Guns are not the problem

[dream431ca]

I know some people watched bowling for columbine before, and I know that some people also don't like Michael Moore because of his views on certain things...but I believe he was wrong in Bowling for Columbine on a number of things:

1. Guns are not the problem

In his documentry Bowing for Columbine, Moore finds that, gun laws, the history of the USA and the media continually showing violence on the news, are all huge factors in why so many people kill each other with guns in the USA. He blames banks for selling guns, he blames the second amendment, and the guns themselves. He does however, fail to realise that guns (or anything that deals with guns), is not the problem. It's the population, the actual people that are the cause of the problem. I've been to the USA before and everyone I met was an extemely nice person, so the people of the USA that I met were very friendly...(probably because I was near disneyland.) I feel that there is not enough education on guns. If the second amendment allows for people to have a loaded gun in the house, people (especially kids) should be educated on guns and the effects of guns. I have a theory as well. Lets say that all the guns in the USA just disappeared...no guns at all..I believe even if the guns are gone, hardly anything will change. There will still be people dying as usual but not from guns, but from some other weapon.

2. Fun facts about Canada

In the documentray Michael Moore comes to Canada to see if we Canadians have the same problems as the Americans do when it comes to guns. It turns out that there are at least 7 million guns owned by people in Canada. That I can believe. I have 2 rifles myself and my neighbour has a glock and a colt pistol. What I don't like about the documentray is why is he comparing Canada to the USA when it comes to guns? Our laws are very different from each other and there are far less people in Canada than the USA. Also he seems to hint at Canada being a safer country than the USA, because Moore says that people don't lock their doors, a gheto in Canada looks like a normal neighbourhood in the USA, and our media talks about other things rather than shootings and killings..what he didn't realize is that he was watching the CBC...which is 70% government news, 30% local news. He never took a look at the local news stations..I live in Edmonton and everyday I hear on the news of people being stabbed, shot, murderd and other things. So it's not much different from the USA when it comes to local channels. The CBC is similar to CNN, the only difference is that CNN focuses on foreign relations more than local news in the USA (I don't live in the USA but thats what I see most of the time on CNN. If I'm wrong I apologize).

The documentray was ok, but we all must realize that it was about Michael Moore's view of the world and a collective of ideas.

 

[CptStern]

2. Fun facts about Canada

In the documentray Michael Moore comes to Canada to see if we Canadians have the same problems as the Americans do when it comes to guns. It turns out that there are at least 7 million guns owned by people in Canada. That I can believe. I have 2 rifles myself and my neighbour has a glock and a colt pistol. What I don't like about the documentray is why is he comparing Canada to the USA when it comes to guns? Our laws are very different from each other and there are far less people in Canada than the USA. Also he seems to hint at Canada being a safer country than the USA, because Moore says that people don't lock their doors, a gheto in Canada looks like a normal neighbourhood in the USA, and our media talks about other things rather than shootings and killings..what he didn't realize is that he was watching the CBC...which is 70% government news, 30% local news.

yes but it's a national newscast ...so it cant be local

He never took a look at the local news stations..I live in Edmonton and everyday I hear on the news of people being stabbed, shot, murderd and other things.

but it doesnt compare to the US ...canada has less murders per year then all of baltimore ...which is roughly the same size as toronto

So it's not much different from the USA when it comes to local channels. The CBC is similar to CNN, the only difference is that CNN focuses on foreign relations more than local news in the USA (I don't live in the USA but thats what I see most of the time on CNN. If I'm wrong I apologize).

The documentray was ok, but we all must realize that it was about Michael Moore's view of the world and a collective of ideas.

moore is a documentary filmaker ...by definition it's about stating one's opinion

 

[Gray Fox]

stern is right. it's the national news that is most watched, and has the most influence.

An fact is, guns don't kill people, people do. So we should make it as hard as we can for people to kill each other, and thus guns should be banned.

 

[dream431ca]

stern is right. it's the national news that is most watched, and has the most influence.

An fact is, guns don't kill people, people do. So we should make it as hard as we can for people to kill each other, and thus guns should be banned.

