Bowling for Columbine

[Funk, E.]

Remember I compared Moore to Limbaugh... I think they're the same on opposite sides of the scale. That's why they cancell each other out. I'm not defending Moore. Your right he couldn't win a stand up debate if he was forced into one. I'm just saying both of them resort to the same tactics in their own way.

[Dano]

Oh - ok.  I misread the thread.  Sorry Funk E.

[Funk, E.]

It's all good. When in doubt just assume my posts are for humor value. I'm not into challenging political views on a b-movie site. It's about the beasts, the blood and the BOOBIES!
;-)

[Vermin Boy]

My personal favorite was his "Ficus: 2000" campaign, where he ran a ficus tree against all unopposed congressmen. My favorite moment, when he's parading the tree around the Capitol:

Congressman: (Laughs) Is that your friend there?
Moore: (Laughs) No, he's running against you!

[J.R.]

Moore did one joke I really liked. To prove that politicians will take campaign contributions from anyone he sent $100 checks in the names of fake special interest groups to several presidential candidates. I believe Pat Buchanan cashed  and sent a thank-you letter for a check from "Abortionists of America" or something, and Ross Perot did the same with a contribution from a pedophile organization.

[JohnL]

I liked when he took a copy of the 'Contract with America' to Washington DC sites and tried to get some of the free perks that congress gets.

[Martin]

---
J.R. wrote:
In some European countries (and I normally abhor "In Europe" hippie nonsense) there is a gun in almost every house, to make up for lack of military, and children are taught at a young age firearm safety, and they have almost no problem with accidents.
---

Oh, I've never heard of that before. What countries are those?

[Funk, E.]

Yeah... Having lived in Europe I'd HAVE to disagree. In Germany guns are very heavily regulated as well as the UK. Most Italians that I lived with in and around did not possess a firearm. Only Finnland and Switzerland have a heavy personal armorment policy. Switzerland because it's "neutral" and so small and Finnland because of boarder conflicts with the former Soviet Union. Otherwise I think most of them are pretty restrictive on the gun front

[Fearless Freep]

To prove that politicians will take campaign contributions from anyone...

No kidding.  Does he really think that Pat Buchanan personally opens every letter and considers the source before cashing the check.  That stuff is handled by services and to be honest, the people opening the letters probably don't even know the political opinions of whom they are working for.  $100 is chickenfeed, ten times that isn't even on the radar.  Give $100K and you might show up enough for your views to be considered.  But at that level it's just a cheap stunt to look clever without really meaning anything.  Ross Perot would probably just say "a fool and his money are soon parted and I'm just doing my part"

[Greywizard, The Unknown Movies]

> America is so gun-crazed and have so many killings due to
> guns every year (we have 11,000 some odd, and Canada has
> around 80
>
> Because Canada has less than 1/10th our population.

Well, if you multiply the Canadian figure by 10, you get 800 deaths, still quite lower than the U.S. number.

[Martin]

Greywizard wrote:
---
Well, if you multiply the Canadian figure by 10, you get 800 deaths, still quite lower than the U.S. number.
---

I believe that's because the US is more densely populated. i don't have any figures, but I think that more densely populated countries usually have higher crime rates (per capita) than sparse countries. At least that's the case if you compare big cities with rural areas. (Personally I think that the world would probably be a better place if there were no cities larger than, say, 50k citizens. Larger than that and people start feeling too invisible. But this is getting *way* off topic...)

[Fearless Freep]

Well, if you multiply the Canadian figure by 10, you get 800 deaths, still quite lower than the U.S. number.

Hey, did you figure out what "Goodbye,Pork Pie" means?

Anyway, I think part of the problem in the U.S. is that gun deaths are heavily related to other social/lifestyle problems.  I'd wager that a lot of the gun deaths are related to other crimes in some way, where the easy availibility of guns helps to contribute to an 'easy out' in those situations, but if the underlying problems weren't there, then the gun death wouldn't result.

[JohnL]

>Well, if you multiply the Canadian figure by 10, you get 800 deaths, still quite
>lower than the U.S. number.

 And the total number of deaths by traffic accidents each year far outstrips gun deaths, yet strangely, nobody is ever in favor of banning cars...

[wheresthecarrot]

yeah, but that doesn't mean that they don't have violent crime....when i was staying in britain (only month), there were countless stories of people getting stabbed or beaten to death.  one guy was set on fire, one guy had a screwdriver driven through his skull....the rape rate is huge for such a little country, and the amount of people (young girls in particular) who are abducted is astronomical....no guns does not necessarilly mean no violence....I know no one said that, but i just wanted to make the point.

[Dano]

And the total number of deaths by traffic accidents each year far outstrips gun deaths, yet strangely, nobody is ever in favor of banning cars...
*****  I am not in favor of banning guns or cars, but I think a strict gun control advocate (I use the word strict, because I think there can and should be a fair amount of control) would make the argument that cars have become essential to the US economy, and they have democratized the ability to travel (physical mobility across the large area of this country has a long association with the freedoms Americans enjoy -- possibly one of the reasons we don't tax gas as hard as they do in Europe), thereby justifying the danger cars pose.  Guns on the other hand - a strict gun control advocate would argue - are unnecessary except for cops (maybe) and the army.  They tend to write off some people's need/desire for a gun as a stupid or deranged hobby.

A better argument would be, if you have to pass a test to drive a car (which can kill innocent people if misused), then why not pass a test to own a gun (which can do the same)?