have guns reguardless of gun control. Gun control only takes guns out of the law abiding citizens hands (primarly those who aren't shooting other people).

Show me gun control working and you would have a point. Only it doesn't and in fact it does quite the opposite. Results are what matters NOT intent!

I struggle to think of any purpose a gun can serve other than to shoot someone with?

Hunting and Defending your house from criminals

Have you ever noticed that isreal doesn't have a lot of armed robberies? They don't have gun control, in fact they encurage people to carry guns with them.

Is a criminal going to rob a place when there is a strong chance that people inside have guns?

I have shot many firearms, and thousands of rounds of ammo. Want to take a wild guess as to how many people that I have shot? Zero.

For what purpose?

1 - Killing, torturing, and destroying wild animals is not a justified reason to possess a gun in my opinion

2 - Defending your house by.... shooting anyone who tries to break in?

Which is my point - if a robber didnt think you would have a gun, he wouldnt have a gun - and if he robbed you no one dies at least.

If a robber breaks into your house now, one of you is probably gonna get shot.

If a robber didn't think you had a gun he would be able to waltz into any house with a gun and do what he wants. Maybe he will just shoot you then rape your daughter then shooter her. The prospect of victems having guns is definatly a deturent for criminals.

Hunting is justified if done for food and not sport in my oppinion. I don't mind people going dear hunting and such as long as they eat the dear in the end. At least this way the dear has a chance of survival unlike the cows at the slaughter house. But i'll agree with you that hunting for sport is horrible and i'd love to put those hunters who do it for sport on the other end of "their" game.

Gun ownership in the UK is still very low (although growing), and no one I know of has ever been attacking by a burgular with a gun, or a rapist with a gun. In the UK, you are probably most likely to be shot (if you are an innocent person and not a drug dealer) by the police.

I would also supsect (although I dont have evidence) that the UK does not have a much greater level of robberies or burgulary compared to the US.

The UK also is a very different nation then the US. The UK doesn't have the innercity problem that the US has. The innercity problem the US has does not come from gun ownership however. Much of it comes from oppresion that blacks faced throughout the years and how it led to a violent culter. It only takes a few seeds of violence to create a large problem if the violence isn't solved early. When you have hateful ignorent people treaching young impressionable minds you end up with even more hateful and ignorent people. This is why organizations like the KKK simply appaul me. It is also why much of the Arab world is full of hatered twoard the US.

If kids can be made to believe that the easter bunny is real they can certainly be made to believe that the US is satan.

Because I thankfully live in a country where law abiding citizens who are of sound mind have the right to own and operate firearms for recreation or self-defense.

It doesn't take much effort to find articles about the UK's rising crime rate in spite of its strict gun control laws, compared to the US's relaxed gun control laws and lowering crime rate.

However, I guess you would have to be interested in the truth to bother searching. :rolleyes:

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/cri...p?story=314832

http://www.dailytelegraph.co.uk/opin...questid=318893

http://search.ft.com/search/article....rch&state=Form

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...2Fncrim123.xml

http://www.tsra.com/UKViolent.htm

http://www.newsmax.com/articles/?a=2000/1/20/115342

Posting about Michael Moore or mentioning gun control never fails to get some sparks flying, does it?

posting anything by extreamists has that response. I'd love to see people start posting Rush Limbagh comments. Only thing different between Rush and Moore (other than the pole they fall on) is Moore hasn't completely lost all his credibility yet since he is still fairly new to the political scene. ;)

I understand this was directed towards someone else, but I'd like to address the points as well.

1 - It's that or buying venison from a slaughter house. I'd take a shotgun blast to the face over having my throat slit any day, hunting is kinder to the animal then buying your meat through a middle-man.

Furthermore, there is no torture involved with hunting, you kill a deer for food and sport, you kill rodents because they're pests and you kill aggressive animals (rabid dogs, mean dogs, bears, etc.) to protect yourself. If you have any moral objections to eating meat, then that's for a different thread. Although noone really cares anyways it turns out.

2 - Yes.

You're damn right he's going to get shot. You don't break into peoples homes, especially if they have the means to defend themselves.

I think getting into a debate on gun control misses the point of Bowling for Columbine. He doesn't pretend to have the answer, that is what he is searching for.

I've found that most Moore bashers spend all their time trying to unveil relatively minor inconsistencies in his work as opposed to tackling the real issue at hand.

So, I have a question for everyone. Why do you think Americans kill each other so much more than any other Western country?