I don't think if we ban guns, that will solve the problem. Even if we do ban guns people will find other means of killing. Your right, it is the people, so why ban guns if it's the people. That doesn't make sense.

EDIT: it seems you misunderstood Cptstern's post. He posted that the National news is the least of the problem because it's mostly about politics rather than shootings or stabbings.

 

[ComradeBadger]

Guns make it a lot easier to kill someone though, its a lot more impersonal than beating someone to death with a spade etc.

 

[dream431ca]

Guns make it a lot easier to kill someone though, its a lot more impersonal than beating someone to death with a spade etc.

But I do believe that if we ban the guns, the problem will still exist. So the problem is not the guns. That's my point.

 

[ComradeBadger]

My point is that, the problem with guns is, is that they make it a lot easier to kill someone, and in a very detached way.

 

[dream431ca]

My point is that, the problem with guns is, is that they make it a lot easier to kill someone, and in a very detached way.

Very true..unless somebody sees you, or they hear the bang. It may be easier to kill someone, but they are very traceable, unlike the old spade, (which if you had gloves on), that particular spade would be very hard to trace. But I do see your point. Guns are easy to conceal, spades are not. But why use a spade when you can use a knife...this is turning into a thread on how to kill someone effeciantly..I'll stop this now...

But a death is still a death and guns just make it easier but it's the people that use them for that purpose who are the problem.

 

[Murray]

You are right, the problem will still remain, but don't you think the banning on guns will decrease the number of deaths in USA?
The only guns avalible should be rifles made for hunting deers.

I've heard many people tell me Michael Moore's movies should always be taken with a pinch of salt, but I honestly don't get it. What is it those guys are reffering to? What is the different point of view that is more neutral and open-minded?

 

[PickledGecko]

I agree on the point that guns make it easier to kill people. It is easier technically, i.e. a bullet in the head is easier to do that battering someone over the head a few times. It is also psychologically easier, it does make you detached from the crime, not completely detached but more detached that using a knife or bat etc.

One of the main reasons why the Nazis moved from shooting people and putting them into mass graves was because the soldiers doing the shooting were becoming traumatized. Gassing people was introduced to combat the problem, the further you can get the “killer” from the “killed”, the easier it is on the “killers” mind to disassociate the act from the result.

However, when it comes to the US, I say let democracy decide. If its guns in every home they want then so be it. Let them learn their own lessons.

 

[Foxtrot]

You are right, the problem will still remain, but don't you think the banning on guns will decrease the number of deaths in USA?
The only guns avalible should be rifles made for hunting deers.

I've heard many people tell me Michael Moore's movies should always be taken with a pinch of salt, but I honestly don't get it. What is it those guys are reffering to? What is the different point of view that is more neutral and open-minded?

It isn't just a point of view, he delibertly puts a spin on everything to try and change your mind on the topic. He cuts up interviews and misquotes people.

 

[Murray]

It isn't just a point of view, he delibertly puts a spin on everything to try and change your mind on the topic. He cuts up interviews and misquotes people.

...and I would like to get a bunch of examples of those.

 

[Ikerous]

...and I would like to get a bunch of examples of those.

http://www.bowlingfortruth.com/

 

[ríomhaire]

Well, if more people have access to more guns then you'll oviously get less shooting. No guns=no shootings.

 

[Murray]

http://www.bowlingfortruth.com/

No, Ikerous, he is not lying.
If he was, he'd be sued off his ass by now.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

I agree that Gun's are'nt a problem. There rudimentry for hunting and military survival.

 

[MiccyNarc]

Ban guns, we'll kill each other with knives. Ban knives, we'll kill each other with fists. Handcuff us, and we'll choke each other with with the chain.
It's treating the symptoms, not curing the disease.

 

[Lemonking]

well said MicciNarc

 

[Glirk Dient]

Criminals don't seem to have a problem getting their hands on already banned weapons, why ban weapons us law abiding citizens use to protect ourselves? it's our constitutional right.

