TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Chill Out Room
-- Bowling for Columbine, the movie
Pages (4): « 1 2 [3] 4 »

quote:

Originally posted by mndeg personally i like how all american on the internet are always pro american, here in school they never teach you what united states history as done wrong in grade school, the native americans and people from the mayflower got along and had a big feast everythings painted in a rosy picture, nothing really anti america goes out on the media and if it does (afghanistans dancing on the streets aafter 9/11) we regard ourselves as more moral than them and just plain "more right" edit: I BLAME MTV

You are so right about that!!! Yeah, I learned my history from Charlie brown. The red guys helped Charlie plant corn and learn how to toke up properly.

quote:

Originally posted by cap yea america must really suck for there to be millions of immigrants.

Lol...

quote:

Originally posted by TuanAnh213 rofl...now tahts what i call blatant generalizing...not every fucking TOM JOE and MARY in America goes walking down a street with a fucking .45 in their pocket or runnig around holding one...that person will get the same reaction as as the confusion fear in any other country...for one i've never seen a man in my life holding a gun or walking down the street with a gun...how ridiculous can you get

I know man. Neither have I, and I live in Texas for christsake. It's not normal for someone to walk around with a loaded gun in their hand. People would get scared and call the police if someone did that. You have to understand that this movie is Moore's interpretation/perception of American society. I agree it's well done, but these gross generalizations are just silly. If I recall correctly he was a high school drop out, so perhaps in a way he identifies with the school shooters.

Yes it's true you can get a permit to carry a concealed weapon in some states, but if you go around brandishing it you're breaking the law. The people go through a background check, and you can't be sold a gun if you are a felon, or have a history of violent offenses.
Of course there is a problem with "straw buying" of guns. Like someone can buy one for a person who can't legally own one. The amount of guns might be a product of a wild west type history. I've never fired a gun in my life though. I could go to walmart and buy one though lol. If they have a hunting section then why wouldn't they have guns?? Walmart wants to stamp out all of the small businesses, so why not guns? I'd need a background check and waiting period... Many states are more strict with gun laws though like California or Illinois or New Jersey...



This post also reminded me of some recent school shooting incidents that have occured in Germany and Australia.... What's the deal with Germany??? So violent and drunk all the time! I don't think I want to move there....





I should also add that I feel pretty safe walking on the streets at night in the city where I live. There are some places I wouldn't go, but for the most part it's ok.

quote:

Originally posted by Neo nEro I didn't know much about Australians so i watched the Crocodile Hunter. It really clear things up for me about the Australian culture. [/sarcasm]

Yeah no shit. Now I think everyone down there restles crocs whilst drinking a fosters in their free hand....

quote:

Originally posted by TuanAnh213 how dare you insult america based on a completely biased movie you can go ahead and bitch and moan about america's gun control even though it doesn't affect you but there isn't another country i would want to be living in right now than america...where i live in its as peaceful and friendly as can be you don't have to worry about walking on the streets at either day or night what the fuck do you know about america and its society just from watching a damn movie...do you live in america? why dont you visit america some time, make some american friends and actually see for youself instead of thinking up arrogant BS George W. Bush isn't exactly the problem with gun control, i didn't see bill clinton george bush reagan improve gun safety laws either

Bill Clinton helped pass an 'Assault weapons ban' that did nothing to curtail violence. It limited things like features on military style firearms, and magazine capacity that have little to do with the functionallity of the weapon. I'm mostly left leaning, but I can see how useless that law is. I don't understand why the dems support it so much; It only causes them to lose big elections...

quote:

Originally posted by occrider This came up in the political forum and here is an EXCELLENT website that will give you more insight into the movie: http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html Essentially moore manipulated and spliced out many facts to make his "documentary" work. He's as fictitious as the people he critisizes.

Thank you. I take back what I said about this movi being, "Well done."

quote:

This post also reminded me of some recent school shooting incidents that have occured in Germany and Australia....

Eh? There's been a school shooting in Australia?

quote:

Yeah no shit. Now I think everyone down there restles crocs whilst drinking a fosters in their free hand....

Replace the word "crocs" with "each other" and the word "fosters" with "any beer but fosters" (fosters tastes like cat-urine, no-one in Australia drinks it) and you're on the right track.

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade Replace the word "crocs" with "each other" and the word "fosters" with "any beer but fosters" (fosters tastes like cat-urine, no-one in Australia drinks it) and you're on the right track.