SLM3

I'm sorry this thread is my fault. I just couldn't let it go.....

I started out well and should have left it at that.

Sport hunters do far more to preserve and protect wildlife than all other groups combined.

I don't think you will find a simple answer to that question. There are far to many factors at fault. Family values, heritage, media, culture, disparity between the rich and the poor. Many of the same reasons that there is much animosity for the US amoung Arab nations.

Americans have always been prone to a sort of "frontier justice" mentality, those were our roots. Also the frictions between classes/races/etc. in this country are magnified through the lens of our culture, which likes everything to be bigger...

To quote Chris Rock: "Don't go to parties with metal detectors, sure, it may feel safe on the inside, but the motherfuckers on the outside know you ain't got one." If you take away guns, and criminals will have access to them (black market, etc.), they will know that you do not have one and will have free shots at your house.

I might agree with Moore on his stance of media-induced fear if i visit a foreign country (Canada, England, France, Britain) and watch their news and see what they report on. The reports that I have heard have said that Moore pieced together film clips and others so he might be a little biased.

You think the US is unique enough in these ways to account for the massive difference? What about the history of England, or Germany? They have much more blood on their hands, historically, as well as a big gap between rich and poor. They watch the same movies, and are subject to the same world events. I don't see the major difference that would account for the massively different body counts.

SLM3

P.S. I truly hope you don't think Arab nations (a vague enough generalization as is) resent the US because of its culture. If anything, many Arabs spend much of their time trying to emulate it.

By the media I do not believe he was referring to movies as movies are distrubuted around the world.

The other countries also do not have a President whose focus right now is on the well-being of another nation (Iraq) then on its own country. Why go in to Iraq, destroy it, pay to rebuild it, when our own country has its own needs?

America is unique in that it is the ME ME ME ME society. Sure we want guns, money, big ass houses, heck i live in one. Do you think many people that you walk to talk to today in this society know that 20000 people dies in Iraq this past weekend or do you think they know that micheal jackson got beat up the LAPD, or that the packers made into the play-offs. C'mon people this is all we care about me me me.....
I was leaving work tonite and i was getting into my car...a very small compact car, and the woman next to me got into her huge ass SUV and she said to me that she wouldn't want to be in that little car and get hit by an SUV as big as hers. But i said if we all had little cars like mine, we wouldn't have to worry about.
Kinda like if all of us didn't have guns, we wouldn't have to worry about people killing other people. I live in a state that want to allow concealed weapons......WHY??? I don't want those bastards hiding them......I don't like guns at all....but if they have to be there i want them out in the front, where i can see them.
For all the sportsmen out there.....People can hunt with them, but why do you need to hunt with an automatic machine gun, or hand guns....you don't.... so get rid of them.

Woooo i'm ramblin....
got a little off topic.
sorry
Mr b

It was entertaining to me too.
I'm also entertained at how angry people get when discussing it. From that perspective, it's quite a success also.

So robbers never break in and kill unarmed people? :crazy: :lol: Man you are better than a Jim Carrey movie.

First off 20,000 people were not killed in Iraq this weekend. 40,000 died in IRAN. Second, thank those lawful people that are carring concealed guns sine you will also reap the rewards. When you walk down a street, a potential mugger will wonder if you are packing a rod, since it will now be legal, and decide not to mess with you, Even though you are not carring a gun, the mugger will not know for sure and err on the side of caution.

Food for thought, why does crime go down everywhere conceal carry laws are passed?

People should get angry when a fictious movie wins best oscar.

Did the thread starter read Ustwo's links? Iam curious as to what he has to say about the information he read.

My biggest problem with BFC is the lies. My second biggest problem is how Moore is taken seriously when he does such shoody research.
Instead of talking to counselors, psychologists and such as to why the Columbine shooters killed, he suggests (erroneously) that they must have did it because the littleton plant makes WMD, when that is absurd, and it doesnt even make WMD.
In Roger and Me, Moore talks to everyone about Flint Michigan's problems EXCEPT the then govennor and Mayor of the place.
He blames DIck Clark for the murder of that child whoes name escapes me, not the crack head parents.
He makes a cartoon that shows the NRA and KKK holding hands and lighting a cross when the NRA was ESSENTIAL to forcing congress to enacting Anti KKK legistation and even trained blacks in gun handeling in order to protect them selves against the KKK. Something that is OPPOSITE of what Moore shows in his little fiction of a film.
He lied to the people in his film so they would be in it. Their reactions to this, and all the evidence to back up what I a saying are in Ustwo's links.
And worst of all, he edited two of HEston's speeches into a fictional speech that was OPPOSITE of what Heston was actually saying.


