Amiga.org
Coffee House => Coffee House Boards => CH / General => Topic started by: T_Bone on January 20, 2005, 10:48:12 AM
-
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,144921,00.html
:roll: Xoops compatible link:
http://tinyurl.com/4d3y4 doesn't work either dangit
Oh for crying out loud. try THIS (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,144921,00.html)
-
:roflmao:
-
hum, do you have another source about this than FOX?
-
Speelgoedmannetje wrote:
hum, do you have another source about this than FOX?
:roll::lol:
NEW YORK — Filmmaker Michael Moore's bodyguard was arrested for carrying an unlicensed weapon in New York's JFK airport Wednesday night.
Police took Patrick Burke, who says Moore employs him, into custody after he declared he was carrying a firearm at a ticket counter. Burke is licensed to carry a firearm in Florida and California, but not in New York. Burke was taken to Queens central booking and could potentially be charged with a felony for the incident.
Moore's 2003 Oscar-winning film "Bowling for Columbine" criticizes what Moore calls America's "culture of fear" and its obsession with guns.
-
:-D.
-
tut tut tut...not good for Michael or any of his moore-on followers. I'm sure they are hoping it is just a rumour.
-
This ain't great for Moore but I don't see how it's the end of the world or his fault. It's sad that he feels he needs bodyguards in the first place but he has upset the sort of people most of us would be scared of upsetting, and rightly so.
In other news, roughly 21 million people voted in the Peoples Choice awards a few weeks ago. Fahrenheit 9/11 won best movie of the year. Lots of moore-on's out there it seems.
-zudo
-
Burke is licensed to carry a firearm in Florida and California, but not in New York.
assuming this is true, this guys biggest boo boo is that he didn't check the laws in New York before he showed up.
just so you fellas know, NY has really strict gun laws. the Sullivan act (if i recall) says something about not carrying a conceled, unlicensed (in NY) gun around within city limits.
not being a gun owner i'm not sure of the details, but the point is, if you are employed as a bodyguard, that sounds like something you should become familiar with.
sounds like a sloppy person.
-
It's sad that he feels he needs bodyguards in the first place but he has upset the sort of people most of us would be scared of upsetting, and rightly so.
If guns are so eViL and no one should need them, why is lard ass an exception? :-?
-
Don't be silly, Red...
Also in our country, policemen (since a bodyguard is a policeman) have guns. Spreading guns all over the country just because of the purpose of freedom of posession and trade gives big time opportunity for those who actually want to use guns initially.
-
redrumloa wrote:
It's sad that he feels he needs bodyguards in the first place but he has upset the sort of people most of us would be scared of upsetting, and rightly so.
If guns are so eViL and no one should need them, why is lard ass an exception? :-?
Maybe it's because not everyone who has a gun licence is of sound mind, and he's had death threats for taking the piss out of them?
Kinda proves his point for me.
-
cecilia wrote:
Burke is licensed to carry a firearm in Florida and California, but not in New York.
assuming this is true, this guys biggest boo boo is that he didn't check the laws in New York before he showed up.
just so you fellas know, NY has really strict gun laws. the Sullivan act (if i recall) says something about not carrying a conceled, unlicensed (in NY) gun around within city limits.
not being a gun owner i'm not sure of the details, but the point is, if you are employed as a bodyguard, that sounds like something you should become familiar with.
sounds like a sloppy person.
It's common knowledge to anyone who has a Florida or California license. He has both, of course he knew.
He also most likely broke the law in every state he transported the firearm through.
He's obviusly not the sharpest knife in the drawer, bringing it into an airport of all places! I had a NY Concealed Carry license (CCW), but even then you cant walk into an airport with it!
-
"...If guns are so eViL and no one should need them, why is lard ass an exception?..."
:lol:
-
"...Maybe it's because not everyone who has a gun licence is of sound mind..."
-----------------------------------------------------------
You mean like the tit who took the gun to the airport?
:lol:
-
X-ray wrote:
"...Maybe it's because not everyone who has a gun licence is of sound mind..."
-----------------------------------------------------------
You mean like the tit who took the gun to the airport?
:lol:
Especially this tit.
-
@ Zudobug
"...Fahrenheit 9/11 won best movie of the year. Lots of moore-on's out there it seems..."
-----------------------------------------------------------
I think you'll find that "Bowling for Columbine" is the Moore film that is relevant to this thread, not Fahrenheit 9/11.
As regards the quantity of Moore-ons out there, I haven't researched it myself. You see, if I step in dog-sh1t on the pavement I try to clean it off and see that it doesn't happen again, rather than waste time researching how many other poor unfortunate souls have done it. That is why the number of Michael Moore films I have seen is 1. Don't be surprised if that number does not increase at all.
You may find a kind of reassurance in the safety of numbers, but my quality control mechanisms are a little more discerning. I am not as likely to join the throng of moore-ons who seem to spend their lives scratching their arses and smelling their fingers instead of doing real research.
-
X-Ray,
Is Bowling for Columbine the one Moore film you accidentally stepped in?
Have any of the other Moore haters in this thread actually seen that film and think Michael Moore is anti-gun? I must be missing the point. America does have a scarily high gun-crime rate. Moore asks "why are Americans so violent?" and blames it mostly on the culture of fear created by the media and politics - not guns.
There are probably people out there who do faithfully accept everything Moore says. It's easy to just accept something you want to believe. But I'm just as against that as I am people who accept everything they read in The Sun as fact.
-zudo
-
"...Is Bowling for Columbine the one Moore film you accidentally stepped in?..."
Yes.
"...Moore asks "why are Americans so violent?" and blames it mostly on the culture of fear created by the media and politics - not guns..."
----------------------------------------------------------
How does a culture of fear promote violence? Perhaps you meant to say that Moore suspects that a culture of fear promotes gun ownership.
If Moore wasn't against guns and gun ownership he wouldn't have pulled that stunt at Charlton Heston's house, and wouldn't have targetted Walmart for selling the bullets that were used to paralyze a teenager. Not once did he ever ask an adult to account for why a shooting had occured. The worst example of this is the kid that took his father's gun to school and shot another kid (my details may be fuzzy here because it's been a while). The point is he never tried to interview the father and tell him what a tit he was for leaving the gun out where his kid could find it. Instead he blames the incident on gun culture and gun ownership. Same with Walmart. They didn't shoot the teenager and they don't make the gun laws. Yet he blames them for the shooting of the teenager.
Moore might as well blame spoons for the fact that he is so fat.
-
X-ray wrote:
Moore might as well blame spoons for the fact that he is so fat.
Or, rather, for instance the McDonalds, for promoting a culture of obesity :-P
wait wait wait
now I see a link:
often, ppl with bolemia are tensioned, maybe that's because of fear?
-
How does a culture of fear promote violence? Perhaps you meant to say that Moore suspects that a culture of fear promotes gun ownership.