The point was you can't judge a culture based off of one movie.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider More from the Toronto Star; http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Co...ol=969483191630 Wall Street Journal: http://www.opinionjournal.com/forms...ml?id=110003233 And some random website: http://www.whatever-dude.com/posts/327.shtml But please don't argue with me, ARGUE THE COLD HARD FACTS

Occrider-

Thanks for pointing these things out. It's difficult for many (including myself at times) to take shocking views and extremists commentaries with a grain of salt. It's also difficult to see through certain points of views to see facts. I saw the movie, and also read Stupid White Men. I thoroughly enjoyed both, but it's clear he has an agenda, and it's clear Mr. Moore is an extremist. So his points in his book made about 5/6ths of military budget going to that particular project are easily discredited.

However, other facts are not so discredited in his book and movie, such as up to 98% of shooting victims in the home are innocent victims, resulting in only 2% of those being shot were actually burglars or intruders. This is a true number, which begs to reason why so many guns are allowed. Personally, I see absolutely no value in handguns whatsoever. The idea of self-defense with these weapons is ludicrus, given the previous statistic. I understand and support hunting (population control for example), but only with rifles, shotguns, etc.

And as much as I would like to have the hatchet buried, Moore does bring up some interesting information about the elections in 2000. He also backs this information up in his book with references, and it honestly disturbes the hell out of me. Lastly, I also found it interesting how he bashes Clinton pretty good at the end of his book, and blames a great many misgivings on Clinton's policies and last-minute scribbles before Bush took office.

So again, take things with a grain of salt. Honestly to me, it's no different than attempting to read extremist right-wing propaganda like the London Daily Telegraph or Jerusalem Post from Hollinger Corporation (Conrad Black), or anything from the infamous Rupert Murdock's News Corporation with includes Fox News Network, the New York Post, and 173 other right-wing papers around the globe. (Side note: guess who's one of the directors of the Jerusalem Post? None other than Richard Perle, the former member of Rumsfeld's advisory board and self-proclaimed neo-conservatist). Interestingly, all 175 editors in all of Murdock's papers were pro-war and pro-Bush supporters! Strange coincidence, is it not?

But wait, Rupert Murdock isin't done yet! He's recently aquired DirectTV, which effects only 100 million viewers worldwide, provided it passes through the FCC. But wait a minute, what am I thinking? Oh course it will pass through the FCC! Why shouldn't it? We only have Michael Powell as the chairmen of America's media regulator on board, appointed by Bush of course! Funny, isin't that Colin Powell's son?!? Yet another coincidence? And isin't it also strange of the current debate in the FCC of deregulation of the limits on the number of TV and radio stations a company can own in a market? Boy, who will surely benefit from owning more airtime? Shall we talk about who they are all tied into, and who they all gave vast amounts of money into his particular Presidential Campaign in the Election 2000?

Oh yeah, I listen to a lot of AM radio, but that's probably the most neo-conservatively biased of them all, many owned by Clear Channel from Dallas Texas (yep, where Bush was Governor), which is owned by Bush supporters and one-time business partners of Bush. And what do I get to hear on their stations? Oh a little, G. Gordon Liddy, The Savage Nation (the asshole Michael Savage himself), Brit Hume, Michael Reagan, and of course, Rush Limbaugh. Personally, I enjoy reading a little contrast like Michael Moore from these fanatics who control a vast amount of our airwaves and who are equally guilty of their own particular agenda and propaganda slant. But again, we must all try to take things with a little grain of salt, and do our best to see the truth (i.e. COLD HARD FACTS) in everything spoken through all forms of media outlets.

quote:

Originally posted by DaveSaenz This post also reminded me of some recent school shooting incidents that have occured in Germany and Australia.... What's the deal with Germany??? So violent and drunk all the time! I don't think I want to move there....

Hey I think you're on to something! Let's make a "documentary" about something like this:

http://www.archive.official-documen...ne/duncntnt.htm

And make broad, sweeping generalizations about English society!

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Hey I think you're on to something! Let's make a "documentary" about something like this: http://www.archive.official-documen...ne/duncntnt.htm And make broad, sweeping generalizations about English society!

lol count me in

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Oh yeah, I listen to a lot of AM radio, but that's probably the most neo-conservatively biased of them all, many owned by Clear Channel from Dallas Texas (yep, where Bush was Governor), which is owned by Bush supporters and one-time business partners of Bush. And what do I get to hear on their stations? Oh a little, G. Gordon Liddy, The Savage Nation (the asshole Michael Savage himself), Brit Hume, Michael Reagan, and of course, Rush Limbaugh. Personally, I enjoy reading a little contrast like Michael Moore from these fanatics who control a vast amount of our airwaves and who are equally guilty of their own particular agenda and propaganda slant. But again, we must all try to take things with a little grain of salt, and do our best to see the truth (i.e. COLD HARD FACTS) in everything spoken through all forms of media outlets.

