View Full Version : Bowling for Columbine - My take on it/Debate on weapons and national situations
Two hours ago, I came home from seeing “Bowling for Columbine”. Heavy stuff, methinks.
I stand between fascination and anger after having seeing Michael Moore’s point of view. Anger, because this movie only gives my so called compatriots one, two, a number which I don’t dare pronounce, reasons to hate USA. Sadly, also the country that feeds us at the cost of our ignorance and unconditional support, military and political. But hey, if by buying my oil it pays for my education, I don’t care.
Fascination, because I had never thought of the Columbine Massacre as the spotlight of that little explosion that sent the United States into public fear, up to date. A friend of mine was in Columbine, thought thankfully unharmed, and all I saw Columbine as was as an event that almost could have ended up with my friend’s face in Time, Newsweek, The New York Times and almost every other newspaper all around the world’s on April 20th’s edition, as one more victim.
You know, when I was on 9th grade a student came into the classroom with a pellet gun. I had been hit by a plastic pellet shot out of those stupid things when I was nine, and it had left me with the nastiest bruise ever and a bitter memory about toy guns, but nothing else, so I couldn’t care less about him bringing one of those things to class. But when he shot it at the wall, it hit the wall beside a friend and cracked the mosaic. My friend went into panic at the state of the mosaic, started crying, and the thing went kaboom from there. The directress came right into the panic and the accusations at the senseless guy, and the boy with the gun, which turned out to be a toy loaded with metal pellets instead of plastic, was expelled for four weeks. What’s interesting about this was that his defense argument was *this*: “But it didn’t hit anyone!”
No, but it did crack a mosaic besides the head, more accurately at eye’s height, of a fifteen year old, and what we could have witnessed was not destruction of the walls of our school but something far more horrible.
That one event, which was not on the wall beside my head in my 9th grade classroom, which was with a toy gun with metal pellets and not with real guns with real ammo, sent me right into dreaming something like Columbine was climbing over our heads for DAYS.
Back to the documentary, the only thing I only saw Columbine as was as two kids that lacked attention and that killed, wounded and died to have it, as a horrible tragedy that had a friend in panic in a classroom until it was over. I didn’t see it as a whole nation’s fear for being attacked, nor as what it slowly formed into.
What worries me more about it is that as much as Mexico hates USA, far more than it hates Spain for conquering us, or whatever soccer team ever to beat us to the semifinals of the World Cup, or itself for being a racist country that won’t even stand the race that saw it grow, just because USA slowly crept in and made Mexico it’s little franchise of itself. And Mexico accepted it. That’s why Mexicans are furious, because either they mostly don’t like being sucked by USA and their voices aren’t heard, or they won’t open their mouths, if it is either to say “thanks for my job” or “up yours”.
Mexico is a country that suffers from a huge everything: huge index of homicides every day, and an even greater index of homicides p/year. Huge index of raped women every day. Huge poverty index a year. Huge number of kids out of school, and huge number of kids in a school that falls apart. Huge corruption index, mostly by cops at that. And yet, you see American brands here there and everywhere, and just about anything. There’s a Seven Eleven, two McDonald’s, a Mrs. Fields, three Burger Kings, a Wal Mart, a White Castle, a Tower Records and God knows how many more, and that’s just in my area which is kind of small.
I am worried about going to work in the morning because I don’t know who will I see throw him/herself down the rails of the subway I take, because he/she has no school to attend, no job whatsoever, no money to pay rent or worse, drugs.
And I am so sick of living in a country dominated by fear in the media. I mean, I take the subway every day and there’s this kid selling the newspaper, and for four days the last week, I saw the same theme occupy the headlines: “Taxi driving rapists captured.” No one trusts his neighbor here, because as far as I know, he could steal from your house something he needs for his. Three locks are used daily. You live in fear of being murdered by either a cop, a real murderer every day or for all I know, the government which has proved to be quite brute to who opposes it*, and guns are the only way to protect yourself, but at the same time you’re bringing a weapon home, where your children can take them and blow their schoolmates up for fun. Were we REALLY made to live this way?