Actually, I don't even think I meant that. How I understand it is, in Moore's opinion, the culture of fear promotes making people scared enough to over-react and not take proper precautions. I don't have the statistics at hand, but many gun-shot injuries and deaths are accidents caused by guns being accessible to adults (and children) who have not had adequate safety training. Something I'm sure you would agree is a good idea before using a gun. Imagine someone who thinks their house is being burgled in the middle of the night, pulls out a gun they have never used, full of fear – mistakes will happen. It could end up not being a burglar, but a family member getting shot. Or they could just end up providing a burglar with a weapon they didn't previously have. Etc etc etc. The culture of fear puts them in the frame of mind that yes, makes them get the gun without considering the risk in the first place, but also makes them reach for it whenever they feel threatened – and increases the paranoia to make them feel threatened more often.
If Moore wasn't against guns and gun ownership he wouldn't have pulled that stunt at Charlton Heston's house...
Ok, fair enough. Over the years this part of the film has really got to me. I agree it is completely unnecessary and the film would have been oh so much better without it. I don't know what the guy was thinking. But like he says, he's a member of the NRA and has no problem with rifles. And when it comes to small arms, he goes out of his way in the film to say many people in Canada own hand-guns, but their murder rate in minuscule compared to the states. I personally don't think the National 'Rifle' Association should be so keen on small arms.
Back to the spoon comparison. As I understand it, Walmart used to sell bullets and had few or no restrictions in place when selling them. The kids who shot up Columbine bought the bullets from Walmart. They weren't to blame for the shooting. Moore wasn't blaming Walmart. It's been a while since I watched it too but IIRC, he asked them to put in place greater restrictions, but instead they said they'd simply stop selling bullets. Bravo Walmart!
Not once did he ever ask an adult to account for why a shooting had occured.
This film was more about the columbine kids. Obviously he couldn't ask them why they did it. I have some ideas about that which weren't discussed in the film, but that's a whole other thread. I agree it would have been interesting if he'd asked some adults why they had shot people. I'd be interested to know what they'd say if he could get honest answers. But if they helped promote his view I feel people would suggest he put words in their mouths, and besides, they are criminals.
The point is he never tried to interview the father and tell him what a tit he was for leaving the gun out where his kid could find it.
Imagine the response from the anti-Moore crowd had he done that. “How insensitive”, “how cruel”, “how evil”. You are right that people leaving guns out where kids can get them is wrong. Owning a gun and not looking after it properly and safely is wrong. My interpretation of the film is not that Moore is blaming gun ownership in general, but suggests that irresponsible gun ownership and far too relaxed gun control laws contribute to the problem, as does the climate of fear. No single thing is blamed, although I felt there was emphasis on the fear argument. Lots of possible reasons are explored and it's up to the viewer to contemplate the evidence. It's true Moore has his views, also there was bias at play when he picked the subjects for the film in order to paint the picture he wanted. This is commonplace with documentaries. I don't agree entirely with Moore's politics, but there are enough interesting facts and ideas in that film to make it worth watching at least once imo.
If you don't agree, no problem. I'd be interested to know what you and people who have researched the subject think causes such high gun crime figures in the states.
Woooh, I didn't mean for this reply to go on so long. I think I made the same point twice back there a few time. Cheers if you managed to get to the end without falling asleep :-)
-zudo
-
Michael Moore's bodyguard arrested on firearms charge
:roflmao:
I almost fell off my chair laughing when I saw that.
The fat one must be torn between being pissed off and marvelling at the irony.
Excellent. :-D
@X-Ray:
Perhaps you meant to say that Moore suspects that a culture of fear promotes gun ownership.
Hmmm.. are you sure you watched it?
I only ask because it's quite clear from the film that he doesn't think gun ownership alone is the problem.
Hence the piece on ownership in Canada being as high (higher?) as in the USA.
Obviously he is against unneccessary gun ownership but, equally obviously, he doesn't blame America's problems on it.
Did you see the part about Canada?
-
"...Moore wasn't blaming Walmart..."
---------------------------------------------
Then why did he parade the guy in the wheelchair at Walmart?
"...I personally don't think the National 'Rifle' Association should be so keen on small arms..."
-----------------------------------------------
A rifle IS a small arm. And the name of an association need not fully dictate what its all about. Example: the Ham and Petersham Pistol and Rifle Club here in London does not have anything to do with pistols, although it once did.
"...How I understand it is, in Moore's opinion, the culture of fear promotes making people scared enough to over-react and not take proper precautions..."
-----------------------------------------------
Really? What part of the film, or what incident that he discussed, makes you think that?
"...This film was more about the columbine kids. Obviously he couldn't ask them why they did it..."
-----------------------------------------------
Do you think he could have asked the kids' parents where the guns had come from? That is more what I am getting at, since the guns obviously shouldn't have been available to those kids. As for the film being more about the Columbine kids, that's not entirely true, and if it is, you need to explain to me why there are satirical cartoons in there with KKK references and digs at various historical events pertaining to the development of the country.
"...The culture of fear puts them in the frame of mind that yes, makes them get the gun without considering the risk in the first place..."
--------------------------------------------------------
What risk are you talking about? And is this risk significant when compared to the risk of confronting a burglar unarmed?
"...makes them reach for it whenever they feel threatened – and increases the paranoia to make them feel threatened more often..."
-------------------------------------------------------
So fear increases paranoia, resulting in feeling threatened, eh? That analysis is beyond the scope of my training and experience, so I'll have to trust your psychoanalysis on that one. You never did tell me what your day job is, and now I'm curious.
"..Imagine the response from the anti-Moore crowd had he done that..."
------------------------------------------------------
Well, I am definitely in the Anti-Moore camp and I would have preferred it if he had demanded to know why the parents had allowed these kids access to the guns. Unfortunately it would not have been controversial enough, so he instead turned the movie into wide-sweeping crockumentary that it is.
I think if you read this review you will perhaps come to some undestanding of the reason why it is so crap and why Michael Moore is crap:
http://www.demosophia.com/2003/09/the_whining_clo.html
Edit: I mistakenly said the bullets were from Walmart, but they were from K-Mart.
-
@ Wilse
Look at my post to Zudobug again: that comment was aimed at Zudo, where I was suggesting that he had meant to say something other than he had said.
"..Hmmm.. are you sure you watched it?.."
I also said in another reply that I have seen it, so I don't know why you are asking if I have.
-
@ Wilse
"...Hence the piece on ownership in Canada being as high (higher?) as in the USA..."
--------------------------------------------------------
Either you or Mr Moore have got the statistics a bit wrong here. The Canada Department of Justice conducted a survey of 9 countries to establish the percentage of households nationwide that had guns, including long guns.
Here are the standings, in descending order: USA (48%), Switzerland, France, Canada (22%), Sweden, Austria, Scotland, England & Wales, and the Netherlands.
I'm assuming that it's Moore up to his usual style of overinflating things and going off on a tangent, rather than you getting it wrong.