While they might be conservative in nature, they are not lying like moore.

quote:

Originally posted by Neo nEro While they might be conservative in nature, they are not lying like moore.

Hehe. What do you consider "lying"? Perhaps bending the truth just a little bit to fit their particular given agendas, which is also fully supported and endorsed by their parent companies? Shall we go into examples, or do you get my drift?

please go into examples

quote:

Originally posted by occrider More from the Toronto Star; http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Co...ol=969483191630

Mr. Howell is not even an acredited Star witer. My cousin gets his articles published in the Star too, even though he owns a computer company. Please dont post articles from the commentary section.... thats not acredited.

Plus, that stupid link you posted is rehashed in this aricle. There are no credible websites there except the PBS one,... others are simply just personal websites.

quote:

Wall Street Journal: http://www.opinionjournal.com/forms...ml?id=110003233

OPINIONjournal...... Occrider.... i didnt know an opinion diary was a COLD HARD FACT
Stop contradicting yourself

quote:

And some random website: http://www.whatever-dude.com/posts/327.shtml But please don't argue with me, ARGUE THE COLD HARD FACTS

Again, this link is not going to convince me. Having a "gay stuff" section tells me there is some personal bias thought here. Also, take a look at the main page.... http://www.whatever-dude.com/

For the love of god, this is worse then the enquirer.

For someone to have Al Shahaf as their avatar while trying to preach "cold hard facts" by utilizing pathetic websites, only reinforces my belief even stronger.

Try smarter next time Occrider.

quote:

Originally posted by TuanAnh213 its garnered all the attention because its controversial that Farenheit 911 seems interesting...i'd like to know what Dubya was up to before he came tumbling into the white house

Its controversial because people in your nation have lit the bulb thats been screwed in their head long time ago, only now.

Also, I forgot to mention something else about the new film he's making called Farenheit 911. Not only does it reveal and analyze the Bush family's business ventures, but also the ties that hwere made with the Bin Laden family over the years.

I cant wait!

quote:

Originally posted by Neo nEro please go into examples

Okay. Truthfully though, to better illustrate my point, it would have been better for me to say that instead of "lying" or "bending the truth", Fox News and other Conservative networks tend to do a better job leaving out pertinent information that the public should be made aware. Such as:

1. The connections between the contracts given to Halliburton and Bechtel (including ties with Rumsfield, the looking the other way when Hussein gased the Kurds over a desire to build the Aqaba pipeline in the 1980's under the Reagan Admin.), both having extremely close ties to our current Administration, without any competing offers from other companies. A probe is being sought into our Congress on the matter, yet Fox seemingly reports nothing on the matter.

2. As mentioned previously, the connections between Bush apppointed FCC chairman, Michael Powell (father Colin Powell), and the efforts of the major news and media organizations to deregulate the current law that states that no broadcaster can reach more than 35% of the national audience, as well as the strict limits on how many radio and TV stations one company can own in any market. Of course, the biggest TV and radio stations owned would stand to benefit from this, but guess who owns more on the market at the moment? Yep, Murdock's News Corporation (Fox).

3. Or how about Evangelical charities with an overt hostility to Islam being lined up to prepare food and water to the Iraqis? One charity, Samaritan's Purse, is run by Franklin Graham, son of Evangelist Billy Graham, who declared after the 9/11 attacks that Islam was "a very evil and wicked religion"? Also part of the Southern Babtists Convention, whose former president once described the Prophet Mohammed as "a demon-possessed paedophile". On their food packages will be a lovely Bible verse in Arabic that states, "grace and truth were realized through Jesus Christ." Franklin Graham is a close friend of Bush Jr., and participated in this year's Good Friday prayer service at the Pentagon, angering a good portion of officials in the Defense Dept. Kinda gave the wrong message, don't you think? Frank's an idiot, angering Norman Schwarzkopf in 1991 by delivering thousands of Arabic-language New Testaments to Saudi Arabia in defiance of Saudi Law and the US-Saudi military alliance. The list goes on and on about this guy. Think this would ever get reported on Fox?

