Michael Moore
-
I just saw Michael Moore's new film, "Bowling for Columbine" about gun-violence in the US. I didn't know much about Michael Moore before the film, but I've seen his name from time to time, so I was curious. I have to say that he is a biased fearmonger. Throughout the film, he talks about gun violence as if it was a fear-induced white American plague. I'm always interested in differences between countries, and (knowing my statistics) was appauled by the film. First, every reference to homicide is gun homicide. He points out the (flawed) statistic that gun homicides in Canada was somewhere around 70, whereas US rates were 11,000. He fails to mention that general homicide rates were much closer (because Canadians are more likely to kill using other means, and that the US is far more populous than Canada). US homicide rates are 6.9/100,000 people. Canadian homicide rates are 1.4/100,000 people. Hence, US rates are five times higher in the US. Very bad, but nowhere near his 70 vs 11,000 rate. Second, he assumes that this is caused by a bunch of fear-induced white Americans who are so afraid of crime that they are shooting people like crazy. He never mentions that a black youth is 12 times more likely to be killed than a white youth. (And, 94% of black youth are killed by another black youth). Minority violence is a huge problem. Does he ever ask why this is the case? Of course not, he's busy trying to figure out why Americans (and he assumes American = white American) are commiting so much gun crime. But, white Americans aren't commiting vastly more crime than Candians. But, let's not let the facts get in the way of his "story". Now, I'm not telling you about minority crime because I want to say, "Gee, aren't those minorities bad people?" Minority violence is a problem which needs to be addressed. And ignoring it (because you want to be politically correct) is no way to solve the problem, and it's horribly dishonest of Michael Moore to pretend in his film that this is a "white-American" problem. Maybe poverty plays a role. Maybe gang culture plays a role. Maybe minorities are attracted to guns and violence because it makes them feel powerful in a white-dominated society which is still outgrowing it's racism. What a load of crap it is to ignore minority violence, though. I think this says it all: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/race.htm Supporting evidence: Kellermann and Sloan did a study comparing Seattle's cr
-
I just saw Michael Moore's new film, "Bowling for Columbine" about gun-violence in the US. I didn't know much about Michael Moore before the film, but I've seen his name from time to time, so I was curious. I have to say that he is a biased fearmonger. Throughout the film, he talks about gun violence as if it was a fear-induced white American plague. I'm always interested in differences between countries, and (knowing my statistics) was appauled by the film. First, every reference to homicide is gun homicide. He points out the (flawed) statistic that gun homicides in Canada was somewhere around 70, whereas US rates were 11,000. He fails to mention that general homicide rates were much closer (because Canadians are more likely to kill using other means, and that the US is far more populous than Canada). US homicide rates are 6.9/100,000 people. Canadian homicide rates are 1.4/100,000 people. Hence, US rates are five times higher in the US. Very bad, but nowhere near his 70 vs 11,000 rate. Second, he assumes that this is caused by a bunch of fear-induced white Americans who are so afraid of crime that they are shooting people like crazy. He never mentions that a black youth is 12 times more likely to be killed than a white youth. (And, 94% of black youth are killed by another black youth). Minority violence is a huge problem. Does he ever ask why this is the case? Of course not, he's busy trying to figure out why Americans (and he assumes American = white American) are commiting so much gun crime. But, white Americans aren't commiting vastly more crime than Candians. But, let's not let the facts get in the way of his "story". Now, I'm not telling you about minority crime because I want to say, "Gee, aren't those minorities bad people?" Minority violence is a problem which needs to be addressed. And ignoring it (because you want to be politically correct) is no way to solve the problem, and it's horribly dishonest of Michael Moore to pretend in his film that this is a "white-American" problem. Maybe poverty plays a role. Maybe gang culture plays a role. Maybe minorities are attracted to guns and violence because it makes them feel powerful in a white-dominated society which is still outgrowing it's racism. What a load of crap it is to ignore minority violence, though. I think this says it all: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/race.htm Supporting evidence: Kellermann and Sloan did a study comparing Seattle's cr
The problem with minorities is their size. If they were bigger they wouldn't be minorities. So if your Guberment were to enact pro-minority legislation minority problems could be erradicated along with the minorities. -- As to minority crime. Why should it be a crime to be a minority ? If all majorities were split up the minorities would be equal. -- Regardz Colin J Davies
Sonork ID 100.9197:Colin
You are the intrepid one, always willing to leap into the fray! A serious character flaw, I might add, but entertaining. Said by Roger Wright about me.
-
The problem with minorities is their size. If they were bigger they wouldn't be minorities. So if your Guberment were to enact pro-minority legislation minority problems could be erradicated along with the minorities. -- As to minority crime. Why should it be a crime to be a minority ? If all majorities were split up the minorities would be equal. -- Regardz Colin J Davies
Sonork ID 100.9197:Colin
You are the intrepid one, always willing to leap into the fray! A serious character flaw, I might add, but entertaining. Said by Roger Wright about me.