-
@ Wilse
"..Obviously he is against unneccessary gun ownership but, equally obviously, he doesn't blame America's problems on it.."
---------------------------------------------------------
Then why does he focus entirely on gun crime? He doesn't mention any statistics on violence involving blunt force trauma or edged weapons. The trauma model in the US is very similar to that of SA, and we get 6 times as many stabs there compared to gunshot wounds. If he was only interested in the psyche of the perpetrators of violence, why did he not do proper research into this across the board? Why make cheesy clips of people firing guns for recreation that suddenly cut to scenes of murder and suicide?
-
"...Moore wasn't blaming Walmart..."
---------------------------------------------
Then why did he parade the guy in the wheelchair at Walmart?
The guy in the wheelchair was "paraded" because bullets were bought at the store and MM and the kids wanted Wal/K-Mart to a) know that was the case and b) make sure kids can't buy bullets in future.
A rifle IS a small arm. And the name of an association need not fully dictate what its all about. Example: the Ham and Petersham Pistol and Rifle Club here in London does not have anything to do with pistols, although it once did.
I stand corrected and agree... what's in a name? But I still personally feel the NRA shouldn't be so keen on erm, very small arms(?) - particularly automatic weapons designed for the purposes of being easy to conceal and for shooting people.
Really? What part of the film, or what incident that he discussed, makes you think that?
Oh come off it. Like I said it's been been a while since I watched it. I accept I might be getting mixed up but I think the bit about the climate of fear is near the end. I'll watch it again if necessary. Maybe someone else has seen it more recently and can help me out here? anyone?
Do you think he could have asked the kids' parents where the guns had come from? That is more what I am getting at, since the guns obviously shouldn't have been available to those kids.
Oh yeah, he could have but what would have been the point? I totally agree with you about the kids not having access.
As for the film being more about the Columbine kids, that's not entirely true
You're right. I retract my previous statement.
What risk are you talking about? And is this risk significant when compared to the risk of confronting a burglar unarmed?
Said risk is owning a gun you don't know how to operate safely and the fact that, some people will panic and be very scared in a situation where they feel the need to use it - leading to accidents. I'm sure you'd be cool as a cucumber and would handle the situation ok because you have plenty of experience, but many others, myself included, would probably fall apart and make mistakes. I feel if I was confronted by a burglar unarmed, there's more chance of both of us surviving.
So fear increases paranoia, resulting in feeling threatened, eh? That analysis is beyond the scope of my training and experience, so I'll have to trust your psychoanalysis on that one. You never did tell me what your day job is, and now I'm curious.
Oh no, not another appeal to authority. If you must know I'm not qualified to make a statement as above and claim it as fact, nor would I. That is my understanding of what was said in the film. I have read similar things elsewhere, but am no expert. That's only the gist of it recalled from memory so apologies if it seems a bit crude or if it is inaccurate.
As an aside, I consider everything written on forums such as this to be opinion unless stated otherwise, and only care about the profession or experience of the person making their point when they claim authority - not that that always matters. If I need to search for expert opinion to back up everything I say, I wouldn't bother posting at all. Maybe thats what you want ;-)
Well, I am definitely in the Anti-Moore camp and I would have preferred it if he had demanded to know why the parents had allowed these kids access to the guns.
What good would it have done? What would they say? “Yeah, I f**ked up! Sorry." Is it possible that they thought the guns were secure but the kids were smart enough to get at them? Who knows? I don't see how it would help the “why is america so violent?” debate to turn it into “why are some american parents so careless?” What drove those kids to get at the guns and shoot up their class? Just the fact that they had access and wanted to try out a new toy? Come on!
I think if you read this review you will perhaps come to some undestanding of the reason why it is so crap and why Michael Moore is crap:
I've read that before and many other reviews like it. You share that opinion and you're entitled to it. I don't totally agree with Moore and will accept alternative theories on all of the above if anyone fancies being constructive.
-zudo
-
X-Ray,
"..Obviously he is against unneccessary gun ownership but, equally obviously, he doesn't blame America's problems on it.."
Then why does he focus entirely on gun crime?
Sorry to hijack a question not aimed at me but the answer seems to be a no-brainer (so I'm easily qualified to have an opinion about this.)
At the end of the day the film is about the columbine kids, even though he does stray off the subject to get some of his politics in. They used guns. Why? Thats what Moore sets off to try to help answer (and get some MM trademark stabs at the republicans in for good measure.)
He may have had other motives to tackle the columbine tragedy, maybe the biggest being a movie about such a high-profile event would sell cinema tickets.
-zudo
-
@X-Ray:
"..Obviously he is against unneccessary gun ownership but, equally obviously, he doesn't blame America's problems on it.."
---------------------------------------------------------
Then why does he focus entirely on gun crime?
I don't see the relevance here.
Are you saying that because he focuses on gun crime, he *does* blame America's problems on gun ownership?
In focusing, as you put it, entirely on gun crime, he asks why it is so high and quite clearly and, to me at least, obviously states that he doesn't think the level of gun ownership is the reason.
Whether he inflated ownership figures in Canada to get that point across, I don't know.
But the point *was* made and was one the main themes I took from the film.
-
Like I said it's been been a while since I watched it. I accept I might be getting mixed up but I think the bit about the climate of fear is near the end. I'll watch it again if necessary. Maybe someone else has seen it more recently and can help me out here? anyone?
It's been a while since I saw it too but that was definitely covered.
He went on about how the TV news in the U.S. is different from other countries.
Again, maybe he's exaggerating but a quick look at Fox and you can see what he means.
I actually thought his proposal was that it was this 'culture of fear' that was more responsible than gun ownership.,
He doesn't actually say this in the film though. It was just the impression I got.
-
@ Zudobug
I said: "As for the film being more about the Columbine kids, that's not entirely true"
You first said:
You're right. I retract my previous statement.
Then you said:
At the end of the day the film is about the columbine kids, even though he does stray off the subject to get some of his politics in.
-----------------------------------------------------------
'nuff said.
-
@ Wilse
"...In focusing, as you put it, entirely on gun crime, he asks why it is so high and quite clearly and, to me at least, obviously states that he doesn't think the level of gun ownership is the reason..."
---------------------------------------------------------
Well, we seem to have different perspectives on the film. If what you're saying is true, then Fatarse shouldn't have done the segment on the free rifle giveaway at the bank, or the clips of recreational shooters that merged to scenes of murder and suicide, or the stunt at Charlton Heston's house.
I'm sure you can appreciate Moore's ultra-left-wing overtones in the film, and I'm sure you can also appreciate that the film is a vehicle for his own personal grandstanding and political views. My point is that the film has no value at all as a documentary because:
1) It is laced with satire and is not based on recognised research.
2) It has more of a political objective than anything else.
3) It is loaded with misrepresentations, either by means of editing or by means of omission.
Here are the facts:
http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html
-
IIRC it wasn't intended as a documentary at all, rather a political pledge.