4. Or how about the U.S. British Government claiming that the Iraqi regime sought uranium feed material from the government of Niger in west Africa? You know, the letters that were later described by the International Atomic Energy Agency as crude forgeries? Did Fox ever commentate on that?

5. Or the unmanned vehicles that were reported to be able to fly over 500 miles, but could only fly at most 5-6 miles on a non-windy day? Of course, 500 miles was reported on Fox, but the last part was never revealed. Wonder why?

6. But more specifically and more recently, I could mention what has transcribed on Fox, such as the supposed documents that link Bin Laden to Osama. Inigo Gilmore from the London Daily Telegraph (already mentioned being very right-slanted) was the only reporter allowed into Iraq's Mukhabarat intelligence headquarters, and mysteriously found all these documents that proved the links. Strange that he mentioned the CIA must have missed these documents (yeah, right). I'll let Wayne Madsen continue with this statement:

"It is amazing that the U.S. military would be so open about letting favored journalists walk freely about the Mukhabarat building when the Pentagon has clamped tight security on the Iraqi Oil Ministry. The reason for this is obvious. While the Mukhabarat building can be salted with phony intelligence documents, the Oil Ministry is likely rife with documents showing the links between Saddam Hussein and Dick Cheney's old firm, Halliburton. The company signed more than $73 million in contracts with Saddam's government when Cheney was its chief executive officer. The contracts, negotiated with two Halliburton subsidiaries�Dresser-Rand and Ingersoll Dresser Pump Co.�were part of the UN oil-for-food program, ironically the same program which figures prominently in the charges against Galloway. But unlike the charges against Galloway, the reports about Cheney's links to Saddam Hussein's oil industry originated with relatively more mainstream media sources, including ABC News, The Washington Post, and The Texas Observer."

He also states:

"The U.S. has been quite active in inviting Telegraph reporters into the Iraqi intelligence headquarters. Other documents "found" by the paper's reporters "revealed" Russian intelligence had passed intercepts of Tony Blair's phone conversations to Iraqi intelligence, that German intelligence offered to assist Iraqi intelligence in the lead up to the war, that France provided Iraq with the contents of US-French diplomatic exchanges, and that anti-war and anti-Bush Labor Party Member of Parliament George Galloway had solicited hundreds of thousands of dollars from Iraq, which were skimmed from the country's oil-for-food program.

Galloway immediately smelled the rat of a disinformation campaign when he responded to the Telegraph about the "found" document. "Maybe it's the product of the same forgers who forged so many other things in this whole Iraq picture . . . It would not be the Iraqi regime that was forging it. It would be people like you [Telegraph journalists] and the Government whose policies you have supported," Galloway said."

But here's the capper:

"It was not long before the Iraqi-al Qaeda "smoking gun" document was reported around the world. America's right-wing propaganda channel, Fox News, featured the "found" document on its lead story on its Fox Sunday News program. Fox anchorman Tony Snow asked the ethically-tainted Iraqi National Congress leader Ahmed Chalabi about the document. Chalabi responded, saying the document provided enough information that Saddam Hussein was knowledgeable about the September 11 attacks on the United States, a canard that has been rejected by intelligence agencies around the world. However, for those who forged or doctored the document it was mission accomplished.

The "smoking gun" document on Galloway was further played up on Fox News Sunday. William Kristol, an ally of Perle and a dean of the neo-conservatives, and Fox's Brit Hume, a right-wing ideologue who masquerades as a reporter, said the documents implicating Galloway in accepting money from Saddam Hussein was the "tip of the iceberg." They then suggested that French President Jacques Chirac, other Western politicians, and Arab journalists working for such networks as Al Jazeera, would soon be "outed" by further Iraqi intelligence documents.For good mesaure, Fox also announced that Galloway may have given classified satellite imagery to al Qaeda. As is so often the case, the Fox News panelists provided no evidence for their slanderous claims."

7. Or even personally, on a note of music, it truly pissed me off the way Fox portrayed actors and especially musicians who felt it wrong to go to war. Not that I'm a fan of the Dixie Chicks, but broadcasters like Hannity and Bill O'Reilly calling for a massive burning and boycotting of Dixie Chick CDs because of one singer speaking out against having troops over in Iraq, which have resulting in "unpatriotic" labeling and death threats. Sound a little like Nazi Germany to me. Of course they had to show these hate rallies, where masses of CDs were either thrown in a bonfire or ran over by construction machinery. And then there's Madonna, who under pressure decided to pull her latest video in which at the end shows her throwing a grenade to Bush, who uses it as a lighter for his cigar. O'Reilly effectively trashed this imagery (oh how terrible!), once again labeling her as unpatriotic for speaking out against the war. As Madonna stated, it really amazes me for us to put our troops' lives on the line to supposedly support democracy in another country, when we show so very little over here when someone speaks out against the government's actions. Acts like this are nothing shy of embarrassing, and extremely vile in terms of propaganda abuse.


