i enjoyed "bowling for columbine" so i decided to rent this movie to see another point of view. i am confused of something:
If your movie is to give the message that guns are not bad, why does almost every story used, describe people being shot? Isn't that the problem Moore was talking about?
This movie actually makes the point that firearms are neither good nor bad- only tools. It then went on to show that they can be put to good use as in the several justifiable self defense scenarios depicted.
In Moore's film the firearms are represented as being useless except as tools only capable of bringing about bad results.
I'd hope you're not going to compare the shootings at Columbine to someone using a firearm to defend their life.
I also hope that this site doesn't turn into the zoo that is every other Michael Moore related board.
Papashoop, I congratulate you for being open-minded and looking for other views, but I agree with FMJ. People are good or bad; guns are simply tools of people.
Michael & Me is not about people being shot. It's about people defending themselves and defending the right of Americans to defend self, family, and home.
The problem, as I see it, is that there are way too many laws that benefit the perpetrators. Since criminals don't bother to obey laws against murder, rape, or robbery, what makes you think they'll obey firearms laws? But many law-abiding people are made defenseless by obeying laws that restrict, if not outright bar them, from possessing a proven self-defense tool.
Don't be concerned with the perpetrators being shot while committing their criminal acts, Papa. They don't deserve any consideration.
I'm as confused as the first poster. Isn't being shot bad for you? Doesn't it cost taxpayers millions of dollars per year in terms of emergency medical costs for poor folks who are shot while without health insurance? Doesn't the shooting of people with health insurance result in higher insurance premiums for those with insurance? Given the number of accidental shootings versus shootings in self-defence I'm not at all sure that Michael and Me is on the right track. Self-defence is very low on the list of reasons why people get shot.
share"Self-defence is very low on the list of reasons why people get shot."
And i'm sure you have data to back this up.
Sure:
In 2002, there were 30,242 gun deaths in the U.S:
17,108 suicides (56% of all U.S gun deaths),
11,829 homicides (39% of all U.S gun deaths),
762 unintentional shootings (3% of all U.S gun deaths),
and 300 from legal intervention and 243 from undetermined intent (2% of all U.S gun deaths combined).
-Numbers obtained from CDC National Center for Health Statistics mortality report online, 2005.
"A gun kept in the home is 4
times more likely to be involved in an unintentional
shooting, 7 times more likely to be used in a criminal
assault or homicide, and 11 times more likely
to be used to commit or attempt suicide, than to
be used in self-defense."
Arthur L. Kellermann, MD, MPH; et. al. “Injuries and Deaths Due
to Firearms in the Home.” Journal of Trauma 1998 vol. 45 p.263.
Satisfied? I doubt it - facts don't mean much when you have an agenda, now do they?
You said "get shot" not "shoot themselves". Suicide accounts for over half of all gun deaths. Also it's a fallacy of logic to think that if you take away firearms these homicides will go away.
By definition a criminal is someone who doesn't follow the law. So if you make a law against possessing firearms it will only effect the law abiding. Making them an easy target for an armed and emboldened criminal populace.
The poor and minorities suffer disproportionately from lack of access to a means of defense. It is them not the upper middle class safe in their neighborhoods routinely patrolled by police that have to confront the harsh realities of crime and violence on a daily basis. How are they suppose to go on to higher education and better their situations when they're not even safe in their own homes and communities?
We decided to make drugs illegal how well did that work? Anyone in a moderately sized city knows where they can to and buy drugs. And drugs like MDMA and meth are a lot harder to manufacture then a basic firearm. And along with an underground economy comes the problems of gang warfare and urban violence. Just as there were ruthless mobs who killed innocent people in order to control the sale of liquor in the prohibition era there will be a raise in gang violence if firearms are outlawed.
There have been murders and suicides occurring long before the invention of the firearm. Even if we could make all guns disappear tomorrow people would just go back to killing each other or themselves with knives and axes. I think it's a better use of the governments time to address the root causes of homicide and suicide then attempt to take away easily obtainable and replaceable tools.
Also I don't trust the study you included. It looks biased and I wouldn't be suprised if it's from a slanted source.
And with all due respect it sounds like you're the one with an agenda not I.