-
X-ray wrote:
@ Zudobug
I said: "As for the film being more about the Columbine kids, that's not entirely true"
You first said:
You're right. I retract my previous statement.
Then you said:
At the end of the day the film is about the columbine kids, even though he does stray off the subject to get some of his politics in.
-----------------------------------------------------------
'nuff said.
Ho ho ho. It could look like a mistake when you take my comments out of context like that.
The film isn't "mostly" about the columbine kids as I said (and retracted.) But they are the central theme and apparently reason for the film bowling for COLUMBINE. I even say that he "does stray off the subject".
What is wrong with that?
[edit]Actually, I just read everything again and it's even simpler than that. Why did Moore focus on guns? Because the film is (supposed to be) about the Columbine Kids, and they used guns. Which got the whole gun debate started.[/edit]
[one more edit for good luck]And before you try to pick this apart I'll be as pedantic as you seem to require and explain everything I said above so there can be no misinterpretation, if possible.... Fingers crossed.
“The film isn't "mostly" about the columbine kids as I said (and retracted.)”
- I said the film is more about the columbine kids than anything else.
- You said, “that's not entirely true.”
- I agreed, retracted previous comment.
“But they are the central theme...”
As in, what the film claims to be based on and the theme that it returns to a number of times throughout. NOT the dominant or most discussed theme...
“...and apparently reason...”
I'm not going to try to deny he had other agendas when making that film. It does seem that the Columbine tragedy gave him a convenient high-profile platform to preach his political views.
“...for the film bowling for COLUMBINE.”
And I know we had that “what's in a name?” discussion earlier. But the Columbine massacre has to be covered in a film that promises it is, even if it doesn't remain in focus throughout.
“I even say that he "does stray off the subject".”
I did say that. And I don't know how you missed it or misinterpreted it. You even pasted it in your attack. I get the feeling your browser is displaying my posts wrong or something.
And in response to the remark “'nuff said.” I think so too.
-zudo
-
If what you're saying is true, then Fatarse shouldn't have done the segment on the free rifle giveaway at the bank
Why not? Obviously encouraging people to own guns is not going to help the situation, since if you don't have a gun, you can't shoot anyone.
Doesn't mean he blames that alone for it.
You're right, we do seem to have different perspectives on the film.
I'm getting the impression that you expected this film to straight out state one reason for problem, when anyone can see it's not that simple.
My point is that the film has no value at all as a documentary because:
1) It is laced with satire and is not based on recognised research.
2) It has more of a political objective than anything else.
3) It is loaded with misrepresentations, either by means of editing or by means of omission.
Point 1), fair enough, although I don't see how this disqualifies it.
If recognised research is a prerequisite for making a documentary, I stand corrected.
Points 2) and 3) could apply to countless documentaries.
Show me a documentary maker with no agenda.
Such a person does not exist.
Here are the facts:
Is there anything on that site that actually proves Fatso lied, or is just yet another site, whining about editing techniques?
(Save me reading it if it's more of same.)
-
zudobug wrote:
[edit]Actually, I just read everything again and it's even simpler than that. Why did Moore focus on guns? Because the film is (supposed to be) about the Columbine Kids, and they used guns. Which got the whole gun debate started.[/edit]
So do you think that if the kids had set off there explosives as they intended and killed the SWAT team, newsgroups and then tried to steal the plane at the airport, the movie would be about bombs??? Also the kids acquired the guns illegally, why are lax laws to blame for people acquiring items illegally?? Do you believe lax laws are responsible when someone acquires other items illegally?? Harris was a psychopath, he chose to do his killing at the school, he needed guns to control the situation so he could set up his real weapons, ie the bombs. They intended there killing to be the largest on American soil (and if the bombs went off 600+ would have made that true until Sept 11), this isnt a couple of kids with guns, this is a psychopath and his partner, trying domestic terrorism (they originally planned on carrying it out on the annivsary of the OK City bombing) at a huge level. Guns and Gun culture have little to do with Columbine for anyone who knows what really was planned for that day.
-Tig
-
@Tig:
Guns and Gun culture have little to do with Columbine
Which is pretty much what the Moore was saying, although not just Columbine.
-
Hey Tig,
With that many question-marks I take it you're expecting answers. :-) I'm not sure what you want me to say because I generally agree with what you have said and don't know where the wires are getting crossed here.
So do you think that if the kids had set off there explosives as they intended and killed the SWAT team, newsgroups and then tried to steal the plane at the airport, the movie would be about bombs???
Too tell the truth I'm not even sure if Moore would have made a film had they pulled off what they had intended, or if so what it would focus on. I think he covers their intentions in the film but as I've said before it's been a while since I watched it.
I've seen another documentary more recently about the Columbine massacre which did definitely go into more detail about this. It's truly crazy what they were trying to pull off.
Also the kids acquired the guns illegally, why are lax laws to blame for people acquiring items illegally??
Oh no, what have I said this time? Let's see...
My interpretation of the film is not that Moore is blaming gun ownership in general, but suggests that irresponsible gun ownership and far too relaxed gun control laws contribute to the problem, as does the climate of fear. No single thing is blamed...
As I said, that was my interpretation of what Moore was saying. I'm not his spokesman or the man himself so could be wrong. Also, that wasn't strictly about the columbine kids but gun-crime in general.
[edit]Or rather any gun-related injury in general - including crime or accident... Eeek, hope I get this in before someone jumps on this slip.[/edit]
And maybe this...
The guy in the wheelchair was "paraded" because bullets were bought at the store and MM and the kids wanted Wal/K-Mart to a) know that was the case and b) make sure kids can't buy bullets in future.
And that is what I recall from the film I last watched a couple of years ago. Not sure if that's what you were referring to either.
That's all I can find that I have said that relates loosely to your question. I don't think I have said in this thread or any other that lax laws are to blame for illegally acquired weapons. So I take it that that is your understanding of a statement made in the film and because I am not anti-moore, I must agree with that... IMO it is far too great a generalization. It depends what laws are supposed to be lax and how making them stricter would stop the illegal buying and selling of weapons, I guess. And the most it could be is a contributing factor, not totally to blame. So the answer is "no!"
As for the follow up question. It depends on what the items are and whether there are any laws in place that should put a stop to them being illegally acquired, but are far too lax... A bit like the last question only even more general. So the answer is it's possible but you need to be more specific.
Hope that helps clear things up. Like I say I pretty much agree with what you have said. If you can pinpoint what I said that leads you to think otherwise I'd like to know about it.
-zudo
-
@ Zudo
I don't know why I waste my time with you when you cannot even establish a consistant train of thought or a viewpoint in your own mind. So as far as any rational conversation with you is concerned, I must unfortunately admit defeat. I can't do it. I can't deal with an intellectual yo-yo. I should have learned a long time ago that any energy I expend in trying to educate you is completely wasted. With any luck I'll be able to subdue my charitable intentions in the future, and this post will be the last from me to you.