Why does someone who has the the "truth" on his side have to resort to such chicanary?

So why do people get mad when Moore is brought up? Because he is a dangerous minister of lies and propaganda. I am amazed that the learned seekers of truth on these threads are not all outraged by Moore's lies.

Or perhaps that mugger will just shoot first and not give you the chance to go for the gun you might or might not have under your jacket.

The point is, who are you to tell me exactly what any mugger/criminal is thinking at any point in time? You'll excuse me if I don't take comfort in your mind reading abilities.


SLM3

Just to be fair:


Michael Moore's response to the "wacko attackos"


SLM3

Hehe that was cute, Moore attempted to explain about 1/20th of the 'lies' away. He ignored most of them (like the NRA/KKK linkage of his).

Right just start blasting away in a crowd full of armed people..

So I ask again, why did crime go down in every place with a concealed carry law? You never answerd.

http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/shared...sNav=pb&id=604

See gun laws favor the criminal element.

Vancouver, BC - Restrictive firearm legislation has failed to reduce gun violence in Australia, Canada, or Great Britain. The policy of confiscating guns has been an expensive failure, according to a new paper The Failed Experiment: Gun Control and Public Safety in Canada, Australia, England and Wales, released today by The Fraser Institute.

“What makes gun control so compelling for many is the belief that violent crime is driven by the availability of guns, and more importantly, that criminal violence in general may be reduced by limiting access to firearms,” says Gary Mauser, author of the paper and professor of business at Simon Fraser University.

This new study examines crime trends in Commonwealth countries that have recently introduced firearm regulations. Mauser notes that the widely ignored key to evaluating firearm regulations is to examine trends in total violent crime, not just firearm crime.

The United States provides a valuable point of comparison for assessing crime rates as that country has witnessed a dramatic drop in criminal violence over the past decade – for example, the homicide rate in the US has fallen 42 percent since 1991. This is particularly significant when compared with the rest of the world – in 18 of the 25 countries surveyed by the British Home Office, violent crime increased during the 1990s.

The justice system in the U.S. differs in many ways from those in the Commonwealth but perhaps the most striking difference is that qualified citizens in the United States can carry concealed handguns for self-defence. During the past few decades, more than 25 states in the U.S. have passed laws allowing responsible citizens to carry concealed handguns. In 2003, there are 35 states where citizens can get such a permit.

Disarming the public has not reduced criminal violence in any country examined in this study. In all these cases, disarming the public has been ineffective, expensive, and often counter productive. In all cases, the effort meant setting up expensive bureaucracies that produce no noticeable improvement to public safety or have made the situation worse. Mauser points to these trends in the countries he examined:

England and Wales

Both Conservative and Labour governments have introduced restrictive firearms laws over the past 20 years; all handguns were banned in 1997.

Yet in the 1990s alone, the homicide rate jumped 50 percent, going from 10 per million in 1990 to 15 per million in 2000. While not yet as high as the US, in 2002 gun crime in England and Wales increased by 35 percent. This is the fourth consecutive year that gun crime has increased.

Police statistics show that violent crime in general has increased since the late 1980s and since 1996 has been more serious than in the United States.

Australia

The Australian government made sweeping changes to the firearms legislation in 1997. However, the total homicide rate, after having remained basically flat from 1995 to 2001, has now begun climbing again. While violent crime is decreasing in the United States, it is increasing in Australia. Over the past six years, the overall rate of violent crime in Australia has been on the rise – for example, armed robberies have jumped 166 percent nationwide.

The confiscation and destruction of legally owned firearms has cost Australian taxpayers at least $500 million. The cost of the police services bureaucracy, including the costly infrastructure of the gun registration system, has increased by $200 million since 1997.

“And for what?” asks Mauser. “There has been no visible impact on violent crime. It is impossible to justify such a massive amount of the taxpayers’ money for no decrease in crime. For that kind of tax money, the police could have had more patrol cars, shorter shifts, or better equipment.”

Canada

The contrast between the criminal violence rates in the United States and in Canada is dramatic. Over the past decade, the rate of violent crime in Canada has increased while in the United States the violent crime rate has plummeted. The homicide rate is dropping faster in the US than in Canada.