 

[OCybrManO]

Do you mean the weapons that (statistically speaking) kill/harm more friends, family, and other innocent people than criminals? Are you talking about the weapons that, when used against criminals, escalate the situation and often get the victim(s) killed? Are those the weapons that "us law abiding citizens use to protect ourselves"?

Criminals have the element of surprise. In most cases, the victim has no time to even get to their gun. In the cases where the victim gets their gun the criminal usually has his/hers out already, feels threatened by the victim with the gun, assumes they will use it on him/her, and shoots the victim before the victim has a chance to fire back. Guns do more to put you in danger than to protect you. Usually, when someone robs you they just want to get your money and get the hell out of there. Killing you makes them more likely to be hunted down by the police... but if they must do it to survive (like when you point a gun at them) they will.

If someone wants to steal your money/stuff, let them. It can be replaced. Don't be a hero. Fighting back typically makes things worse. What is more valuable... your life or your possessions?

That's not to say guns should or should not be made illegal... but the whole "protection" argument just doesn't hold up under closer examination.

 

[Bohonkie]

Ban guns, we'll kill each other with knives. Ban knives, we'll kill each other with fists. Handcuff us, and we'll choke each other with with the chain.
It's treating the symptoms, not curing the disease.

I like my chances much better against a thug with a chain than a thug with nothing but his fists. Give me a break, you're saying just as many people will die by nearly not as lethal methods? Poeple always use this same line of logic. Why can't you see the flaw?

 

[GhostBoi]

No, Ikerous, he is not lying.
If he was, he'd be sued off his ass by now.

I doubt most of the people's careers he "hurt" would care enough to sue.

 

[Glirk Dient]

Are you talking about the weapons that, when used against criminals, escalate the situation and often get the victim(s) killed? Are those the weapons that "us law abiding citizens use to protect ourselves"?

Fists tend to escalate situations as well, should we cut off peoples hands?

Criminals have the element of surprise. In most cases, the victim has no time to even get to their gun. In the cases where the victim gets their gun the criminal usually has his/hers out already, feels threatened by the victim with the gun, assumes they will use it on him/her, and shoots the victim before the victim has a chance to fire back. Guns do more to put you in danger than to protect you. Usually, when someone robs you they just want to get your money and get the hell out of there. Killing you makes them more likely to be hunted down by the police... but if they must do it to survive (like when you point a gun at them) they will.

A bat to the head leaves little time for reaction as well. If more law abiding citizens had guns when that criminal pulls theirs out, that criminal either puts it away or gets shot, since no one wants to get shot he will most likely put it away(unless hes crazy)

That's not to say guns should or should not be made illegal... but the whole "protection" argument just doesn't hold up under closer examination.

Seems to hold up a whole lot better than "I wants guns because the criminals have them too!"

Instead of worry about what people are getting killed by, let's worry about why people are killing eachother. Stop the problem at the source, don't make the problem find a new way to manifest itself.

 

[OCybrManO]

Fists tend to escalate situations as well, should we cut off peoples hands?

No, unlike a gun, the mere presence of your hands does not escalate a situation... whereas, if a criminal sees you with a gun they are more likely to react impulsively and use anything necessary to stop you from shooting them... including lethal force. Now, if you swing at him or posture yourself into a "fighting" stance to try to intimidate him... that's a different story.

If more law abiding citizens had guns when that criminal pulls theirs out, that criminal either puts it away or gets shot, since no one wants to get shot he will most likely put it away(unless hes crazy)

That would require that you already have the gun out before or at the same time as the criminal. If he has his gun out and you try to make a move for your gun you're a dead man. This is why criminals don't rob people at shooting ranges. Criminals either avoid people completely or use the element of surprise to catch you off guard when you aren't ready to defend yourself. In that case, reaching for a gun is the last thing you want to do... that is, if you intend to stay alive.

Seems to hold up a whole lot better than "I wants guns because the criminals have them too!"

That's just a rewording of the same argument.

Instead of worry about what people are getting killed by, let's worry about why people are killing eachother. Stop the problem at the source, don't make the problem find a new way to manifest itself.