-
@ Wilse
"...Show me a documentary maker with no agenda.
Such a person does not exist..."
---------------------------------------------------------
The only agenda a true documentary-maker should have, is presenting the facts. You can tell that by looking up 'documentary' in the dictionary.
Documentary: 1) consisting of or relating to documents, 2) presenting factual material with few or no fictional additions, 3) a factual film or television programme about an event, person etc., presenting the facts with little or no fiction.
I've put that there to save you the time of looking it up yourself. There are HUNDREDS of excellent documentary-makers with no agenda but filming and recording facts. From Attenborough to Zikalala, from the UK to Australia to USA, even to SA. You mean to say you don't know that "Bowling for Columbine" cannot ever hope to be a documentary? Have you swallowed the whole lot with nary a hint of chicanery sticking in your throat? If that is the case, then I'll back off right now, because any discussion with you about this film will be a waste of my time.
"...Is there anything on that site that actually proves Fatso lied, or is just yet another site, whining about editing techniques? (Save me reading it if it's more of same.)..."
Yes, there is fact and evidence in abundance. Why don't you read it? There are images taken directly from the film there, and you will be able to check all of the accusations. The tone is not 'whining' it is objective and lucid. I have read it, the least you can do if you make such a statement is to read it too, yes?
-
@X-Ray:
The only agenda a true documentary-maker should have, is presenting the facts. You can tell that by looking up 'documentary' in the dictionary.
D
Yes, you are ever so clever. After the condescending manner in which you replied to zudo and now this, I'll leave it with this:
What a documentary maker *should* do is not the point. Maybe it's another bout of that intellectual yo-yo-ing that you mentioned.
There is no such person because everyone who sets out to make a documentary does so for a reason.
There are HUNDREDS of excellent documentary-makers with no agenda but filming and recording facts. From Attenborough to
Attenborough has no agenda? Dear, oh dear. Nice try. Perhaps it's time you read some Attenborough interviews, that way you might have a clue about him.
It's funny, you come across as a complete know it all in this thread, yet that statement destroys the mirage completely.
Yes, there is fact and evidence in abundance. Why don't you read it?
because I've wasted enough hours of my life reading sites that claim to prove Moore lied in his films and have yet to find one that actually does so.
There are images taken directly from the film there, and you will be able to check all of the accusations. The tone is not 'whining' it is objective and lucid. I have read it, the least you can do if you make such a statement is to read it too, yes?
Provide me with a single example of an outright lie, covered on that site, and I'll read the rest of it.
Provide me with 'creative editing and omissions' and I won't.
-
@Wilse
I had this arguement with you guys long ago. X-Ray is right. Moore does not make documenatries, he makes propoganda pieces.
@X-Ray
While I agree with you 100% here about Moore, IMHO your tone towards Zudo is a little harsh. Zudo's a good guy.
-
@ Wilse
Sure, I will back up what I claim. Here is one example from the piece that I linked:
"...Fact: Heston's "cold dead hands" speech, which leads off Moore's depiction of the Denver meeting, was not given at Denver after Columbine. It was given a year later in Charlotte, North Carolina, and was his gesture of gratitude upon his being given a handmade musket, at that annual meeting.
Fact: When Bowling continues on to the speech which Heston did give in Denver, it carefully edits it to change its theme.
Moore's fabrication here cannot be described by any polite term. It is a lie, a fraud, and a few other things. Carrying it out required a LOT of editing to mislead the viewer, as I will show below. I transcribed Heston's speech as Moore has it, and compared it to a news agency's transcript, color coding the passages. CLICK HERE for the comparison, with links to the original transcript.
Moore has actually taken audio of seven sentences, from five different parts of the speech, and a section given in a different speech entirely, and spliced them together. Each edit is cleverly covered by inserting a still or video footage for a few seconds..."
----------------------------------------------------------
As for your comment about me being so clever and being a know-it-all, I must confess that compared to all the moore-ons out there, it would appear to be so. But it is not any great claim, it is merely that I am not as gullible and willing to swallow that kind of sh1t as they seem to be. I note your reluctance to discover the truth behind Moore's film and I can only assume that you don't want the image of your left wing hero to be tarnished. Or maybe you are embarrassed that you actually believed that crap.
That is your problem, not mine. The onus is on you to understand that.
If you still think that Michael Moore is sincere and that his 'documentary' deserves to be called that, it is truly sad for you. There are few other slimebags out there making that kind of crap, and I have seen far more scathing ultra-left-wing documentaries even in South Africa, that have still earned my respect because of their respect for facts and the presentation of the true sequence of events as relates to the subject matter. It seems Michael Moore looks for the controversy and the opportunity to grandstand first and then tries to pad it with his version of the facts later, instead of presenting the facts first and then making a critical interpretation of them.
No matter. You will probably continue to watch Michael Moore movies. It is clear that you are steadfast in your support of them. I wonder if you will read the rest of that article...and then come back to me and tell me which genuine documentary-maker would pull stunts like that.
-
@X-Ray:
I can only assume that you don't want the image of your left wing hero to be tarnished
:lol: That fat opportunist is my hero?
This isn't the first time you have demonstrated your ignorance of me.
Where did I say that I believe Moore is sincere?
Where did I say that his film is a documnentary?
I didn't. I challenged your pathetically ignorant attempt to discredit and belittle it.
If you couldn't see that, that is your problem, not mine. ;-)
I'm well aware of Moore's misleading techniques and have stated on here several times before that I found his treatment of Heston to be a disgrace, even though I think Heston is an arse.
Yet you decide to label me and pigeon hole me as though I would take everything Moore has ever said or released as absolute truth.
Once again, your problem, not mine.
-
@Jim:
I had this arguement with you guys long ago. X-Ray is right. Moore does not make documenatries, he makes propoganda pieces.
I'm well aware Moore makes 'propaganda pieces', as you call them.
My point is that having an agenda does not disqualify one from making a documentary.
If it did, there would be no documentaries.
Getting back on topic, I still find it funny that his bodygaurd was arrested on firearms charges.
-
Let us take it this way, the only thing the Americans put on telly/radio/whatever medium, is propaganda.
-
@ Wilse
First off, two points to show that I am not unreasonable:
1) You're right that I shouldn't pigeon-hole you.
2) The story about Michael Moore's bodyguard being arrested on firearms charges is not as big a deal as it is made out to be, because Burk wasn't working for Moore at the time. Ironically, this was first raised by one of the sites that is critical of Moore, and a great source of interesting facts concerning Moore. (moorewatch.com) I found it out today.
However, I would like to explore one little point you made:
"...I didn't. I challenged your pathetically ignorant attempt to discredit and belittle it..."
I would hate to appear ignorant, so perhaps I can give you a different angle on Moore's deception of the viewer. An angle that does not involve a man who you perceive to be an 'arse'. And I'm going to be very reasonable now, not just because I know you would prefer it, but also because I don't want other users here to go away from this thread thinking that Moore can be trusted to put the facts forward in an honest way. And to save those who don't like clicking links, I will provide the salient points here.
