The idea was to throw something out there that provoked some thought rather than "I have a gun! I'm safe!" and "I don't and I'm safe!" debate now.

Call it liberal. But you have to question why the NRA had a rally near Colombine 10 days after.

BTW, it is very liberal at the into, so I would just watch the movie. So much so I choked on it.

My complaint is that the flash intro (I don't have the means to watch the movie right now) was not inteded to provoke thought. It was made to scare poeple into believing what the creator of the intro wanted them to think. The intro gives statistics on gun homocides in various countries, but they are useless without knowing the population, percentage of population owning guns, and gun-laws in those countries. Call me skeptical, but I don't trust selectively presented, incomplete statistics. Also, I question the usefulness of the statistics, even if they were complete and trustworthy. I'd wager to bet that the detaining of all citizens into padded prison cells would drastically cut down on accidental deaths. Does that mean we should give up our liberties because statistically speaking we would be safer?

I know nothing of this rally, but have you thought that maybe they NRA was bright enough to realize that there would be a call to ban guns, and they were holding a rally to sway public opinion because they value their rights?

Stephen

PS. I'm still waiting for someone to give me a reason to ban guns.

You won't get one from me. I'm not pro-banning guns, but I am pro-regulation, and enforcement of current laws.

<edit>
err... and pro-clarification, as I said before...
</edit>

So am I Foto. As srawls said, the intro was crap. I hated it too. It offerend NO, and I mean NO, un biased info. Did they include the high rate of suicides in Japan. Nope.

We all seem to have neglected the 14th amendment (including myself)

I believe I have implied that the states have power to regulate guns, whereas the federal government does not. This seems to imply that all rights of the citizens cannot be infringed upon by the states or federal government. Thoughts?

This implies that the state cannot impose laws or such that interfier with life, liberty, and the persut of happyness. Guns, eeeh. Also, privalages doesn't apply to guns, guns are a privalage, but voteing is a privalage that they were talking about. Being able to have as many kids as you want is privalage. Owning a gun is one we have abused.

U need to think this over again.

"Privalages doesn't apply to guns, guns are a privalage" [sic]

Go see tihs movie Bowling For Columbine

that was just posted!

Let me reorganize my words. I'll post tomorrow. I need sleep.

Also MattK...

I POSTED THAT ALREADY!!!!!!

MattK:

Please pay attention to what's been previously said in a thread before posting.

Sry man, my bad, my bad.


as I said beafore, great minds think alike

Yes, guns should be banned under my opinion. Too much killing out there.

There definitely would be complications if guns were banned in the US.... but I truly think there would be a huge decrease in shooting deaths.

In Canada it is illegal to own a firearm (unless you are a law enforcer) - of course this doesn't prevent people from obtaining guns if they really really want to (i.e. black market) - but the numbers show that there are alot less shooting deaths in Canada than in the US. And you wouldn't really need a gun for personal protection, because without a whole bunch of guns floating around, you would have less to protect yourself from.

I would not be so quick to shed your rights, if I were you! Let me bring your attention to what I said in a post above:

I'd wager to bet that the detaining of all citizens into padded prison cells would drastically cut down on accidental deaths. Does that mean we should give up our liberties because statistically speaking we would be safer?

Stephen