If there is something wrong with you do you head straight for the source or do you treat the symptoms until you can find/fix the source of the problem? For example, the doctors have no idea what causes my high blood pressure... but, since hypertension is a very dangerous condition in the long run, I'm on pills to lower my blood pressure to a normal level until they can find the cause. The longer it is left untreated the more damage it will do. Solving violence is a LONG (and perhaps impossible) process. Should more people die before it is solved just because you want guns? Anyway, if the "new way to manifest itself" is less dangerous than using guns (which will almost definately be the case) it's still an improvement.

 

[Glirk Dient]

That would require that you already have the gun out before or at the same time as the criminal. If he has his gun out and you try to make a move for your gun you're a dead man. This is why criminals don't rob people at shooting ranges. Criminals either avoid people completely or use the element of surprise to catch you off guard when you aren't ready to defend yourself. In that case, reaching for a gun is the last thing you want to do... that is, if you intend to stay alive.

Let me clarify what I said. If you see a criminal holding someone up, and 3 bystanders pull out a weapon what options does the criminal have? He is going to put his weapon down, he doesn't want to die for nothing.

What happens when we ban guns and criminals are running around with fully automatic weapons? Are we to protect ourselves with bats and chinese stars(would be pretty cool). Criminals have no problem whatsoever getting guns, so banning them would only take guns away from people who are going to use it to protect themselves.

 

[kjac]

What happens when we ban guns and criminals are running around with fully automatic weapons?

Maybe you don't understand how gun bans work... When the gov't places a ban on these firearms they send out a huge cloud of magic pixie dust that obliterates all firearms not owned by the military and then we are all safe. Something like that anyways. :rolling:

 

[dream431ca]

Ban guns, we'll kill each other with knives. Ban knives, we'll kill each other with fists. Handcuff us, and we'll choke each other with with the chain.
It's treating the symptoms, not curing the disease.

That is exactly what I was trying to get at with my point. Good job! :thumbs:

 

[MjM]

I say we ban people?

Or take people's thumbs.

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

No, Ikerous, he is not lying.
If he was, he'd be sued off his ass by now.

Did you view the Bowling for Columbine stuff?

That site has a bunch of stuff not related to it so scroll halfway down until the text "Truth About Bowling for Columbine"

Read those links.

 

[jverne]

I agree on the point that guns make it easier to kill people. It is easier technically, i.e. a bullet in the head is easier to do that battering someone over the head a few times. It is also psychologically easier, it does make you detached from the crime, not completely detached but more detached that using a knife or bat etc.

One of the main reasons why the Nazis moved from shooting people and putting them into mass graves was because the soldiers doing the shooting were becoming traumatized. Gassing people was introduced to combat the problem, the further you can get the “killer” from the “killed”, the easier it is on the “killers” mind to disassociate the act from the result.

However, when it comes to the US, I say let democracy decide. If its guns in every home they want then so be it. Let them learn their own lessons.

hehe... do you know why guns were invented in the first place? people were afraid of hand-to-hand combat, keeping a distance was safer!

i agree, guns don't kill people do, so maybe on a wierd logic, make guns super restricted and gun crimes heavily sanctioned (like...3 years of jail for only aiming a gun at someone for no obvious reason, etc.), we need to change peoples bahaviour not ban guns!

 

[Gray Fox]

Guns are simply way to dangerous, yes we will use knives if guns are banned, but killing someone whith a guns is way, way easier. If i had a knive I could easly kill tyson, if i had a knive he would kick my arse, plus you can easly run from knives.

 

[CptStern]

in 2000:

number of victems killed by guns in US: 10,158

number of victems killed by knives: 2,090


source



are you people saying that murders involving knives would jump by 5X if guns were banned? that doesnt make sense

 

[Glirk Dient]

Guns are simply way to dangerous, yes we will use knives if guns are banned, but killing someone whith a guns is way, way easier. If i had a knive I could easly kill tyson, if i had a knive he would kick my arse, plus you can easly run from knives.