The Canadian experiment with firearm registration is becoming a farce says Mauser. The effort to register all firearms, which was originally claimed to cost only $2 million, has now been estimated by the Auditor General to top $1 billion. The final costs are unknown but, if the costs of enforcement are included, the total could easily reach $3 billion.

“It is an illusion that gun bans protect the public. No law, no matter how restrictive, can protect us from people who decide to commit violent crimes. Maybe we should crack down on criminals rather than hunters and target shooters?” says Mauser.

- 30 -

Established in 1974, The Fraser Institute is an independent public policy organization based in Vancouver, with offices in Calgary and Toronto.

This is in reply to Moore's responce to some of the right-wing "Whacko Attackos" on his Web site. His own sourcing, however, often disproves him.

He posted the entire text of a Heston speech, alongside the clips that ran in the film. With a multi-window browser, however, one can run both at once and follow along. It's obvious how Moore edited the speech to skip conciliatory remarks and make the remaining ones sound harsh.

He admits to a flaw in his altering of an anti-Dukakis commercial—without admitting that he edited the commercial. In the film, his editing appears to be an original part of the advertisement.

He stands by the assertion that the Lockheed-Martin plant near Columbine makes "weapons of mass destruction," and provides an interview with an employee to prove it. The clip, however, shows that they currently make rockets...that carry satellites...which in turn can guide missiles. They have not made a nuclear weapon since the mid-1960s and only partially assembled Peacekeeper MX missiles in the mid-1980s.

Yes, the moral is that Michael Moore is full of shit.

My point in this thread was not to praise Moore or even agree with him. I wanted to discuss solely the topic of why the U.S. has so many gun-related murders when compared to other like-countries.

This is politically incorrect, and I don't have a source for you currently (I think its in the last thread on this) but gun crime and gun death for whites in the US is LOWER then it is in Europe. The real question to ask is why is minority gun crime/deaths are so high *cough welfare state cough*.

FBI Stats 2002: http://www.fbi.gov//ucr/cius_02/xl/02tbl2-13.xls

*Caution* The document is an Excel document.

Total murders: 14,054
Murders involving firearms: 9,369
Murders involving handguns: 7,176


Ustwo, Whites committed 33.9% of the murders in the U.S. in 2002 and blacks committed 35.5% of the murders. The other percents were 'Other' and 'Unknown'.


P.S. More people were killed with "personal" weapons (hand, fist, feet) than shotguns and rifles COMBINED.

so whites that comprise about 75 % of the population commited 33.9% of the murders, while blacks that compirse 12% of the population committed 35.5% of the murders. This only supports Ustwos point.

And why Micheal Moore didnt go to the "hood" and talk to any blacks when trying to find out why America is "gun obessessed" in his crap fest BFC is very suspect.

I wasn't out to disprove Ustwo, just to provide some facts.

By the way in those FBI stats, I believe that suicides are counted as 'murders' even though they really should not be.

I believe that all homicides were included in BFC, and that includes suicides, justified self defence, and justified police shootings. Its just another glaring LIE in Moore's body of lies. Thanks for reminding me Seretogis.

True the actual number is still too high, but Moore used the true murder rates of germany, and canada, and then comparied them to ALL gun deaths in the USA. Not quite fair is it? But no one ever accused Moore of being fair.

Can you show me your source on this? I'd be interested to see the difference. Does the US not provide a list that apparently Germany and Canada do?

What was the US gun-related homicide rate minus the suicides, etc.? I'm assuming it must be more in line with Canada, the UK, Japan, and so on.


SLM3

Like i said, its still much higher, you must have missed that point. But like I Said, why does Moore have to inflate the numbers if his point is so righteous?

I'd still like the source, if you don't mind.



SLM3

Go to the FBI website. I assume you have a computer.

Moore also picks a year with high american gun deaths and compares it to Germany and canadian LOW years, not the same years...

Here is a partial list of murders per 100,000 people. This takes in ALL murder, not jsut guns. Note the nations with strict gun control all have higher murder rates than than the US. Also note that the US is LOWER than the world average.
South Africa 45

Swaziland 88

Botswana 20

Zimbabwe 18

Colombia 41

Sudan 31

Holland 15

Lebanon 13

Sri Lanka 12

Russia 11

USA 5.2

Germany 4

UK 2

International Average 5,5

Still our murder rate is TOO high, but Germany's is not to far behind, and this is one of the nations that MOORE Champions. Also you have to note that Englands is on an upward trend, four years in a row, while the US is on a downward trend. IT was 5.6 as of two years ago. Not much but any lowering of that number is welcome. I am off to look for Canada's

Wow, their search engine sucks. Just give me a link to the page you used.