Let's see another example of Moore's deception : the apparently innocuous clip of the rifle giveaway at the bank. He walks in to the bank, opens up an account, fills in some papers and walks out with a rifle, apparently in a very short space of time. There are three relevant issues here:
1) The apparent ease with which Moore got the rifle.
2) The special arrangement that was made for Moore to enable him to make (1) above appear real.
3) The nature of the weapon that he got (whether it was acquired easily or not).
Firstly, as concerns (1) above (from moorexposed.com) the transfer of that rifle was and is subject to the Gun Control Act, and could not have been acquired as easily as portrayed unless some staging was carried out prior to filming:
"...One note as to how far the staging may have gone: the bank is in Michigan, and Moore is a resident of New York City. I found a June 6, 1997 article indicating that he'd moved out of Flint and into a $1.2 million apartment in Manhattan, so he was already a resident by the time Bowling was filmed. The importance? Under the Gun Control Act, transfers to a nonresident of your state are tightly limited. A person who is not a licensed dealer cannot (with a few narrow exceptions, none applicable here) transfer a gun to a resident of different state, period. A licensed dealer can transfer a rifle or shotgun to a nonresident, but only if "the sale, delivery, and receipt fully comply with the legal conditions of sale in both such States." 18 U.S. Code sec. 922(b)(3). This requirement is well-known to firearm dealers, and violation is a felony, so they're serious about it. The buyer is also required to produce picture ID to establish his residence. New York City has some of the strictest gun laws in the nation. One of them makes it illegal to transfer a rifle or shotgun to anyone who does not hold a rifle and shotgun purchase permit. NY Admin. Code sec. 10-303. The permit is supposed to be issued within 60 days of application, although in practice it takes much longer -- e.g., a 2001 comment, " I recently inquired at the Rifle and Shotgun section of the NYPD. The say it now takes up to six months to get the permit, before it was 3-4 months." So (assuming Moore didn't just slip the dealer his old Michigan driver's license, which would constitute two federal felonies and maybe a third), he probably also spent 6 months or so getting a permit, then persuading the Michigan dealer that he had covered all his NYC legal bases, then getting the rifle ordered in -- all before filming a scene designed to show how easy and quick it was for him to get a rifle...."
Moore has responded to that criticism on his website (MichaelMoore.com):
"The Truth: In the spring of 2001, I saw a real ad in a real newspaper in Michigan announcing a real promotion that this real bank had where they would give you a gun (as your up-front interest) for opening up a Certificate of Deposit account. They promoted this in publications all over the country "More Bang for Your Buck!". . . .
When you see me going in to the bank and walking out with my new gun in "Bowling for Columbine" that is exactly as it happened. Nothing was done out of the ordinary other than to phone ahead and ask permission to let me bring a camera in to film me opening up my account. I walked into that bank in northern Michigan for the first time ever on that day in June 2001, and, with cameras rolling, gave the bank teller $1,000 and opened up a 20-year CD account. After you see me filling out the required federal forms ("How do you spell Caucasian?") which I am filling out here for the first time the bank manager faxed it to the bank's main office for them to do the background check. The bank is a licensed federal arms dealer and thus can have guns on the premises and do the instant background checks (the ATF's Federal Firearms database-which includes all federally approved gun dealers-lists North Country Bank with Federal Firearms License #4-38-153-01-5C-39922).
Within 10 minutes, the "OK" came through from the firearms background check agency and, 5 minutes later, just as you see it in the film, they handed me a Weatherby Mark V Magnum rifle ."
To which Moorexposed replies, (relevant to point (2) above:
"...I thought the point in the movie was to illustrate how Mike just saunters into the bank, deposits money, and is handed a gun. Now it develops that the bank holds a Federal Firearms License, Moore had to take out a twenty year CD, had to fill out the federally-required paperwork, the bank had to run a criminal records background check on him through FBI. . . . you know, that casual attitude towards a gun transfer doesn't sound quite so casual any more. Update: the producers of Fahrenhype 9/11 got the bank personnel to appear on-camera. As I'd suspected, the bank doesn't keep a stock of Weatherby firearms (cost $600-15,000 each) in every branch. When the lady says that they have the guns in the vault, she isn't referring to the branch bank's vault, but to a central storage area the bank has. Normal procedure is the customer makes a pick from the catalog or samples on the wall, the bank puts in an order, it arrives several days later, and then the customer fills out paperwork and receives it. Moore had made arrangements in advance for the firearm to be shipped in for filming. So his denial avoids the real issue. Yes, he walked out with the gun that day, but no, this was not normal, but a special arrangement made for his filming..."
Now nobody has addressed point (3), because they haven't read up or researched this. A Weatherby Mark V Magnum rifle is a bolt-action rifle:
http://www.kitsune.addr.com/Firearms/Bolt-Rifles/Weatherby_Mark_V_Rifle.htm
Note the price of that rifle. The number of firearms crimes committed by means of a bolt-action rifle in any country world-wide is EXTREMELY low, and is negligible in terms of the overall number of firearms crimes. By firearms crimes I mean robbery, murder, any firearms offence, even pointing a firearm. If Moore had researched the use of firearms in crime, he would have found this out, and maybe he would have thought twice about having that segment.
Unfortunately there is a grave misconception amongst the general public about the use of firearms in crime, particularly in the erroneous belief that for all intents and purposes 'a gun is a gun.' Look at Wilse's response to my question about why Michael Moore had that rifle segment if he wasn't trying to slam gun ownership:
"Why not? Obviously encouraging people to own guns is not going to help the situation, since if you don't have a gun, you can't shoot anyone. Doesn't mean he blames that alone for it."
And that is the problem. People who aren't in the field don't have a clue about firearms crime. The only reason that I know about firearms crime is because I have researched it. I have to research it, because I am writing a book on it, and it relates to a qualification that I already hold. This research involves medical, police and forensic investigators in USA, SA, and the UK. Most firearms offences in the USA are committed with handguns. The same is true in South Africa even if you take into account the use of assault rifles and machine carbines in cash-in-transit heists (in other words even if you call an AK-47 or an FAL) a plain rifle, though both are fully automatic and fire intermediate cartridges, not magnum hunting cartridges like Moore's rifle. His rifle is for hunting and you'll rarely find bolt-action rifles like that being used in crime, because even criminals know that those rifles are not easily concealed and suffer from a decreased rate of fire which they understandably don't find appealing. I myself processed 150 gunshot victims in JHB in 2002, and collected statistics for 542 victims. There was ONE rifle injury, from a .303 bolt action rifle, and that was an attempted suicide. Now Wilse, you said in a previous post that you were not aware of a documentary needing to be researched. well, here is an example of exactly when it does need to be researched: when the film-maker includes a clip which has the purpose of outlining a particular point that only has relevance if proper statistics are supplied. And I don't mean fabricated statistics, I mean statistics that are scientifically-referenced.