Not as easy as you think. Besides, someone has to be pretty crazy to actually shoot someone with a gun, usually they want something from that person, and it is just as easy to walk up behind them and hold a knife to their throat. Besides, hand guns are very very innacurate, and are hard to kill people with, just run away and once your about 20 feet away your just fine. Again, people have to be crazy to actually shoot someone. It would be better to stop people from killing and robbing eachother than to make them use other means. Also...criminals have no problem getting guns, you would only take them from law abiding citizens.

in 2000:

number of victems killed by guns in US: 10,158

number of victems killed by knives: 2,090


source



are you people saying that murders involving knives would jump by 5X if guns were banned? that doesnt make sense

Now find every other close range weapon, not just knives. Find bats, fists, iron knuckles...everything close range to use. Guns are pretty much the only projectile weapon that is used to kill...bows just suck. The thing is there are many many weapons that can replace knives and work just fine.

 

[VictimOfScience]

When we say "guns," though, what are we talking about? Handguns? Rifles? Shotguns? Assault weapons? Some already have very strict rules against them, but try to ban others and you will have a HUGE army of lobbying hunters at your doorstep.

Weapons were invented not to make the killer feel less guilty, but to give him much better odds of living through a "fight." Since WWII, however, I would argue that the former is becoming consistently more true. Hitler switched to Zyklon-B not only for economic(not wasting all those bulelts) or logistical(kill lots more a lot quicker and neater) reasons, but for psychological reasons(no one has to feel responsible when a tiny button is pushed and the horrifying death throes aren't witnessed firsthand). The same can be said for the US when dropping the 2 a-bombs on Nagasaki and Hiroshima--completely impersonal and guiltless(right?).

Banning weapons will not stop the boundless animosity of man, but it might just force the would-be killers to re-evaluate their priorities and that would be a good thing.

 

[CptStern]

Now find every other close range weapon, not just knives. Find bats, fists, iron knuckles...everything close range to use. Guns are pretty much the only projectile weapon that is used to kill...bows just suck. The thing is there are many many weapons that can replace knives and work just fine.

ummm why didnt you just check yourself? it was in the link I posted



blunt: 724

personal (bare hands): 1,078

other: 1,467



anyway you look at it guns are used in 2/3 of all murders ..I'm guessing due to convience

 

[Gray Fox]

Not as easy as you think. Besides, someone has to be pretty crazy to actually shoot someone with a gun, usually they want something from that person, and it is just as easy to walk up behind them and hold a knife to their throat. Besides, hand guns are very very innacurate, and are hard to kill people with, just run away and once your about 20 feet away your just fine. Again, people have to be crazy to actually shoot someone. It would be better to stop people from killing and robbing eachother than to make them use other means. Also...criminals have no problem getting guns, you would only take them from law abiding citizens.

Nonsnense, killing someone with a gun is way way easier then a knive, and guns are very very accurate. and it's definatly not as easy to walk behind them and put a knive to their troat, even the fact that with a knive you have to do that to stand a chance is prove that it's harder to kill with it. criminals would have way haredere time getting guns when they are banned, why do you think tehre are less gun related incidents in countries where guns can't be bought. Besides the only place where you aare allowed to use a gun is in your house, and there are better ways of doing that then with a gun.

 

[Murray]

Did you view the Bowling for Columbine stuff?

That site has a bunch of stuff not related to it so scroll halfway down until the text "Truth About Bowling for Columbine"

Read those links.

I have seen that page before, and they are either comming with sorry excuses or untrue accusations. If there is someone lying it's that page.

 

[Icarusintel]

i think everyone needs to read over the history behond the second amendment again, especially moore, there's a very good reason for it, and guns are a necessary evil

 

[K e r b e r o s]

are you people saying that murders involving knives would jump by 5X if guns were banned? that doesnt make sense

It does, because Guns are less personal weapons and can be used from afar without risking injury. Considering today that the people most likely to commit crimes are far more extreme, having no guns for them to use would not stem they're likely choices of tools.

Its a, "if I have to" perspective -- and if they have to use a knive, or can use one, then they will. Unfortunately ...

 

[Icarusintel]

the fact is, if someone wants to kill someone they're gonna do it with whatever they have the means to get, so, even without guns, murders would still be happening, i doubt the drop in the rate would be that extreme