And here comes the magical question that leads to the discussion I intend to bring up. If there were no guns at all, no guns, just never existed and no one invented them, and let’s just jump the huge historic gap that makes up (millions of people were not killed from the 1400’s up to date by guns and pistols, be it just an attempt to steal booze, be it the independence of America), would the world be as violent? Is a violent past the culprit for a violent present, or is the human race just stupid enough to live in it’s past?
I also feel the need to ask those who live in Europe and Asia if their country’s situation is of fear, and if it is not, why it isn’t? I mean, from 63 killed on homicidal intentions a year in Australia, to 11,000 killed on those same intentions in the USA, there’s a big big big gap and I don’t think that less guns are the solution (not that I enjoy them anyway…). Maybe a culture gap? What is it?
To make this a bit more organized, it’s present we’re talking about. All violent past should be forgotten and taken out of the debate, because it is not an excuse.
[* About the Mexican Government: in 1968, thousands of University students were murdered by militia and police forces on the plains of Tlatelolco, one of Mexico City’s outer sectors. It was later discovered it was on the President’s orders and that although these students did have socialist tendencies, there were no coup d’йtat planning to be taken into action.
[So to make a long story short, plots, tendencies and all, President Gustavo Dнaz Ordaz just wanted them out of his hair.]
^^;; I know I have a tendency to make a discussion out of almost everything, but I like being informed and even if you don’t like to be politically involved, this could turn out interesting. Now if, of course, the topic remains abandoned for three days, I think I’ll know politics ain’t a subject appreciated in Tatysite. :P
Alright. I'll make this short for now as I desperately need sleep (it's 8.39 AM and I haven't sleept a wink). Don't be angry if this might seem a bit chaotic.
So no guns? Well guns are just the means to get the desired effect. If people wouldn't hurt themselves with guns they would do it with knifes. If you took away those they'd do it with their hands. You can't cut of their hands can't you? The gun ban is not the answer. We need to find the cause for the violent behaviour in people, and then try to cure that cause. If we hake that away, you can have as many guns as you want without any harm.
It's obvious people are frustrated and we need to find the right cause for this. In the case of the US: It's obvious. The land of the free is a big melting pot of civilizations where cultural heritage of people's ancesters is being slowly eaten away by the system. That alone must cause huge conflicts. Then add on top of that the hypocracy US system is infamous for, life in the fast lane with less vacation time then any EU country... just a few factors that could contribute to the fact that there are 11.000 people killed by guns each day.
In the case od Mexico: I don't know really if Mexico is such an example in violent behaviour as the US. But lets say that it is. Here people's frustrations are more likely to be economical ones, also the added anger of being exploited by the northern neigbour as Darje mentioned....
Our country: Very few people get killed by gunshots in Slovenia (mostly clumsy hunters, but I won't say that there hasn't been any Mafia shootouts, but mostly it's been calm.) Why? Probably because we're heavily incorporated the European legal, moral and custom tradition into our legal system and also our frame of mind. So the main question is what is Europe doing right that the US isn't. Well it's really hard to say it in a sentace, but the main thing is people inside the EU arent sucked in a giagnt whirpool where all the different cultures would be digested and spited out as an unrecognizable mess of little cultural fragments with a big stress on the dominant culture. EU is all about solidarity. When we remove this first hurdle people would maybe feel a bit less mad and frustrated at everything that's going on around them...
Then the other measures to cure the problem can come: from greater goverment involvement in assuring the job oportunities (and not just in Lockheed-Martin LOL.), too changing the whole stance that this incredibly judgmental society has on issues like racism, homophobia...
In short: the society itself must do a complete turn. The whole way of thinking must be different before some real
changes start to happen.
Of course there's a matter of politics as well: a professor of mine said that federaly regualted countries are a sociologicaly unexceptable entity in the modern liberal free-trade world. Yugoslavia was one of those federal countires and it ended in bloody hell. USA is a different kind of a federaly regulated state where the state themselves are under complete control and suppervision of the centralistic goverment, while they're given only some formal judicial freedoms. That kind of federal constitution is even more dangerous in stiffeling the rights of individuals.