These are a few examples, and I'm sorry it was long-winded. This probably should have been saved for the Political Debate thread. Sorry about that. But back to my original point: Michael Moore is slanted. But to me, he is a refreshing contrast to the neo-Conservative media that has a tendency to misconstrue and deliberately leave out vital information to fit its own current conservative agenda. So take it all with a grain of salt.

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade Eh? There's been a school shooting in Australia? Replace the word "crocs" with "each other" and the word "fosters" with "any beer but fosters" (fosters tastes like cat-urine, no-one in Australia drinks it) and you're on the right track.

Sorry. Crossbow shooting.

quote:

Originally posted by Cyrus King OPINIONjournal...... Occrider.... i didnt know an opinion diary was a COLD HARD FACT Stop contradicting yourself

What do you think "Columbine" is?? It's an opinion diary (editorial) in movie format...
Anyone can skew facts to support their point...
I knew it all along...Cyrus King is really Moore...

quote:

Originally posted by Cyrus King Mr. Howell is not even an acredited Star witer. My cousin gets his articles published in the Star too, even though he owns a computer company. Please dont post articles from the commentary section.... thats not acredited. Plus, that stupid link you posted is rehashed in this aricle. There are no credible websites there except the PBS one,... others are simply just personal websites. OPINIONjournal...... Occrider.... i didnt know an opinion diary was a COLD HARD FACT Stop contradicting yourself Again, this link is not going to convince me. Having a "gay stuff" section tells me there is some personal bias thought here. Also, take a look at the main page.... http://www.whatever-dude.com/ For the love of god, this is worse then the enquirer. For someone to have Al Shahaf as their avatar while trying to preach "cold hard facts" by utilizing pathetic websites, only reinforces my belief even stronger. Try smarter next time Occrider.

Hmmmm ... why do you think I have him as my avatar? Perhaps because it is a JOKE????? You know ... HUMOR???? If your best argument against me is that my avatar is Sahaf (praise him) then you have a loonngg way to go. At any rate, I never claimed anything about the links I posted, I was merely trying to provide more coverage on the issue since you were critiszing my posting of the same article. However, I stand by my original link of which you still haven't addressed any of the issues at hand.

By COLD HARD FACTS I was referring to my original posting. The site all too well documents WHERE Moore got his material, HOW he peiced it together, and even included screen shots to illustrate its point! Additionally it does anlaysis of the statistics Moore provides and breaks it down so we can actually see how Moore got his numbers. So would you care to comment on that??? I've clicked on the links provided by the site and they all properly reference valid sources.

Moore's a great entertainer! I don't doubt that ... stop believing every word that comes out of his mouth though.

And I try smarter every time

quote:

Originally posted by mndeg oh look another american thats pro american i said ALL because ive yet to see an american thats not pro america

i think that's kind of irrelevant, obviously most people will be somewhat biased towards their own country. what really matters is being well-informed and open-minded... which some americans on this board are.

Germany, 381 gun murders.
France, 255 gun murders.
Canada, 165 gun murders.
UK, 68 gun murders.
Australia, 65 gun murders.
Japan, 39 gun murders.
U.S., 11,127 gun murders. (doesn't include police shootings)

These are according to bowling for columbine. Im not 100% positive of the accuracy of these stats, but i highly doubt moore would bother outright lying about statistics.
I forget how many people live in japan.. 100 million? 150 million?
US is close to 300 million. You do the math, but Japan clearly has a cultural difference that leads to a FAR lower gun related murder rate. (maybe cuz they all kill with samurai swords and throwing stars instead just kidding)

quote:

Originally posted by Z1D Germany, 381 gun murders. France, 255 gun murders. Canada, 165 gun murders. UK, 68 gun murders. Australia, 65 gun murders. Japan, 39 gun murders. U.S., 11,127 gun murders. (doesn't include police shootings) These are according to bowling for columbine. Im not 100% positive of the accuracy of these stats, but i highly doubt moore would bother outright lying about statistics. I forget how many people live in japan.. 100 million? 150 million? US is close to 300 million. You do the math, but Japan clearly has a cultural difference that leads to a FAR lower gun related murder rate. (maybe cuz they all kill with samurai swords and throwing stars instead just kidding)

quote:

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). After an email tip, I finally found a way to compute 11,127. Ignore the FBI, use Nat'l Center for Health Statistics figures. These are based on doctors' death certificates rather than police investigation, and give figures about 2,000 higher than FBI. 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.