SLM3

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/viort.htm

Check out this site SLM the search engine is better and the graphs are better than the FBIs

National Crime Victimization Survey Violent Crime Trends, 1973-2002
Adjusted violent victimization rates
Number of victimizations per 1,000 population age 12 and over

Total
violent crime Aggravated assault Simple
assault
Year Murder Rape Robbery

1973 47.7 0.1 2.5 6.7 12.5 25.9
1974 48.0 0.1 2.6 7.2 12.9 25.3
1975 48.4 0.1 2.4 6.8 11.9 27.2
1976 48.0 0.1 2.2 6.5 12.2 27.0
1977 50.4 0.1 2.3 6.2 12.4 29.4
1978 50.6 0.1 2.6 5.9 12.0 30.0
1979 51.7 0.1 2.8 6.3 12.3 30.3
1980 49.4 0.1 2.5 6.6 11.4 28.8
1981 52.3 0.1 2.5 7.4 12.0 30.3
1982 50.7 0.1 2.1 7.1 11.5 29.8
1983 46.5 0.1 2.1 6.0 9.9 28.3
1984 46.4 0.1 2.5 5.8 10.8 27.2
1985 45.2 0.1 1.9 5.1 10.3 27.9
1986 42.0 0.1 1.7 5.1 9.8 25.3
1987 44.0 0.1 2.0 5.3 10.0 26.7
1988 44.1 0.1 1.7 5.3 10.8 26.3
1989 43.3 0.1 1.8 5.4 10.3 25.8
1990 44.1 0.1 1.7 5.7 9.8 26.9
1991 48.8 0.1 2.2 5.9 9.9 30.6
1992 47.9 0.1 1.8 6.1 11.1 28.9
1993 49.1 0.1 1.6 6.0 12.0 29.4
1994 51.2 0.1 1.4 6.3 11.9 31.5
1995 46.1 0.1 1.2 5.4 9.5 29.9
1996 41.6 0.1 0.9 5.2 8.8 26.6
1997 38.8 0.1 0.9 4.3 8.6 24.9
1998 36.0 0.1 0.9 4.0 7.5 23.5
1999 32.1 0.1 0.9 3.6 6.7 20.8
2000 27.4 0.1 0.6 3.2 5.7 17.8
2001 24.7 0.1 0.6 2.8 5.3 15.9
2002 22.8 0.1 0.7 2.2 4.3 15.5


Wow while the violent American's crime rates are going down each year, Europe, notably England are rising dramatically.
England has had four years in a row of rising murder rates, 47%, 32% 55% and 35% increase per year, so much for Moore's English peaceful paradise.

And every time I search for Canadian murder rates, I get comparisons to American HOMICIDE rates. They are not the same. Every non natural death is ruled a homicide, weather its a suicide, self defence or justifed police shooting, while not all homicides are murders.
So whem Moore used the American homicide rate and comapared it other nations Murder rates, he was delibratly skewing his numbers to serve his cause.
If anyone has a correct murder rate as compared to homicide rate for canada please post it , I am off to bed.

Errr SLM I meant to refer you the Bureau of Justice Statistics webpage. I has all you need to know about the US.

Actually, I'm looking for your source on the fact that Moore used different rates to compare the US to Canada and Germany. The page you sent me to is on violent crime rates based on specific criteria.

I want your source on the US rates with and without suicides, accidental deaths, etc. and the source that shows Canadian and German rates that already exclude those factors as well.

I want to see this drastic difference that totally discredits Moore's point that homicide rates are rediculously different between the US and other Western states.

Thanks.

SLM3

Gun crime is rising in the UK, but it is insignificant compared to the US, this is because largely, it is much harder to get and keep a gun in the UK

And what possible "recreation" could involve firearms?

I'm not going to look it up again, because its wasted effort, but the crime rate including violent crime is MUCH higher in London then New York. Murder rates are higher in NY then London but is mostly due to a higher criminal on criminal murders.

Yes for the average citizen NY city is safer then London, you have less of a chance of getting mugged, raped, beat up, or burglarized. If you are a criminal on the other hand, you have a greater chance of getting killed in NY, so maybe you should move to London.

and the point is this... in London you might get mugged and beaten up, in NYC you get shot...