Evidence of the need for research is further found in your erroneous quote to me of information you got from the film, concerning firearms ownership in the US and Canada. Moore deceived you and you tried to quote that false comparison to me. I've given you the proper figures from the Canada Department of Justice.
And then you asked me if I had seen the film, particularly the Canada segment. I regret to tell you that the Canadian authorities took a dim view of his segment. The worst part of it was the apparent purchase of ammunition in Ontario:
(from Moorexposed.com) "...Even the Canadian government is jumping in. Bowling shows Moore casually buying ammunition at an Ontario Walmart. He asks us to "look at what I, a foreign citizen, was able to do at a local Canadian Wal-Mart." He buys several boxes of ammunition without a question being raised. "That's right. I could buy as much ammunition as I wanted, in Canada."
Canadian officials have pointed out that the buy is faked or illegal: Canadian law has since, 1998, required ammunition buyers to present proper identification. Since Jan. 1, 2001, it has required non-Canadians to present a firearms borrowing or importation license, too. (Bowling appears to have been filmed in mid and late 2001).
-----------------------------------------------------------
Now Wilse, let me just add something very frank here: it is a source of extreme irritation and disappointment when we in the field (be it forensic, medical or supplementary) are not given due credit for the hard work and knowledge we have on our particular field of expertise. For somebody to quote crap from Bowling For Columbine to me is not only insulting but is an extension of Moore's agenda of deception and disregard for the real research that is being done by respected professionals around the world.
You might have got a few giggles out of his political satire (and that's fine), but don't think I'm going to sit back idley and let somebody repeat Moore's bullsh1t here, especially when he presents it as fact.
-
@ Wilse
You said a while back:
"...Is there anything on that site that actually proves Fatso lied, or is just yet another site, whining about editing techniques?..."
It would be nice if you acknowledged that Moore did willfully deceive the viewer and definitely staged scenes, and provided content that was blatantly untrue, in a deliberate manner. You are almost there with this comment:
"...I'm well aware Moore makes 'propaganda pieces', as you call them..."
Now as for agendas, we seem to be on different wavelengths here. This is your comment to Red:
"...My point is that having an agenda does not disqualify one from making a documentary..."
I've already told you that a documentary has to provide content that is true, non-fiction. Anybody who sets out to willfully deceive the viewer, whether its by editing, splicing, or lying, is not making a documentary. When REAL documentary-makers set about filming they HAVE to see that they provide non-fiction content as a matter of course. Michael Moore's agenda has been one of deliberate deceit, lying, editing of multiple segments to provide new fictitious segments, and providing statistics that either don't exist or have been massaged out of proportion.
That is his agenda. And that is why he makes fiction. It is not by his definition, it is by the definition of what a documentary is. And that is why Attenborough doesn't do that. You know very well what I meant when I said that Moore has an agenda. Don't confuse that with a man who has a point to get across and uses facts and non-fiction to document the truth. Perhaps I should have said Moore has a nefarious agenda? Does that adjective help at all?
The Academy Awards nominators have a lot to answer for too. In rule 12 of what a documentary is, it specifically states that it has to be a work of non-fiction. The fact that BFC got an Oscar for best documentary is testament to the expert manner in which Moore has deceived the public. That includes you (you've been happy to quote Moore's bull to me here in this thread).
Let me remind you of Moore's acceptance speech:
"...On behalf of our producers Kathleen Glynn and Michael Donovan from Canada, I'd like to thank the Academy for this.
I have invited my fellow documentary nominees on the stage with us, and we would like to — they're here in solidarity with me because we like nonfiction.
We like nonfiction and we live in fictitious times.
We live in the time where we have fictitious election results that elects a fictitious president.
We live in a time where we have a man sending us to war for fictitious reasons.
Whether it's the fictition of duct tape or fictition of orange alerts we are against this war, Mr. Bush.
Shame on you, Mr. Bush, shame on you.
And any time you got the Pope and the Dixie Chicks against you, your time is up.
Thank you very much. "
---------------------------------------------------------
"...we like nonfiction.
We like nonfiction and we live in fictitious times..."
This is after he deliberately lied and staged his scenes in BFC.
:lol:
Why don't you just come out with it and admit that you HAVE been deceived and that BFC is fiction (that's the kindest term one can attach to that film).
-
@X-Ray:
Now Wilse, let me just add something very frank here: it is a source of extreme irritation and disappointment when we in the field (be it forensic, medical or supplementary) are not given due credit for the hard work and knowledge we have on our particular field of expertise.
Really? You in the field?
Then can you explain to me why my girlfriend, in almost exactly the same field as you, doesn't find it neccessary to constantly remind everyone how knowledgeable she is?
She doesn't even find it neccessary to point out that a cheek bone is actually a zygoma, when speaking to imbeciles such as myself. ;-)
Isn't the desire to constantly remind others of one's qualifications a sign of insecurity?
Oops - sorry. I'm not qualified to make such an analysis. :-D
I may like Moore's films but I don't take them as the full picture, nor have I ever claimed to.
Like everything else I watch, I take them with the obligatory pinch of salt.
-
@X-Ray:
It would be nice if you acknowledged that Moore did willfully deceive the viewer
Sure I will - just as soon as you admit that Attenborough, whom you now admit *does* have an agenda, has done the same.
As for the 'gun from the bank' bit, here are my thoughts:
I couldn't give a badger's tadger how many hoops you have to jump through to get the gun, or how pish said gun is.
The simple fact that a gun is offered as a way to attract custom is enough.
It straddles the blurred line between absurd and horrific.
-
@ Wilse
"...Really? You in the field? Then can you explain to me why my girlfriend, in almost exactly the same field as you, doesn't find it neccessary to constantly remind everyone how knowledgeable she is?..."
-----------------------------------------------------------
Wilse, I don't have an argument with your girlfriend, and it might be best if you don't bring her into this. However, if she is in the same field as me, I would like to meet her. She will of course have the following in common with me:
1) A medical ethics clearance number for research into gunshot victims. Mine is M020204 and doesn't have an expiry date (most are for 5yrs). Mine was issued in 2002 at the University of the Witwatersrand. My gunshot logbook is in the thousands, so I MIGHT just know something about that subject.
2) A Trauma Imaging Group membership number. This she will definitely have if she is involved in ANY trauma, never mind forensics, which is a discipline covered by TIG. She may have attended one of my lectures for TIG.
3) The UK Forensic Radiography Team has specialists in several fields. They are currently using the mobile X-ray fluoroscopy unit from my theatre room to identify the remains of European tsunami victims in a temporary morgue in south London. They have invited me to head up the ballistics section of that team. I'm sure I'll see your missus there, because we are in the same field.