And with regards to the population factor:

quote:

There are two reasons Moore may be reluctant to talk numbers rather than rates or probabilities. First, the other countries he compares have a smaller (sometimes a much smaller) population) than the US. The US has a population of about 285 million: Canada about 31 million, Australia 19 million, Germany 81 million. For example, in 2000-2001 Australia reported 381 homicides among its 19 million people. Source. If we were to apply its rate to the US population, that'd work out to 5,715 murders. (The above source puts a peculiar spin on this data, by the way. Although reporting a massive 20% jump in murders, and a 100% increase in intra-family killings, it is headlined that "In 2001-2002 there was a 25 per cent decrease in the use of firearms to commit homicide." Great: what it really means is that gun homicides fell slightly, but were more than offset by increases in all other means of murder. The above figure of 381 is, by the way, total homicides rather than gun homicides.... it's of no benefit to get killed with a knife or club, either.) Second, the minute you get into rates it starts to become apparent that gun homicides are a very low probability event wherever you are. Phrased otherwise, the odds are enormously in favor of you or I dying of heart attack, stroke, or cancer, no matter what country we live in. Here's the 1999 Center for Disease Control statistics (which is what Bowling uses) for the US: Deaths from heart attack & other cardiovascular failure: ........ 892,558 Deaths from cancer: ................... 549,838 Deaths from flu & pneumonia: .... 67,730 Deaths from kidney failure: ......... 35,525 Deaths from diabetes: .................. 68,399 Deaths from alcohol ingestion .....19,171 Deaths from gun homicides: ....... 10,217 (includes self-defense and police killings of criminals) Deaths from gun accidents .............. 824 (not a typo) Of the 2.39 million US deaths that year, gun homicides comprised 0.4%.

Still, even if Moore increased the number of homicides by two times, the US still has much more homicides than all the other countries. And the fact that only 0.4% of the deaths are caused by gun homicides is totally irrelevant. Infact, it means that you have a 0.4% chance of someone shooting you, which is pretty much.

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 Still, even if Moore increased the number of homicides by two times, the US still has much more homicides than all the other countries. And the fact that only 0.4% of the deaths are caused by gun homicides is totally irrelevant. Infact, it means that you have a 0.4% chance of someone shooting you, which is pretty much.

you sir are an idiot. You wanna talk about irrelevance, this topic is irrelevant to you. you have no place to even give a fuck about our county and its people. or scratch that, let me thank you for your opinion and lets move on. Let us Americans worry about our moronic government and .4% homicides. you can strive for your utopia, but here when you have a large ass melting pot of different types of people, no one is gonna get along that well. live with it.

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 Still, even if Moore increased the number of homicides by two times, the US still has much more homicides than all the other countries. And the fact that only 0.4% of the deaths are caused by gun homicides is totally irrelevant. Infact, it means that you have a 0.4% chance of someone shooting you, which is pretty much.

Aren't you the same fellow who said he had the Berretta pistol when he was a little kid?? I think I'd have a much greater chance of dying by bullet if I lived in a region plauged by civil war...*hint hint*

Re: Re: Re: Bowling for Columbine, the movie

quote:

Originally posted by TranceSeeker It's not only the fact that there live more people. People are afraid to live, they all own a gun there to protect themselves, that's why it leakes out of hand and students start killing students at school... Weapons are toys upthere in America...It's not normal anymore... In the middle of the movie u see facts about America, killing kings/presidents of countries and kill a lot of people...they think by killing everyone they'll rule the whole world... It's in the people's mentality, they feel like killing too... Canada on the other side, which is also a country with loads of weapon purchases is a whole other mentality...the movie shows u the opposite of how it SHOULD be... I think this movie is perfectly made in every way...to show people how sick America is...and it convinced me too. The director had the intention to let people open their eyes...if u watch the movie u'll know what I mean

I love how u keep sayin america is this, america is that. Its not America but instead its the crazy, psycho bastards in america. Those people belong in a mental institution. The kids that killed students were crazy in the head. Every country has crazy and psycho people that do the same thing its just that America has more of those type of people.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.