"Given the number of accidental shootings versus shootings in self-defence I'm not at all sure that Michael and Me is on the right track. Self-defence is very low on the list of reasons why people get shot."
Your statistics do nothing to back up your quote reagrding medical costs/accidental shootings
I wasn't addressing that. The guy asked me to show stats showing how rare self defence was in terms of gun deaths. Again:
"A gun kept in the home is 4
times more likely to be involved in an unintentional
shooting, 7 times more likely to be used in a criminal
assault or homicide, and 11 times more likely
to be used to commit or attempt suicide, than to
be used in self-defense."
Arthur L. Kellermann, MD, MPH; et. al. “Injuries and Deaths Due
to Firearms in the Home.” Journal of Trauma 1998 vol. 45 p.263.
This movie is pointless, no *beep* there are some justifiable situations where using guns is the right thing to do... otherwise we would have much less guns.
shareI doubt that you have even seen this film. If you had, you'd know that one of the points raised was that the mere presence of a firearm in the hands of a potential victim is often a deterrent to a crime being committed. These instances occur quite frequently, but are rarely reported and never included in the studies you frequently cite.
Also, concern over the wellbeing of injured criminals should be minor compared to the welfare of their intended victims, shouldn't it? The cost of insurance and medical treatment in this country is one that has no place in this argument. How about making these intended criminals responsible for their actions for once? Make them pay for their treatment.
In 2002, there were 30,242 gun deaths in the U.S:
17,108 suicides (56% of all U.S gun deaths),
11,829 homicides (39% of all U.S gun deaths),
762 unintentional shootings (3% of all U.S gun deaths),
and 300 from legal intervention and 243 from undetermined intent (2% of all U.S gun deaths combined).
-Numbers obtained from CDC National Center for Health Statistics mortality report online, 2005.
So if you keep a gun in your home, the first thing it'll be used for is suicide - so that's one member of your family dead. Then you or a family member will murder someone with it - so that's one member in prison. Then it'll be used in another suicide. Then a family member will shoot someone accidentally with it - that's two of your family in jail and two dead before you're likely to use it in self-defence.
If you keep a gun in the house, just remember that you're actually making your lives and those of your kids less safe.
Personally, I think guns in the home is a way of culling the herd. Just keep them unlocked-up, loaded and the safety off and evolution will take care of the rest.
Your statistics are interesting but consider that there are 300 million people in the United States so 30,000 gun deaths is what like one tenth of one percent of the population. Now why don't you compare this to automobile deaths in the United States. Now I have been challenged in the past that drivers are required to have a license to drive but that doesn't mean that all drivers do! I would suggest that there are more illegal drivers on the road at any one time than there is someone out there commiting suicide or a family member murdering someone.
I keep several firearms in my home and they are all loaded, I also do not have any children. If I had children it would be my responsibility to keep my firearms secured so that the children could not readily access my weapons and be harmed it is also the responsibility of the parents to teach their children proper firearms safety and handling if they are going to have a firearm in their home.
I would also like to comment on something you put in an earlier post "Isn't being shot bad for you? Doesn't it cost taxpayers millions of dollars per year in terms of emergency medical costs for poor folks who are shot while without health insurance?
Not if they shoot to kill!!
Finally two things your statistics does not show, is out of the 11,829 homicides how many were done by criminals whom obtained their firearm illegally? Second out of the 17,108 suicides how many of these suicides would have been committed by other means if a firearm would not have been available? I think a lot of these people would have found another method such as overdose, carbon monoxide, hanging, or just stepping out in front of a bus. The availability of a firearm was unfortunately just convienient.
In closing I invite you to come and try breaking into my home any time you like. I can assure you a warm reception!!
"These instances occur quite frequently, but are rarely reported and never included in the studies you frequently cite."
What source are you using for these "quite frequent" instances "rarely" reported?
http://www.beast-enterprises.com/kleck.html
Sorry I didn't see your response to my post sooner- I haven't looked at this page in months.
As for "quite frequently"- I've now used a legally-owned firearm to avert a crime three (3) times. The first time was the only time I reported anything, but I was informed by the local police that they would begin caring about what happened only when they had to respond to an actual shooting.
_ucka-lucka-ding-dong!