Michael Moore - Fights for the Truth or fills his purse?

from you, ambivalent is the best i could possibly hope for. in fact, it borders on warm and gushy.

 

That Kinkel kid lived in a rural area, where he killed his parents before opening fire on his classmates in Springfield, Oregon. Then there was that kid who opened fire on a prayer group in Kentucky, though to be honest the whole state seems rural to me. There was another one in Jonesboro, and one in Pearl.... Whole bunch really, if you'd bother to look into it.

I'm probably safer here in Burbank than in one of those psychotic little rural communities.

 

I don't think we've had a school shooting with a gun here yet. I remember one with a crossbow from last year, but that's about it. The bolt actually went through one person's chest and hit a second person. Both of them lived I believe.

 

There was one at Monash Uni awhile back, some asian joker flipped out because he didn't get top marks and decided to thin the competision.

 

Oh yeah, that guy. Still, that was a uni, not school. And he only took down a couple of people, it's not like he went on a rampage either.

 

no matter where they take place, i'm pretty sure rampages have less to do with the guns themselves, and more to do with parents not knowing what the fuck their kids are up to.

 

Exactly, Rosie!
I had a friend from Columbine and he told me that those two fuckers had guns in their rooms, a Doom level of the school and other junk yet the parents didn't bother to notice.

 

Well fuck you for pointing out my factual errors. Still, those are only a few incidents, the great majority of school shootings are perpetrated by half-caste motherfuckers from the ghetto. Obviously, things like that will happen anywhere, but usually the perps aren't kids who were raised to respect guns and the fact that they are lethal weapons. And if it isn't guns, it will always be something else. Alot of those kids had explosives, too, but didn't use them because guns are easier. But if they didn't have the guns, they would have probably blown the school up completely, and how much worse is that? And don't say that explosives could be controlled better; they can't. How are you going to stop kids from buying fertilizer, gasoline, and nitrogen?

Today after church I smoked a briar pipe while I fired half a box of Winchester Super-X slugs at empty tomato cans. Being Italian, our family generates alot of those.

 

:heart:

Actually, violent crime is rising in rural areas while it's on the decline in urban areas. They're a bit slow out there, but they do catch up eventually.

And yet you leapt at the chance to use school violence to criticize suburbia and the inner cities, while suggesting that rural folk live in an idyllic paradise full of gun love. While we're on the topic, isn't that what got Phil Spector in trouble in the first place?

Regulate it under the Patriot Act, duh. You already need a permit and a background check to buy a model rocket motor. That seems reasonable, doesn't it?

 

if you teach a kid to 'respect' guns and come to rely on them, i'd say they're more likely to use them.

are the parents responsible as well? of course. but i don't think you can just pass it off as poor angry minority kids with evil parents.

maybe it was just a phase for the kids, and if they had no access to guns, they would have had time to grow up a little.

i also don't see why it's so impossible to enforce gun laws. like our laws accomplish nothing. i wear a seatbelt whenever i'm in a car, it's not to protect myself, it's because of laws (and ralph nader).

 

That takes the cake as the biggest load of monkey-shit I've ever seen.

 

spoken like a someone who's never owned a gun :roll:

 

How is Riciky any more biased than you?

 

He isn't more biased than us, dipshit, because all humans are biased. The reason he doesn't know what he's talking about is because he obviously doesn't use guns or understand the way they work. Neither do you, you Australian cunt.

I just saw a news story yesterday on the Communist News Network that unwittingly supported gun control. Four mask-clad bank robbers armed with what looked like assault rifles from the Kalashnikov family exited a bank with bags of money, jumped into a green Winstar and careened out of sight. This was all videotaped by a random bystander. Now, what if this bystander was armed with an assault rifle himself? Instead of merely taping the crime, he could have shot up the van and prevented their escape, or even shot the criminals themselves, although that wouldn't have been nice of him. Obviously gun control didn't prevent the fuckers from carrying Ak-47s into the bank, but it did stop Mr. Cameraman from carrying one himself. The robbers didn't even have their weapons in a ready position, they were gripping the rifles by the reciever, and one of them even slipped and fell. Such fuck-ups could easily be taken care of if there were more armed citizens. But no, the Second Amendment doesn't mean anything anymore.

 

There will always be murderers. Nothing the government can ever do about it. And even if the government outlaws firearms, it's not going to stop criminals from getting them. And me, for that matter.

 

No, it doesn't. If it means that you are entitled to possess firearms that would enable you to push back an opressive government and in doing so threaten the security of those pinko, worthless meatbags that are also known as politicians, they won't let you. They don't care if a burglar enters your home with a revolver and kills you. They have security that takes care of them. Down here, we don't have no amendments or anything but you can safely shoot any intruders that do not comply with your requests for them to vacate the premises.

 

Related to the topic:
"Ray Bradbury, author of Fahrenheit 451, stated in an interview with the Swedish daily Dagens Nyheter "Michael Moore is a screwed a--hole, that is what I think about that case. [Moore] is a horrible human being – horrible human!" Bradbury replied, when asked about his own political position, "That has nothing to do with it. He copied my title; that is what happened. That has nothing to do with my political opinions."
--- Quote from Wikipedia.

By the way, I love Bradbury's books.

 

So it's your position that every man, woman and child living in America has a God-given right to carry around as many assault rifles, small pistols, interstellar death ray cannons and mini nuclear grenades around as they wish for their own protection and to foil robberies? Sorry dude, but putting a gun in everyone's hand is not going to make the crime rate plummet, but it will see a lot more people getting shot and killed in circumstances that otherwise wouldn't have caused any injury.

Think of it as inflation. If you go out and give everyone a million dollars, the value of said dollars immediately plummets. Thus, to have real spending power, you need increasingly large sums of money. If you go out and give everyone a shotgun for their personal protection, all that's going to do is encourage the development of even deadlier firearms and the distribution of them to those willing to up the stakes i.e. the criminals, who caused you to give everyone guns in the first place. The net result is you have a lot of people with guns, but the real threat is still held by a few with just that much more firepower and desire to use it.

I'd also like to point out that in the middle ages, when owning a sword or bow and arrow wasn't exactly stringently regulated, it didn't stop robber bands and thieves from flourishing all over the place, even when the civilians populace had the means to defend themselves.

One last thing - if your cameraman from the story above did have an assault rifle, he was still outnumbered four to one by the other guys. Only action movie stars can stand tall in the street, fire from the hip and take down the bad guys without being remotely threatened themselves. As it is, your cameraman is still alive and we have this story to debate over.

 

You're so fucking dumb its funny. Rosie was pointing out Riciky's bias, because he didn't know how to use a gun, and was probably raised on thinking gun control was right. You and Rosie, however, have been raised with guns. Your "everyone's biased" argument is even more pathetic than you are. Are you saying that just because people are biased, that makes it right? We might as well just disregard hypocrisy. I bet you'd like that, since you're a walking joke, who can't grasp the fact that if you say it, you should do it. Dumbass

Also, I do know how to operate a gun, even though I've never touched one. I know how they work, as well.

 

Here's what I want you to do. Take the above quote, and swap gun with car

Also, I do know how to operate a car, even though I've never touched one. I know how they work, as well.

Heh. Kinda smells bull-shittish, doesn't it?