Trolling again, Colin? That's the most irrational thing I've ever seen you post! We're slipping here, lad... "When in danger, fear, or doubt, run in circles, scream and shout!" - Lorelei and Lapis Lazuli Long
-
I just saw Michael Moore's new film, "Bowling for Columbine" about gun-violence in the US. I didn't know much about Michael Moore before the film, but I've seen his name from time to time, so I was curious. I have to say that he is a biased fearmonger. Throughout the film, he talks about gun violence as if it was a fear-induced white American plague. I'm always interested in differences between countries, and (knowing my statistics) was appauled by the film. First, every reference to homicide is gun homicide. He points out the (flawed) statistic that gun homicides in Canada was somewhere around 70, whereas US rates were 11,000. He fails to mention that general homicide rates were much closer (because Canadians are more likely to kill using other means, and that the US is far more populous than Canada). US homicide rates are 6.9/100,000 people. Canadian homicide rates are 1.4/100,000 people. Hence, US rates are five times higher in the US. Very bad, but nowhere near his 70 vs 11,000 rate. Second, he assumes that this is caused by a bunch of fear-induced white Americans who are so afraid of crime that they are shooting people like crazy. He never mentions that a black youth is 12 times more likely to be killed than a white youth. (And, 94% of black youth are killed by another black youth). Minority violence is a huge problem. Does he ever ask why this is the case? Of course not, he's busy trying to figure out why Americans (and he assumes American = white American) are commiting so much gun crime. But, white Americans aren't commiting vastly more crime than Candians. But, let's not let the facts get in the way of his "story". Now, I'm not telling you about minority crime because I want to say, "Gee, aren't those minorities bad people?" Minority violence is a problem which needs to be addressed. And ignoring it (because you want to be politically correct) is no way to solve the problem, and it's horribly dishonest of Michael Moore to pretend in his film that this is a "white-American" problem. Maybe poverty plays a role. Maybe gang culture plays a role. Maybe minorities are attracted to guns and violence because it makes them feel powerful in a white-dominated society which is still outgrowing it's racism. What a load of crap it is to ignore minority violence, though. I think this says it all: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/race.htm Supporting evidence: Kellermann and Sloan did a study comparing Seattle's cr
so, you're more upset with the messenger than the fact that 11000 people in the US are killed each year by a gun? nice. Brit wrote: What a load of crap it is to ignore minority violence, though. he didn't. the little boy who shot the little girl was a minority. his interview with the Cops producer was nearly all about minorities. he did a short segment about ethnic groups in Canada. Mr. Heston gave the brilliant insight that the problem with america was it's "mixed ethnicity". race wasn't hidden, he just didn't make it the topic of the movie. are you upset that he didn't blame the right people? Brit wrote: horribly dishonest of Michael Moore to pretend in his film that this is a "white-American" problem. why? he never said "only white people do this". i think his use of white examples was good since white people can relate to them without going off on a "stupid minority savages" kick. in fact, since he is a balding, white, mid-western goofball, his choice of balding mid-western militia goofballs, the NRA, the Columbine people, etc. was fitting. in other words - he made a movie that reflects his own background, as he did with Roger and Me. he wasn't out to make a blame the minorities for ruining our perfect white land movie; nor was he out to make a movie that portrays Canada as some kind of heaven on earth. he was making a general statement about guns in america (which are not knives and therefore have no bearing on the statistics relating to Canadian non-gun violence). i don't think his movie was perfect. but i at least got the message that he is concerned about the number of people killed because of guns in the US. and i wasn't upset that he blamed the wrong people. in fact, he hardly blamed anyone - he seemed to say, weakly i admit, that it's a deep and hard to pin-down cultural issue and not one of gun availability, race, economics or history. -c
“losinger is a colorizing text edit control” -- googlism
-
I just saw Michael Moore's new film, "Bowling for Columbine" about gun-violence in the US. I didn't know much about Michael Moore before the film, but I've seen his name from time to time, so I was curious. I have to say that he is a biased fearmonger. Throughout the film, he talks about gun violence as if it was a fear-induced white American plague. I'm always interested in differences between countries, and (knowing my statistics) was appauled by the film. First, every reference to homicide is gun homicide. He points out the (flawed) statistic that gun homicides in Canada was somewhere around 70, whereas US rates were 11,000. He fails to mention that general homicide rates were much closer (because Canadians are more likely to kill using other means, and that the US is far more populous than Canada). US homicide rates are 6.9/100,000 people. Canadian homicide rates are 1.4/100,000 people. Hence, US rates are five times higher in the US. Very bad, but nowhere near his 70 vs 11,000 rate. Second, he assumes that this is caused by a bunch of fear-induced white Americans who are so afraid of crime that they are shooting people like crazy. He never mentions that a black youth is 12 times more likely to be killed than a white youth. (And, 94% of black youth are killed by another black youth). Minority violence is a huge problem. Does he ever ask why this is the case? Of course not, he's busy trying to figure out why Americans (and he assumes American = white American) are commiting so much gun crime. But, white Americans aren't commiting vastly more crime than Candians. But, let's not let the facts get in the way of his "story". Now, I'm not telling you about minority crime because I want to say, "Gee, aren't those minorities bad people?" Minority violence is a problem which needs to be addressed. And ignoring it (because you want to be politically correct) is no way to solve the problem, and it's horribly dishonest of Michael Moore to pretend in his film that this is a "white-American" problem. Maybe poverty plays a role. Maybe gang culture plays a role. Maybe minorities are attracted to guns and violence because it makes them feel powerful in a white-dominated society which is still outgrowing it's racism. What a load of crap it is to ignore minority violence, though. I think this says it all: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/race.htm Supporting evidence: Kellermann and Sloan did a study comparing Seattle's cr
Brit wrote: Ja Rule [...] "It's sad, because that feeling is mainly towards my black people," he said. "When my white fans come around, I don't feel uneasy, like they want to harm me. So... black people have better taste... :rolleyes: Shog9 ------
to the revelations of fresh faced youth no one will come to save you so speak your peace in the murmurs drawn but youth is wasted on the young - Smashing Pumpkins, Thru the Eyes of Ruby
-
I just saw Michael Moore's new film, "Bowling for Columbine" about gun-violence in the US. I didn't know much about Michael Moore before the film, but I've seen his name from time to time, so I was curious. I have to say that he is a biased fearmonger. Throughout the film, he talks about gun violence as if it was a fear-induced white American plague. I'm always interested in differences between countries, and (knowing my statistics) was appauled by the film. First, every reference to homicide is gun homicide. He points out the (flawed) statistic that gun homicides in Canada was somewhere around 70, whereas US rates were 11,000. He fails to mention that general homicide rates were much closer (because Canadians are more likely to kill using other means, and that the US is far more populous than Canada). US homicide rates are 6.9/100,000 people. Canadian homicide rates are 1.4/100,000 people. Hence, US rates are five times higher in the US. Very bad, but nowhere near his 70 vs 11,000 rate. Second, he assumes that this is caused by a bunch of fear-induced white Americans who are so afraid of crime that they are shooting people like crazy. He never mentions that a black youth is 12 times more likely to be killed than a white youth. (And, 94% of black youth are killed by another black youth). Minority violence is a huge problem. Does he ever ask why this is the case? Of course not, he's busy trying to figure out why Americans (and he assumes American = white American) are commiting so much gun crime. But, white Americans aren't commiting vastly more crime than Candians. But, let's not let the facts get in the way of his "story". Now, I'm not telling you about minority crime because I want to say, "Gee, aren't those minorities bad people?" Minority violence is a problem which needs to be addressed. And ignoring it (because you want to be politically correct) is no way to solve the problem, and it's horribly dishonest of Michael Moore to pretend in his film that this is a "white-American" problem. Maybe poverty plays a role. Maybe gang culture plays a role. Maybe minorities are attracted to guns and violence because it makes them feel powerful in a white-dominated society which is still outgrowing it's racism. What a load of crap it is to ignore minority violence, though. I think this says it all: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/race.htm Supporting evidence: Kellermann and Sloan did a study comparing Seattle's cr
I didn't see the movie... but having grown up in some major cities I think its more than just a minority issue. I was fortunate enough to have had the opportunity to finish high school at a very affluent (and white) campus which was likely the only reason I graduated. But I have a lot of experience living where its not so good. I have actually had the experience (twice) in my life, of being the minority. The first occurance was in California, we lived in a distinctly black neighborhood and the other was living in Pheonix, Az. A place where in order to be a teacher english was only required as a second language. I've seen a great deal of violence, steming from many different issues and being older now, I can't say its an issue of being a minority. From my eyes, it seems that there is an underlying anger in young people, of all races, against the society that they live in. While most youths adapt to this, it seems that in certain "pockets" that this anger not only comes out, but comes out in a very self destructive manner (and destructive to those around them). I had a "friend" in Pheonix take a shot at me with a 22, I'm happy to say he missed. In NY I was stabbed on two seperate occasions. All three of those instances where not anything that I could detect would lead to that level of violence. The rage of the indivuduals involved didn't really seem to be directed at me, it also didn't appear to me that it was directed at a 'governing' body (that is... wasn't the state or fed. govt at fault), just some kid with an overly abundant amout of anger at things said individual seems to not yet be able to identify. I'm not fearful of what might happen to me or mine outside of the home BUT I am aware of possiblities. Its rather frieghtening to think that you just cant know where is a safe place and where isn't. I realize this isn't about the movie but I thought I would toss it out there. I don't often have an opportunity to express my views on this subject. I should think that if we (Americans and everyone else for that matter) spent more time on developing strong family structures that a fair amount of the violence that prevails would be reduced. If someone is making movies attempting to expose just how desperate the state of violence is I cant help but think its a good thing. I don't think its about guns, or knives, as most anything can be a weapon if wielded appropriatly, but the tendency to find something to use as a weapon is alarming. This I believe goes to the family structure, to be able to le
-
so, you're more upset with the messenger than the fact that 11000 people in the US are killed each year by a gun? nice. Brit wrote: What a load of crap it is to ignore minority violence, though. he didn't. the little boy who shot the little girl was a minority. his interview with the Cops producer was nearly all about minorities. he did a short segment about ethnic groups in Canada. Mr. Heston gave the brilliant insight that the problem with america was it's "mixed ethnicity". race wasn't hidden, he just didn't make it the topic of the movie. are you upset that he didn't blame the right people? Brit wrote: horribly dishonest of Michael Moore to pretend in his film that this is a "white-American" problem. why? he never said "only white people do this". i think his use of white examples was good since white people can relate to them without going off on a "stupid minority savages" kick. in fact, since he is a balding, white, mid-western goofball, his choice of balding mid-western militia goofballs, the NRA, the Columbine people, etc. was fitting. in other words - he made a movie that reflects his own background, as he did with Roger and Me. he wasn't out to make a blame the minorities for ruining our perfect white land movie; nor was he out to make a movie that portrays Canada as some kind of heaven on earth. he was making a general statement about guns in america (which are not knives and therefore have no bearing on the statistics relating to Canadian non-gun violence). i don't think his movie was perfect. but i at least got the message that he is concerned about the number of people killed because of guns in the US. and i wasn't upset that he blamed the wrong people. in fact, he hardly blamed anyone - he seemed to say, weakly i admit, that it's a deep and hard to pin-down cultural issue and not one of gun availability, race, economics or history. -c
“losinger is a colorizing text edit control” -- googlism
so, you're more upset with the messenger than the fact that 11000 people in the US are killed each year by a gun? nice. I already knew that. he didn't. the little boy who shot the little girl was a minority. That's not a good example of minority gun-violence. That segment was more about kids killing other kids. I couldn't even quite understand how that fit into the movie. What was the point? Simply to make us feel bad about sending welfare mothers to work? They explicitly say that he wouldn't have the gun if his mother was around - but his mother was working; put back to work by white people and their welfare-to-work program. I couldn't help wondering if this was an example of blaming whitey. It certainly didn't fit with the general pattern of "Americans are so afraid of violence that they commit violence". are you upset that he didn't blame the right people? I'm upset that he talks about gun violence in the US, then hunts for reasons in white-america why that is the case. (Doesn't it seem like he's barking up the wrong tree?) He completely ignores the fact that gun violence is 6-7 times higher among minorities, which is a huge reason gun homicide statistics are so high in the US. If you watch the film, you are left with the distinct impression that whites commit 90% of the gun crime (did you see the little south-park animation?) Ignoring minorities, here's what homicide statistics in the US look like relative to elsewhere in the world: Homicides per 100,000 people per year Colombia 61.6 El Salvador 55.6 Brazil 23.0 Russia 21.6 Kazakhstan 17.1 Venezuela 16.0 Mexico 15.9 ......... .... United States 3.5 Canada 1.4 Now, the US has rates over double what Canada does. That's not good. But, he's ignoring the fact that minorities are driving this number up to 6.9/100,000 people. (Because the black homicide rate over the last decade is 32/100,000!) Doesn't that seem like a big thing to not even mention? If you're looking for the reason homicide rates are so high in the US, why not look at the communities where homicides are 9 times more common than the national average? Why not look at Seattle, where minority homicides were far higher than 3.5/100,000 -- specifically, Black (36.6/100,000) and Hispanic (26.9/100,000)? Instead, you get a little south park animation about white people killing the peaceful black people. i think his use of white examples was good since white people can relate to them without going off on a "stupid mino
-
I just saw Michael Moore's new film, "Bowling for Columbine" about gun-violence in the US. I didn't know much about Michael Moore before the film, but I've seen his name from time to time, so I was curious. I have to say that he is a biased fearmonger. Throughout the film, he talks about gun violence as if it was a fear-induced white American plague. I'm always interested in differences between countries, and (knowing my statistics) was appauled by the film. First, every reference to homicide is gun homicide. He points out the (flawed) statistic that gun homicides in Canada was somewhere around 70, whereas US rates were 11,000. He fails to mention that general homicide rates were much closer (because Canadians are more likely to kill using other means, and that the US is far more populous than Canada). US homicide rates are 6.9/100,000 people. Canadian homicide rates are 1.4/100,000 people. Hence, US rates are five times higher in the US. Very bad, but nowhere near his 70 vs 11,000 rate. Second, he assumes that this is caused by a bunch of fear-induced white Americans who are so afraid of crime that they are shooting people like crazy. He never mentions that a black youth is 12 times more likely to be killed than a white youth. (And, 94% of black youth are killed by another black youth). Minority violence is a huge problem. Does he ever ask why this is the case? Of course not, he's busy trying to figure out why Americans (and he assumes American = white American) are commiting so much gun crime. But, white Americans aren't commiting vastly more crime than Candians. But, let's not let the facts get in the way of his "story". Now, I'm not telling you about minority crime because I want to say, "Gee, aren't those minorities bad people?" Minority violence is a problem which needs to be addressed. And ignoring it (because you want to be politically correct) is no way to solve the problem, and it's horribly dishonest of Michael Moore to pretend in his film that this is a "white-American" problem. Maybe poverty plays a role. Maybe gang culture plays a role. Maybe minorities are attracted to guns and violence because it makes them feel powerful in a white-dominated society which is still outgrowing it's racism. What a load of crap it is to ignore minority violence, though. I think this says it all: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/race.htm Supporting evidence: Kellermann and Sloan did a study comparing Seattle's cr
Moore is a world class moron - so very typical of people on that end of the political spectrum. There can be no doubt that U.S. culture has a higher background level of violence than other cultures and that the violence becomes amplified as one goes down the ladder of our social order. We are simply acculturated to resort to violence to solve our problems and to have a gruding respect for others who do likewise. It is one of our oldest and most well established traditions. A tradition glorified by Hollywood and entrenched in our national psyche as an appropriate and honerable way to resolve difficulties. I have no problem with gun control, but I also have no confidence that completely banning the ownership of guns altogether would do much to make the U.S. a safer place. In fact, it is entirely possible that the death rate would go up as people might begin using dynamite, or household chemicals in the proper ratio, to resolve their disputes rather than bullets. Guns are a symptom, they are not the desease. "Any clod can have the facts, but having opinions is an art." Charles McCabe, San Francisco Chronicle
-
so, you're more upset with the messenger than the fact that 11000 people in the US are killed each year by a gun? nice. I already knew that. he didn't. the little boy who shot the little girl was a minority. That's not a good example of minority gun-violence. That segment was more about kids killing other kids. I couldn't even quite understand how that fit into the movie. What was the point? Simply to make us feel bad about sending welfare mothers to work? They explicitly say that he wouldn't have the gun if his mother was around - but his mother was working; put back to work by white people and their welfare-to-work program. I couldn't help wondering if this was an example of blaming whitey. It certainly didn't fit with the general pattern of "Americans are so afraid of violence that they commit violence". are you upset that he didn't blame the right people? I'm upset that he talks about gun violence in the US, then hunts for reasons in white-america why that is the case. (Doesn't it seem like he's barking up the wrong tree?) He completely ignores the fact that gun violence is 6-7 times higher among minorities, which is a huge reason gun homicide statistics are so high in the US. If you watch the film, you are left with the distinct impression that whites commit 90% of the gun crime (did you see the little south-park animation?) Ignoring minorities, here's what homicide statistics in the US look like relative to elsewhere in the world: Homicides per 100,000 people per year Colombia 61.6 El Salvador 55.6 Brazil 23.0 Russia 21.6 Kazakhstan 17.1 Venezuela 16.0 Mexico 15.9 ......... .... United States 3.5 Canada 1.4 Now, the US has rates over double what Canada does. That's not good. But, he's ignoring the fact that minorities are driving this number up to 6.9/100,000 people. (Because the black homicide rate over the last decade is 32/100,000!) Doesn't that seem like a big thing to not even mention? If you're looking for the reason homicide rates are so high in the US, why not look at the communities where homicides are 9 times more common than the national average? Why not look at Seattle, where minority homicides were far higher than 3.5/100,000 -- specifically, Black (36.6/100,000) and Hispanic (26.9/100,000)? Instead, you get a little south park animation about white people killing the peaceful black people. i think his use of white examples was good since white people can relate to them without going off on a "stupid mino
very well stated response... - --------------------------------------------- The greenest grass is NOT on the other side of the fence, its the grass you take care of. Have you watered your lawn lately? - Just remember when you point a finger at someone else, you are only one finger away from making a fist to hit them with!
-
Moore is a world class moron - so very typical of people on that end of the political spectrum. There can be no doubt that U.S. culture has a higher background level of violence than other cultures and that the violence becomes amplified as one goes down the ladder of our social order. We are simply acculturated to resort to violence to solve our problems and to have a gruding respect for others who do likewise. It is one of our oldest and most well established traditions. A tradition glorified by Hollywood and entrenched in our national psyche as an appropriate and honerable way to resolve difficulties. I have no problem with gun control, but I also have no confidence that completely banning the ownership of guns altogether would do much to make the U.S. a safer place. In fact, it is entirely possible that the death rate would go up as people might begin using dynamite, or household chemicals in the proper ratio, to resolve their disputes rather than bullets. Guns are a symptom, they are not the desease. "Any clod can have the facts, but having opinions is an art." Charles McCabe, San Francisco Chronicle
Guns are a symptom, they are not the desease. That's only partly true. Guns make it much easier for the disease to be expressed. It's a lot harder to kill someone with your fists or even with a knife.
-
Moore is a world class moron - so very typical of people on that end of the political spectrum. There can be no doubt that U.S. culture has a higher background level of violence than other cultures and that the violence becomes amplified as one goes down the ladder of our social order. We are simply acculturated to resort to violence to solve our problems and to have a gruding respect for others who do likewise. It is one of our oldest and most well established traditions. A tradition glorified by Hollywood and entrenched in our national psyche as an appropriate and honerable way to resolve difficulties. I have no problem with gun control, but I also have no confidence that completely banning the ownership of guns altogether would do much to make the U.S. a safer place. In fact, it is entirely possible that the death rate would go up as people might begin using dynamite, or household chemicals in the proper ratio, to resolve their disputes rather than bullets. Guns are a symptom, they are not the desease. "Any clod can have the facts, but having opinions is an art." Charles McCabe, San Francisco Chronicle
A shame,because I thought his book "Stupid White Men..." was the funniest thing I'd read in a while! As for guns. Well, I've heard it said many times that "guns don't kill people, it's people that kill". Well, that may be true but guns make it a LOT EASIER to kill, and therein lies the problem. As so people resorting to chemicals/dynamite ... awwwww ... come on Stan! This took the shine off your entire comment!
Faith. Believing in something you *know* isn't true.
-
so, you're more upset with the messenger than the fact that 11000 people in the US are killed each year by a gun? nice. I already knew that. he didn't. the little boy who shot the little girl was a minority. That's not a good example of minority gun-violence. That segment was more about kids killing other kids. I couldn't even quite understand how that fit into the movie. What was the point? Simply to make us feel bad about sending welfare mothers to work? They explicitly say that he wouldn't have the gun if his mother was around - but his mother was working; put back to work by white people and their welfare-to-work program. I couldn't help wondering if this was an example of blaming whitey. It certainly didn't fit with the general pattern of "Americans are so afraid of violence that they commit violence". are you upset that he didn't blame the right people? I'm upset that he talks about gun violence in the US, then hunts for reasons in white-america why that is the case. (Doesn't it seem like he's barking up the wrong tree?) He completely ignores the fact that gun violence is 6-7 times higher among minorities, which is a huge reason gun homicide statistics are so high in the US. If you watch the film, you are left with the distinct impression that whites commit 90% of the gun crime (did you see the little south-park animation?) Ignoring minorities, here's what homicide statistics in the US look like relative to elsewhere in the world: Homicides per 100,000 people per year Colombia 61.6 El Salvador 55.6 Brazil 23.0 Russia 21.6 Kazakhstan 17.1 Venezuela 16.0 Mexico 15.9 ......... .... United States 3.5 Canada 1.4 Now, the US has rates over double what Canada does. That's not good. But, he's ignoring the fact that minorities are driving this number up to 6.9/100,000 people. (Because the black homicide rate over the last decade is 32/100,000!) Doesn't that seem like a big thing to not even mention? If you're looking for the reason homicide rates are so high in the US, why not look at the communities where homicides are 9 times more common than the national average? Why not look at Seattle, where minority homicides were far higher than 3.5/100,000 -- specifically, Black (36.6/100,000) and Hispanic (26.9/100,000)? Instead, you get a little south park animation about white people killing the peaceful black people. i think his use of white examples was good since white people can relate to them without going off on a "stupid mino
Brit wrote: Homicides per 100,000 people per year Colombia 61.6 El Salvador 55.6 Brazil 23.0 Russia 21.6 Kazakhstan 17.1 Venezuela 16.0 Mexico 15.9 ......... .... United States 3.5 Canada 1.4 I've often noted that Canadians seem to be nicer than normal people, and wondered if, perhaps, they originally settled here from a colder, gentler planet. "When in danger, fear, or doubt, run in circles, scream and shout!" - Lorelei and Lapis Lazuli Long
-
I didn't see the movie... but having grown up in some major cities I think its more than just a minority issue. I was fortunate enough to have had the opportunity to finish high school at a very affluent (and white) campus which was likely the only reason I graduated. But I have a lot of experience living where its not so good. I have actually had the experience (twice) in my life, of being the minority. The first occurance was in California, we lived in a distinctly black neighborhood and the other was living in Pheonix, Az. A place where in order to be a teacher english was only required as a second language. I've seen a great deal of violence, steming from many different issues and being older now, I can't say its an issue of being a minority. From my eyes, it seems that there is an underlying anger in young people, of all races, against the society that they live in. While most youths adapt to this, it seems that in certain "pockets" that this anger not only comes out, but comes out in a very self destructive manner (and destructive to those around them). I had a "friend" in Pheonix take a shot at me with a 22, I'm happy to say he missed. In NY I was stabbed on two seperate occasions. All three of those instances where not anything that I could detect would lead to that level of violence. The rage of the indivuduals involved didn't really seem to be directed at me, it also didn't appear to me that it was directed at a 'governing' body (that is... wasn't the state or fed. govt at fault), just some kid with an overly abundant amout of anger at things said individual seems to not yet be able to identify. I'm not fearful of what might happen to me or mine outside of the home BUT I am aware of possiblities. Its rather frieghtening to think that you just cant know where is a safe place and where isn't. I realize this isn't about the movie but I thought I would toss it out there. I don't often have an opportunity to express my views on this subject. I should think that if we (Americans and everyone else for that matter) spent more time on developing strong family structures that a fair amount of the violence that prevails would be reduced. If someone is making movies attempting to expose just how desperate the state of violence is I cant help but think its a good thing. I don't think its about guns, or knives, as most anything can be a weapon if wielded appropriatly, but the tendency to find something to use as a weapon is alarming. This I believe goes to the family structure, to be able to le
Family structure, or lack of it, is a large part of the violence problem. There is very little parental influence on children compared to when I was a boy. Discipline and responsibility for one's own actions are both lacking, and the result is this trend toward using violence to resolve issues that would otherwise be addressed in a peaceful manner. An interesting phenomenon can be observed by plotting per capita violent crime rates against population density in US cities. The one time I checked it using the scanty data available to me at the time, there was a nearly straight-line correlation between the two variables. Those cities which fell above the line also had stricter gun controls, and higher proportions of minority population, making it difficult to decide which was the more significant contributor (if, indeed, either was significant). It is significant that there appeared to be no relationship between violence levels and raw population - the density is what mattered. Some day I'd like to study it more thoroughly, with better data. "When in danger, fear, or doubt, run in circles, scream and shout!" - Lorelei and Lapis Lazuli Long
-
Family structure, or lack of it, is a large part of the violence problem. There is very little parental influence on children compared to when I was a boy. Discipline and responsibility for one's own actions are both lacking, and the result is this trend toward using violence to resolve issues that would otherwise be addressed in a peaceful manner. An interesting phenomenon can be observed by plotting per capita violent crime rates against population density in US cities. The one time I checked it using the scanty data available to me at the time, there was a nearly straight-line correlation between the two variables. Those cities which fell above the line also had stricter gun controls, and higher proportions of minority population, making it difficult to decide which was the more significant contributor (if, indeed, either was significant). It is significant that there appeared to be no relationship between violence levels and raw population - the density is what mattered. Some day I'd like to study it more thoroughly, with better data. "When in danger, fear, or doubt, run in circles, scream and shout!" - Lorelei and Lapis Lazuli Long
Roger Wright wrote: Family structure, or lack of it, is a large part of the violence problem I'd say it is all of it, bar the odd anomaly, and so true of so many problems. But what can you really do about it though? :~
David Wulff http://www.davidwulff.co.uk
"Unfortunatly Deep Throat isn't my cup of tea" - Martin Marvinski
-
Roger Wright wrote: Family structure, or lack of it, is a large part of the violence problem I'd say it is all of it, bar the odd anomaly, and so true of so many problems. But what can you really do about it though? :~
David Wulff http://www.davidwulff.co.uk
"Unfortunatly Deep Throat isn't my cup of tea" - Martin Marvinski
There is sweet FA you can do about this. I am all for making parents take more responsibility for their kids, but if a single mum has a law-breaking teenage thug for a son, locking her up isn't going to help is it? Besides, it isn't always part of the problem at all David. I grew up knowing right from wrong and had the same upbringing as my older brother. So, here I am, a sensible law-abiding adult, whereas he is a notorious violent criminal, who is currently inside AGAIN (6th or 7th time). If family structure/discipline was to blame for his errant ways, then why did we end up so different? Things are rarely so black and white.
Faith. Believing in something you *know* isn't true.
-
I just saw Michael Moore's new film, "Bowling for Columbine" about gun-violence in the US. I didn't know much about Michael Moore before the film, but I've seen his name from time to time, so I was curious. I have to say that he is a biased fearmonger. Throughout the film, he talks about gun violence as if it was a fear-induced white American plague. I'm always interested in differences between countries, and (knowing my statistics) was appauled by the film. First, every reference to homicide is gun homicide. He points out the (flawed) statistic that gun homicides in Canada was somewhere around 70, whereas US rates were 11,000. He fails to mention that general homicide rates were much closer (because Canadians are more likely to kill using other means, and that the US is far more populous than Canada). US homicide rates are 6.9/100,000 people. Canadian homicide rates are 1.4/100,000 people. Hence, US rates are five times higher in the US. Very bad, but nowhere near his 70 vs 11,000 rate. Second, he assumes that this is caused by a bunch of fear-induced white Americans who are so afraid of crime that they are shooting people like crazy. He never mentions that a black youth is 12 times more likely to be killed than a white youth. (And, 94% of black youth are killed by another black youth). Minority violence is a huge problem. Does he ever ask why this is the case? Of course not, he's busy trying to figure out why Americans (and he assumes American = white American) are commiting so much gun crime. But, white Americans aren't commiting vastly more crime than Candians. But, let's not let the facts get in the way of his "story". Now, I'm not telling you about minority crime because I want to say, "Gee, aren't those minorities bad people?" Minority violence is a problem which needs to be addressed. And ignoring it (because you want to be politically correct) is no way to solve the problem, and it's horribly dishonest of Michael Moore to pretend in his film that this is a "white-American" problem. Maybe poverty plays a role. Maybe gang culture plays a role. Maybe minorities are attracted to guns and violence because it makes them feel powerful in a white-dominated society which is still outgrowing it's racism. What a load of crap it is to ignore minority violence, though. I think this says it all: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/race.htm Supporting evidence: Kellermann and Sloan did a study comparing Seattle's cr
Brit wrote: Canadians are more likely to kill using other means, and that the US is far more populous than Canada). US homicide rates are 6.9/100,000 people. Canadian homicide rates are 1.4/100,000 people. Hence, US rates are five times higher in the US. Very bad, but nowhere near his 70 vs 11,000 rate. There are lies, damned lies and statistics. ;) Stats are a powerful tool in the right hands, to allow you to find a pattern. When there is an argument to be won, then sadly most poeple don't loose sleep over heavily maniplulating them to win their side of it.
-
Moore is a world class moron - so very typical of people on that end of the political spectrum. There can be no doubt that U.S. culture has a higher background level of violence than other cultures and that the violence becomes amplified as one goes down the ladder of our social order. We are simply acculturated to resort to violence to solve our problems and to have a gruding respect for others who do likewise. It is one of our oldest and most well established traditions. A tradition glorified by Hollywood and entrenched in our national psyche as an appropriate and honerable way to resolve difficulties. I have no problem with gun control, but I also have no confidence that completely banning the ownership of guns altogether would do much to make the U.S. a safer place. In fact, it is entirely possible that the death rate would go up as people might begin using dynamite, or household chemicals in the proper ratio, to resolve their disputes rather than bullets. Guns are a symptom, they are not the desease. "Any clod can have the facts, but having opinions is an art." Charles McCabe, San Francisco Chronicle
did you even see the movie? because that's just about exactly what moore says. -c
“losinger is a colorizing text edit control” -- googlism
-
so, you're more upset with the messenger than the fact that 11000 people in the US are killed each year by a gun? nice. I already knew that. he didn't. the little boy who shot the little girl was a minority. That's not a good example of minority gun-violence. That segment was more about kids killing other kids. I couldn't even quite understand how that fit into the movie. What was the point? Simply to make us feel bad about sending welfare mothers to work? They explicitly say that he wouldn't have the gun if his mother was around - but his mother was working; put back to work by white people and their welfare-to-work program. I couldn't help wondering if this was an example of blaming whitey. It certainly didn't fit with the general pattern of "Americans are so afraid of violence that they commit violence". are you upset that he didn't blame the right people? I'm upset that he talks about gun violence in the US, then hunts for reasons in white-america why that is the case. (Doesn't it seem like he's barking up the wrong tree?) He completely ignores the fact that gun violence is 6-7 times higher among minorities, which is a huge reason gun homicide statistics are so high in the US. If you watch the film, you are left with the distinct impression that whites commit 90% of the gun crime (did you see the little south-park animation?) Ignoring minorities, here's what homicide statistics in the US look like relative to elsewhere in the world: Homicides per 100,000 people per year Colombia 61.6 El Salvador 55.6 Brazil 23.0 Russia 21.6 Kazakhstan 17.1 Venezuela 16.0 Mexico 15.9 ......... .... United States 3.5 Canada 1.4 Now, the US has rates over double what Canada does. That's not good. But, he's ignoring the fact that minorities are driving this number up to 6.9/100,000 people. (Because the black homicide rate over the last decade is 32/100,000!) Doesn't that seem like a big thing to not even mention? If you're looking for the reason homicide rates are so high in the US, why not look at the communities where homicides are 9 times more common than the national average? Why not look at Seattle, where minority homicides were far higher than 3.5/100,000 -- specifically, Black (36.6/100,000) and Hispanic (26.9/100,000)? Instead, you get a little south park animation about white people killing the peaceful black people. i think his use of white examples was good since white people can relate to them without going off on a "stupid mino
Brit wrote: segment was more about kids killing other kids. I couldn't even quite understand how that fit into the movie. What was the point? that americans' penchant for violence begins at a very early age. Brit wrote: Homicides per 100,000 people per year i guess you found a source that you liked. here's what CNN has to say: they also cite 6.8 / 100,000 homicides, in 1999 "...from 1976 to 1997, 85 percent of white murder victims were killed by whites and 94 percent of black victims were killed by blacks. " or, if you prefer: http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvinco.html. Brit wrote: But, he's ignoring the fact that minorities are driving this number up to 6.9/100,000 people. ok, so which is it, 6.9 or 3.5?? is it 3.5 in the racially pure US and 6.9 when everyone's mixed in? Brit wrote: If you're looking for the reason homicide rates are so high in the US, why not look at the communities where homicides are 9 times more common than the national average? ok, and what should i find? are you telling me Seattle is more racially mixed than, say, any city in Texas, Florida or CA? -c
“losinger is a colorizing text edit control” -- googlism
-
There is sweet FA you can do about this. I am all for making parents take more responsibility for their kids, but if a single mum has a law-breaking teenage thug for a son, locking her up isn't going to help is it? Besides, it isn't always part of the problem at all David. I grew up knowing right from wrong and had the same upbringing as my older brother. So, here I am, a sensible law-abiding adult, whereas he is a notorious violent criminal, who is currently inside AGAIN (6th or 7th time). If family structure/discipline was to blame for his errant ways, then why did we end up so different? Things are rarely so black and white.
Faith. Believing in something you *know* isn't true.
I guess by family structure I was thinking more along the lines of the way a person is brought up - the environment they live in, not merely that provided by the parents and siblings.
David Wulff http://www.davidwulff.co.uk
"Unfortunatly Deep Throat isn't my cup of tea" - Martin Marvinski
-
Roger Wright wrote: Family structure, or lack of it, is a large part of the violence problem I'd say it is all of it, bar the odd anomaly, and so true of so many problems. But what can you really do about it though? :~
David Wulff http://www.davidwulff.co.uk
"Unfortunatly Deep Throat isn't my cup of tea" - Martin Marvinski
David Wulff wrote: But what can you really do about it though? You can take responsibility for your own children, and do your utmost to ensure they get a proper upbringing. If you do nothing else beyond this, you have my respect. It's sad to see parents rip into "The System" for producing a generation of thugs and slackers, lobby for new laws and stricter tests, and then let their own kids run wild in the streets. X| Shog9 ------
to the revelations of fresh faced youth no one will come to save you so speak your peace in the murmurs drawn but youth is wasted on the young - Smashing Pumpkins, Thru the Eyes of Ruby