Bowling For Columbine

[Alex H]

Originally posted by j2k4@5 November 2003 - 14:50
Moore, on the other hand, contends that EVERYONE with a brain agrees with him.

Well, everyone with a working brain does.

Sorry, I'm being cheeky!

I thought it was interesting to see someone doing real in-your-face type interviews, and how people reacted. You could almost watch them thinking, especially when they were trying to work out how to say something that wouldn't make them look stupid. (Seriously, guy comes up and sticks a camera in your face and says "Tell me why you believe what you do" ANYONE would be afraid of coming off like an idiot, regardless of weather they have leanings to the left or the right).

I must say though that I do like Mike Moore. And he does have some valid points, eg. "If you take away all the guns, then no-one gets shot" kinda idea. That's logical right?

Here is where he defends some of the accusations that Bowling was inaccurate:

"How to Deal with the Lies and the Lying Liars When They Lie about "Bowling for Columbine"

which I think is a very remarkable list of sources. And it is interesting to note that he hasn't been sued by anyone about the film.

And as someone said earlier, you can tell that he really does love America. I just think that he doesn't accept whatever people tell him you should do if you love America.

[3RA1N1AC]

Originally posted by Alex H@13 November 2003 - 23:21
And as someone said earlier, you can tell that he really does love America. I just think that he doesn't accept whatever people tell him you should do if you love America.

i've always found the phrase "america: love it or leave it" rather comical, because its gist is that if you have any complaints whatsoever about your country then you oughta go somewhere else. but that could easily be turned around against the people who are so fond of using the slogan--the things that the average jingo complains about (liberalism, the melting pot, etc) are no less american than the things they hold sacred... so why shouldn't they have to leave, too? the phrase implies the highly offensive (in my humble opinion, at least) conceit that one faction can have a monopoly on patriotism.

[MagicNakor]

It may be more impressive if every link to his proof wasn't internal.

[echidna]

Originally posted by j2k4+9 November 2003 - 13:26--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4 &#064; 9 November 2003 - 13:26)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-3RA1N1AC@8 November 2003 - 20:33
so i think a lot of gun-owners are unwilling to take the necessary step to make absolutely sure that their child can&#39;t get hold of the gun, because --at least in their minds-- it defeats the purpose for which they bought it.

Yes-

In many such cases, laws having to do with negligence are not brought to bear (who could stand to prosecute grieving parents?) and societal lessons are never taught/learned.[/b][/quote]
if the parents had lost their child because they had power sockets without insulation, i would think that they ought be investigated for negligence, and potentially charged despite their grief.

i can&#39;t really see a difference between the two issues,
the imperitive is simple;
having to keep infants apart from mortal hazards,
be it a firearm or electrical current or crack.