A little education for you, Wilse, since you obviously haven't found out from your girlfriend: there are many types of radiographers. Some of the more common ones are diagnostic, nuclear medicine, therapy, ultrasound (if trained in SA), forensic, interventional, cross-sectional imaging, G.I.T. and paediatric. It depends on the post-graduate certification and research that the radiographer does. I thought you knew that.
As for your snide comment about constantly reminding you how knowledgeable I am, it stems from your sarcastic comment about how clever I am and what a know-it-all I am being. If I give people here information, I back it up with facts and experience, not bullsh1t from a Michael Moore film. I would no more attempt to tell you anything about DJing than you should try to tell me about gunshots and forensics. There may actually be people here other than yourself who do want to know something that hasn't been recycled from the anus of Michael Moore.
"...She doesn't even find it neccessary to point out that a cheek bone is actually a zygoma, when speaking to imbeciles such as myself..."
Well that refers to my description of an incident (a humerous one) that occured in a hospital. As I recall it was in the Grumpy Old Men thread and you found it quite funny:
"...I'm going to get Susan to read this in a minute - I know she'll be able to relate.
Cheers sir!
:pint: ..."
If you have suddenly taken offense at my inclusion of the medical term for something (which I just naturally wrote, with no hidden purpose at all), then tough. That post wasn't solely for your benefit, and it was written exactly as I recall the incident. And that was your first post in that thread - you replied to me, not the other way around. I'm not in the slightest interested in what your girlfriend's handling of an imbecile is. Perhaps you should direct that description of yourself to her.
"...Isn't the desire to constantly remind others of one's qualifications a sign of insecurity?..."
I don't know...maybe it's a sign that somebody is trying to educate a clueless tit who constantly demands proof of even the most obvious facts, and questions his knowledge of those facts, but is quite happy to provide pearls of wisdom from a work of fiction.
"...Oops - sorry. I'm not qualified to make such an analysis..."
Too right you're not. I would be interested to know what analysis you ARE qualified to provide.
"...I may like Moore's films but I don't take them as the full picture, nor have I ever claimed to. Like everything else I watch, I take them with the obligatory pinch of salt..."
That's good. Genuinely.
-
@ Wilse
"...Sure I will - just as soon as you admit that Attenborough, whom you now admit *does* have an agenda, has done the same..."
Yup, I'll just consult one of the 5 or 6 websites that have been setup just to expose Attenborough for the lying deceitful sumbish he is. He is exactly like Moore, isn't he? Editing content and outright lying for his own agenda. He too stages scenes to mislead the viewer.
If Attenborough saw your comment he would biach slap you!
"...As for the 'gun from the bank' bit, here are my thoughts: I couldn't give a badger's tadger how many hoops you have to jump through to get the gun, or how pish said gun is. The simple fact that a gun is offered as a way to attract custom is enough. It straddles the blurred line between absurd and horrific..."
First of all, if you knew anything about that Weatherby, or even bothered to read the link I gave you on the rifle, you would know that that rifle is not 'pish'. It is a very nice quality rifle for HUNTING or long-range target shooting (as is done even in the UK). It's not for holding up banks, hijacking or commiting crime. There is no more harm done legally providing that rifle as an incentive to open an account than there is providing a motorcycle (some may argue that there are more deaths due to road accidents than due to ALL firearms deaths combined, including crime and deaths caused by handguns). What truly straddles the blurred line between absurd and horrific is the fact that you make these stark comments without having a clue about what that firearm is and what it is used for. Have you even fired a rifle? Do you know what 'bolt-action' means?
Just keep on arguing with me, Wilse, it's an eye-opener for all of us.
-
since you obviously haven't found out from your girlfriend: there are many types of radiographers.
Eh, that's why I said 'almost'.
Not that it matters. :-D
As for your snide comment about constantly reminding you how knowledgeable I am, it stems from your sarcastic comment about how clever I am and what a know-it-all I am being.
Sooooooo..... the only reason you constantly remind us of your outrageously huge knowledge base, is because of my sarcastic comment?
And you've never done it before?
If so, I apologise, unreservedly.
-
-
@ Wilse
"...If my girlfriend got all gooey about guns, like you seem to, she wouldn't be my girlfriend..."
I enjoy target shooting, Wilse. I do not condone any use of firearms other than for target shooting, defense or hunting (although I don't hunt). I don't know why you think I get all 'gooey' about guns. And you might try some target shooting...it is surprisingly enjoyable, as many of the female radiographers from my work will confirm. Is there anything untoward about me and my colleagues because of the fact that we enjoy target shooting? Are we a threat to anybody?
"...Despite this, you completely miss the point that giving a gun away as an icentive is what bothers me.
Not how good the gun is.
Not how many background checks are carried out.
Not what 'bolt action' means.
IT'S A F*CKING GUN, OFFERED AS AN INCENTIVE!
Who gives a badger's what type it is?..."
Well, I do. And so do the authorities who are trying to tackle gun crime all around the world. You don't get it and you don't make any effort to get it. It is a bolt-action rifle, not a pistol. Do you know the difference? You seem to demonise all guns, as if they are only used to commit crime and kill people. You don't appreciate that there is a huge segment of the population that enjoys recreational shooting or hunting. If you still don't understand this, then it is because you REFUSE to understand it. I suspect Michael Moore has the same attitude: you two are similar in many ways.
"...why she doesn't bleat on in medical terminology, 24/7..."
Funny that you complain about that only now, when you previously said 'Cheers, sir' and that you knew your girlfriend would relate. Oh, wasn't that the post where I used that terribly-offensive word 'zygoma?' :roll:
"...Eh, that's why I said 'almost'. Not that it matters..."
Oh so your comment was in fact irrelevant to start off with? Or is she in the same field? Will that change in your next post? And did that post of yours actually have anything useful to add if it was not your intention to equate your girlfriend's field with mine? Why don't you post something relevant for once?
Edit: actually, screw any replies, just give me another "Cheers, sir" and a pint for being such an all-round nice guy (and bloody patient too!). I deserve that at least for injecting a little bit of reality into your diet of fiction and conspiracy :-P
Actually, f*ck that, I deserve TWO pints!!
-
@X-Ray:
Well, I do. And so do the authorities who are trying to tackle gun crime all around the world. You don't get it and you don't make any effort to get it
It's you who doesn't get it.
I'll have one last go:
A bank is offering a device designed for killing as an incentive to attract customers.
The type of device is completely irrelevant.
Nothing changed in my post - as far as your job is concerned, my girlfriend is in *almost* the same field as you.
You are both radiographers. That this can be broken down further is why I said 'almost'.
And I didn't take offence at your use of 'zygoma', I just found it amusing that you seem compelled to use such language, when 'cheekbone' would easily suffice, coupled with reminding everybody how qualified you are, every chance you get. This is a trait that can be seen in many of your posts.
FWIW, I still think it was one of the funniest stories I've read for ages. I don't have to agree with every bit of syntax to have that opinion.
As for the pints, next time I'm down in London, I'll buy you a beer if you like. ;-)
Cheers. :pint: