Someone here at Bush protest?

So what it comes down to is the operator. A hammer is not designed to kill - but it is quite capable of doing so should its owner/posessor want it to. The same could be said about a baseball bat, knife, axe, fireplace poker, brick....
Should we outlaw or restrict access to all of those implements too?

 

First, you all are in the wrong forum. This forum is about going barefoot places. Firearms have nothing to do with that.

Second, all of you are missing the point. In the movie, the point is not that someone will hold up the bank with their new gun or that it is dangerous to hand them out at a bank. The point is the irony between the bank handing out guns, because banks are usually robbed with guns, as opposed to obtaining a gun somewhere else, even if it is Wal-Mart.

If any of you had bothered to watch the whole story, Moore was explaining how the US has much more gun violence than any other (first world) country. There are more guns per person here than in any other country.

Which all leads back to how easy it is for someone who shouldn't handle a gun to have access to one, hence Colombine.


THAT'S ALL HE WAS SAYING!

O.K. You people are making such a big deal about this. I understand both of your points.

But you both were lost on the point of the movie. Pay attention next time.
I'm sure we all love America, this is how it is, no matter how much you protest either way, this subject won't change. Live with it. Work on other easier problems

Maybe like barefooting....

 

Actually, banks are pretty often robbed with NOTES that say "I have a gun." I'll bet lots of idiots who decide to rob banks think that not having had an actual gun, should they get caught, will get them a lighter sentence. (It's not true.)

There are about 250,000,000 guns in this country, owned by about 80,000,000 gun owners. Every year, about 5,000,000 more guns get bought, and very few of the preexisting ones go out of circulation (guns last a LONG time, especially modern ones). Yet we have had falling crime rates including all gun crimes for about a decade and a half. Interesting, yes? There seems to be no correlation between increased gun ownership and gun crime. If anything, you'd expect gun crime to go up as more guns are added, but it does not; and in fact, it goes down. For it to go down at all is proof that guns do not cause the crime.

So what's your point about there being more guns here per capita? How does it bear, per your claims, on crime rates and violence?

I think you're reading much too much into it, and making allowances for Moore's failure to make this supposed irony claim you say he was making. I think he was trying to persuade viewers to see something dreadfully dangerous and wrong with a bank handing out guns -- even though they don't even DO so! -- when, if a person looks at the situation logically and rationally, there really isn't anything any more wrong with that than selling a gun at a gun shop.

-Jeffrey

 

Actually, banks are pretty often robbed with NOTES that say "I have a gun." I'll bet lots of idiots who decide to rob banks think that not having had an actual gun, should they get caught, will get them a lighter sentence. (It's not true.)

Well, in Maryland, you MAY get a lighter sentence due to the fact that you did not actually display a weapon. The note implying the gun is not actually a weapon. I don't know how it is in your state.



So what's your point about there being more guns here per capita? How does it bear, per your claims, on crime rates and violence?

It is not MY point, it is Moore's point. You couldn't figure that out? And even so, the US has more firearm homicides than other like countries. What are you trying to compare?

I think you're reading much too much into it, and making allowances for Moore's failure to make this supposed irony claim you say he was making. I think he was trying to persuade viewers to see something dreadfully dangerous and wrong with a bank handing out guns -- even though they don't even DO so! -- when, if a person looks at the situation logically and rationally, there really isn't anything any more wrong with that than selling a gun at a gun shop.

I'm reading too much into this? I don't care, but this forum is for barefooting not firearms and politics or movies.

It's a movie. A FUCKING MOVIE! Look at it how you want to. You can have your opinion, and anyone else can have theirs. Hmmm...You argueing about this reminds me of how those people act who don't want to see anyone barefoot. They argue a point and argue a point that doesn't affect them. Why?

Please don't bother answering this, I would rather see a post about barefooting here.

 

Did you write that yourself or did a bumper sticker do it for you? What the hell does Ted Kennedy have to do with this.

 

This talk of your's doesn't seem very peaceful, Jeffrey...

First of all, I dont see how you could defend guns as being made for anything other than killing.

Second, I will tell you that all killing is wrong, but that's jsut my opinion.

Third, what you said about the cops and the military having them argues against yourself! Cops have guns to, lets see, shoot people (sometimes to injure, sometimes to kill) and the military has them to... thats right, wage war and kill the enemy.

The fact is that Michael Moore is a manipulative (and damn good) director. He skews facts and statistics to support himself. He makes movies very well in that they do a damn fine job riling up the masses of people. I dont like him very much, but he is good at what he does.

Regardless it dose say something about the society we live in when banks try to gain buisness by giving guns away.

Not that any of this has anything to do with Bareing anything, besides political opinions.

Anyone know how the big Smokeout went? I heard they wanted to get as many people as they could to spark in protest of how the US's drug war has been skewing canadian authority's stance etc....

 

The bank scene was an illustration of how silly and gun crazy the culture of Michigan is. I got that when I watched the film and read his website, I appologize if you were too foolish to catch that.

If the source of illegal firearms in the inner cities can be traced to legally purchased guns that are stolen from survival nuts, then it doesn't fucking matter that its illegal to sell guns to a person who is prohibited from owning one.

Don't take me the wrong way though, that movie had a lot of problems, not the least of which was its inconsistency, changing his thesis in the middle of the movie. If based on the evidence that Canada has more guns per capita and less gun crime due to their media not creating a culture of fear then wouldn't that mean the problem of gun violence could be solved by reforming the media? That said, Micheal Moore is a honest and funny individual, even if I don't share his conclusion.

I'm telling you to shut up because your argument isn't worth refuting.

 

Bank robbery is a federal crime. It doesn't matter what your state thinks of it. And implying or stating you have a gun that you do not have will still get you charged with armed robbery. That's the fact.

-Jeffrey

 

Or stolen from COPS -- I read about that happening quite a bit, and it's scary. I also read about cops using their duty weapons to kill spouses. I read about cops' kids finding the cops' unsecured guns and killing themselves or others. I guess we address the problem by taking away cops' guns? They're obviously not safe enough to have them -- and if it saves just ONE life, it'll be worth it.

Your statement that illegally held guns are traced to "survival nuts" certainly reveals your ignorant bias on this subject.

Still can't figure out why it's "silly and gun crazy" to offer a product that is legal to make, sell, own and use to those who might want it. They don't raffle off snowmobiles here in Florida at fairs and stuff, but I'm sure they do it up in Minnesota. Likewise, MN radio shows probably don't offer surfboards as call-in prizes. Why is it wrong to offer guns to those who would want them, in exchange for business, when those people can be found legally permitted to own them?

-Jeffrey

 

Oh, that bare feet not arms sign was mine, and that is me underneath the sign with the green touque on. I thought it was clever! And hey, I made it on to CNN so there.

Whatever trevor, stop the fighting, comense the loving! :sunglasse

 

http://storage.msn.com/s1pZ8pl_R1n1zHD_CNq6nwOrWjyXZ30luo0X0_5yGJyQBboRR0Mu6fsk0dmfu42xr6LcNNCwWLWEG5ntY6ZbJYJzg/00.jpg?MdToken=3191230179653319


Here I am. My sign was just trying to make a point that there are other things to do and other ways to live than to make war. Some friends and I handed out black armbands commemorating lives lost in an unjust war... we had about 500 of them or more and they were gone within minutes. The smoke out on the hill at 4:20 was really big. At 5:00 everyone lit candles for peace. I actually witnessed some burning of Bush propaganda and of the American flag. Lots of signs there, it was pretty cool that mine turned out to be on CNN.

 

.

 

.

 

"Commence"?

Um, in the pic you posted I don't see your feet.

PLEASE TELL ME you were not wearing shoes while wearing a sign that says, "Bare Feet Not Arms"... Please!

-Jeffrey

 

Actually I have a confession to make. For the march down the street I did slip on my Birks, but on the hill I was barefoot. Pretty good for November 30th in Ottawa, Canada. The next day it snowed a couple cm. Sorry about the typo, I'm a burnout. Anyways, Peace and Pleasure to everyone.

 

Glad to hear the protest went well!

Look at all the commotion you've stired up here, tho =P