When people are armed, disputes or crimes that are violent become fatal.

Shooting things is fun. Thus, shooting is a recreational sport/hobby.

I get back from vacation and you guys are on MM again???

:D

Shooting living creatures for fun is inhumanly cruel.

Shooting inaminate objects for fun seems needlessly destructive to me, and I struggle to see how it is entertaining. if people like it so much they can play with waterpistols or toy guns that fire little plastic pellets that couldnt hurt anyone.

:( I know, sorry.

Shooting animals is fun, especially if you finally catch that son of a bitch ground hog that's tearing up your garden, or sighting that deer that you've been waiting for for 8 hours.

Tough luck for them but that's the way it goes. Over here white tail deer can be a real problem for the environment as well as other species, we have hunting seasons to thin their ranks out so overall we have a stronger eco-system. Like just recently New Jersey had a bear season I think, peta flipped out but they don't look at the big picture. Indeed, hunters are very kind to animals, even if they're extremely tasty or make snazzy rugs.

I agree that people shouldn't kill animals just out of sadism, but hunting deer and varmints is far from unneccesary.

Also, water pistols or pellet guns? Hahahaha, no. It is entertaining, though I doubt you've ever fired a gun of any type.

No I have never fired a gun, although I have fired a water pistol. I dont really want to shoot a gun either, I dont think I'd like it.

Eco Systems do need to be controlled, by rangers and environmental employee's, not people shooting things just for fun.

Foxhunting is probably worse than hunting with guns, but not much. In my opinion both should be banned, as should fishing.

More government and restricted freedom, you are going to NEED to learn to fire a gun if you expect me to stand for it ;)

It's pretty fun, you should try it. Like basketball, only something blows up.

It is controlled by those guys, who do you think says when you can or can't hunt deer/bears/ducks? How many you can kill? The government does of course. Peta doesn't like it but they aren't really looking at the big picture.

Fox's aren't really varmints, and there's not much reason to kill them anyways unless you own chickens. Groundhogs, prarie dogs, opossums, etc. are what I'm talking about. They're huge pests, and can really destroy crops. You can pretty much obliterate them at will and still not even begin to hurt their population numbers.

just like the rangers are controling the Nutria that are destoying the environment in New Orleans? As per usual, Strange Famous is dead wrong.

Again you ignore my points. No were did I say that the US murder rates were lower then anyother of those listed nations. But you ignore that point. I Said moore EXAGGERATES his postion by unfairly compaing our HOMICIDE rates to other nations MURDER rates. He does this to make his claim look MORE than it actually is. And as I explained this three times you fail to understand the subtly of Moore's manipulation of the facts.

Here is a link I only posted it three times so it really shows me how committed you are too actually doing the research instead of just blindly following the lying likes of Micheal Moore.
http://www.bowlingfortruth.com/bowli.../countries.htm


Here is more back up to my claims From www.Mooreexposed.com
To pound home its point, Bowling flashes a dramatic count of gun homicides in various countries: Canada 165, Germany 381, Australia 65, Japan 39, US 11,127. Now that's raw numbers, not rates -- Here's why he doesn't talk rates.

Verifying the figures was difficult, since Moore does not give a year for them. A lot of Moore's numbers didn't check out for any period I could find. As a last effort at checking, I did a Google search for each number and the word "gun" or words "gun homicides" Many traced -- only back to webpages repeating Bowling's figures. Moore is the only one using these numbers.

Germany: Bowling says 381: 1995 figures put homicides at 1,476, about four times what Bowling claims, and gun homicides at 168, about half what it claims: it's either far too high or far too low. ( Jörg Altmeppen has emailed me a link to a German site putting the figure at Moore's 381, in 1998 -- I have to depend upon his translation here, as German is one of the languages in which I can only curse.).

Australia: Bowling says 65. This is very close, albeit picking the year to get the data desired. Between 1980-1995, firearm homicides varied from 64-123, although never exactly 65. In 2000, it was 64, which was proudly proclaimed as the lowest number in the country's history.

US: Bowling says 11,127. FBI figures put it a lot lower. They report gun homicides were 8,719 in 2001, 8,661 in 2000, 8,480 in 1999. (2001 UCR, p. 23). Here's the table:



[You can download the entire report, in .pdf format, by clicking here; look for pt. 2 at p.23.] To be utterly fair, this is a count of the 13,752 homicides for which police submitted supplemental data (including weapon used): the total homicide count was 15,980. But what weapon, if any, was used in the other homicide is unknown to us, and was unknown to Moore.
After an email tip, I finally found a way to compute precisely 11,127. Ignore the FBI, use Nat'l Center for Health Statistics figures. These are based on doctors' death certificates rather than police investigation.

Then -- to their gun homicide figures, add the figure for legally-justified homicides: self-defense and police use against criminals. Presto, you have exactly Moore's 11,127. I can see no other way for him to get it.

Since Moore appears to use police figures for the other countries, it's hardly a valid comparison. More to the point, it's misleading since it includes self-defense and police: when we talk of a gun homicide problem we hardly have in mind a woman defending against a rapist, or a cop taking out an armed robber.

Canada: Moore's number is correct for 1999, a low point, but he ignores some obvious differences.

Bias. I wanted to talk about fabrication, not about bias, but I've gotten emails asking why I didn't mention that Switzerland requires almost all adult males to have guns, but has a lower homicide rate than Great Britain, or that Japanese-Americans, with the same proximity to guns as other Americans, have homicide rates half that of Japan itself. (And, after posting this, got an email saying that Switzerland doesn't require all adult males to own guns -- not everyone is in the national militia. Here's an encyclopedia reference to their system. 36% of entire population is enrolled in the militia -- which must mean a very great part of the adult male population, " All of Swiss society celebrates shooting, and skill with the rifle. For example, each year Zurich shuts down a whole day for its "Boys' Shooting Festival."" Sounds like a plan to me.)

And, oh, yes, there is an extremely interesting paper by Canadian criminologist Gary Mauser, presented at a colloquium in, appropriately enough, the Tower of London, and addressing international comparisons of firearms laws and firearm crime rates. I highly recommend reading, if you're interested in serious research rather than Moore's flashing numbers. Okay, they're mentioned, now back to our regularly scheduled program.

Actually, international comparisons lead to some interesting points. Here's a webpage which gives worldwide homicide rates. The U.S. comes in at 23rd place. It only made the list by edging out Armenia and Bulgaria. Its former rival as a superpower, the states of the former Soviet Union, absolutely flatten it in this competition. Russia has four times the US rate. Ukraine and Estonia have twice its rate. Even Poland ranks higher. South Africa's showing is ten times the US rate! Hmm-- another point from a different section of that site. In rape rates per 1000 population, the US ranks ninth, at .32, just ahead of Iceland and Papua New Guinea. Canada is fifth, at .75, over double the US rate, and Australia is third with .80.

bowlingfortruth.com

mooreexposed.com

Thank you, these are exactly the type of objective, truth seeking sources I was looking for. Bang up job.

So, what you're saying is you really didn't have a source beyond these fanatics who made it their mission to discredit Moore at all costs. You made a blanket statement and then led me on a wild goose hunt through the FBI, the Office of Justice Programs, then two sites based solely on attacking Moore. Basically you decided to pass something off as fact and THEN scrambled to find a site that fit what you said. You'll please excuse me if I take everything you say with a grain of salt.

8,000, 9,000, 11,000...do you see my point about focusing on the wrong issues? So if Moore was a couple thousand off on his number, does that negate the greater point he's trying to make? People focus on things like what one particular Lockheed Martin plant was producing at one given time (missing the whole freaking point of discussing what is indeed the world's largest weapons maker) instead of asking the big questions. Why do Americans kill each other so much more than any other Western state?

Like saying Australian numbers range from 64-123 really makes a huge difference in the grand scheme of what we should be talking about. What a waste of time.

If Moore was so out to deceive us, I wonder why he didn't go with the 15,000+ rate. Was he just being sort of deceitful? Quasi-deceitful? Do you really know his motive or are you going to let mooreexposed.com tell you?


SLM3

At least we know the world is safe from communism as long as you are around... :D

So you have a critisicm about those sities other than slaming them for existing? You are basically saying that Moore is allowed to have an agenda, and those sites are wrong BECAUSE they have an agenda.
I talked about Moore's incorrect facts, and you went after the websites themselves, just as Moore himself does with his "whacko Attacko" articles.

I challenge you to find error in those sites. But that is tough as then you have to acutall do something rather than issue proclaimations and condemnations without reading. But thats what I expect from Moore fans.

And you made no point at showing that anyting i said was incorrect other than saying that its ok or Moore to have an agenda, and not anyone else. Pretty hypocritical of you.