I do think that Freddie is right when he says that people would use other weapons if they had no guns, but I do think that making guns not so easily accesible would help. For instance last year a boy in Germany went into his school and tried to kill his classmates and teachers. I've never heard of something like that happening in Slovakia. And I don't think that there aren't children in Slovakia who feel left alone and angry. It's just that in Slovakia they are happy having a cellphone, or something to eat as are their parents. They don't have enough money to buy guns, so when the kid gets angry there isn't anything in his reach he could use to harm so many people. Of course he could go and beat someone up, but he would have to be either a good fighter or pick someone smaller. I'm trying to say that I think the problem with guns is, that one can kill many people without having to go near them.
I think that as far as I noticed people in Europe don't think they need guns for feeling safe and I think the laws regarding gun possession are stricter than in the US. Because I hardly know anyone who posses a gun in Austria or Slovakia except hunters. There are very few people killed by gunshots and those are mostly hunting accidents, mafia and police men.
Maybe this is another point, yes. They may have too much. If you have too much it leads into apathy and haughtiness towards others if you're not a person with vision and clearity of thought.
I forgot to mentioned one thing before:
Michael Moore raised some good points, but it's clear troughout the documentary that he's heavily biased and has a clear dislike for american system. On some occasions he twists the words so skillfully I could swear he was a lawyer. It's not fair to list the american millitary faliures strickly superficiality without the mention of complicated political sitautions that contributed to some of the bad decisions. He knows about the special circustances...he just decided not to mention them too prove his point.
PowerPuff Grrl
07-09-2003, 22:17
Originally posted by freddie
It's obvious people are frustrated and we need to find the right cause for this. In the case of the US: It's obvious. The land of the free is a big melting pot of civilizations where cultural heritage of people's ancesters is being slowly eaten away by the system.
I respectively disagree, here. If you think integration is the cause to the State's problem, then by your reasoning, Canada should one of the most chaotic countries in the world. Having Montreal, Vancouver, Ottawa, and Toronto (being the most culturally diverse city in the world) as it's major cities Canada should be experiencing more violence than the States. But seeing the documentary you can see we are quite the opposite.
However, Canada is different from the US when it comes to integration, like you said they are a melting pot, whereas we are like tossed salad (why do I feel uncomfortable saying that?). But the fact that the US is a melting doesn't mean people get angry over losing part of their culture. The main reason why people emigrated to the States during the turn of the century was to escape the hardships they had in their homeland. Leaving their homeland implicates their willingness to abandon their culture, it was a sacrifice they had to make and they knew this. Yes, cultures blended into one mainstream; Italian-Americans, Polish-Americans, Irish-Americans... who can tell the difference nowadays?
But the mainstream changed too. Pop music originated from African-Americans, Italian-Americans and Jewish-Americans made American cinema, etc.
I believe the reason why the American culture is so dominant is because it is all inclusive; the combination of various cultures creates a synergy which can only be accounted by integration. It is anything but destructive to the American society.
Originally posted by freddie
Our country: Very few people get killed by gunshots ... Why? Probably because we're heavily incorporated the European legal, moral and custom tradition into our legal system and also our frame of mind. So the main question is what is Europe doing right that the US isn't. Well it's really hard to say it in a sentace, but the main thing is people inside the EU arent sucked in a giagnt whirpool where all the different cultures would be digested and spited out as an unrecognizable mess of little cultural fragments with a big stress on the dominant culture. EU is all about solidarity. When we remove this first hurdle people would maybe feel a bit less mad and frustrated at everything that's going on around them...
Then the other measures to cure the problem can come: from greater goverment involvement in assuring the job oportunities (and not just in Lockheed-Martin LOL.), too changing the whole stance that this incredibly judgmental society has on issues like racism, homophobia...[/B]
In being consistent with my earlier statements, if cultural integration is beneficial to the US, then Europe's cultural segregation must be eroding European society. And it is. Yes there may be very few deaths committed by guns however it doesn't mean that violence isn't being committed. From what I hear, the ghettos of Paris, Berlin, Rome, etc., are on par with the ghettos of the US, perhaps even worse. What occupies these ghettos are third-world immigrants. Some of which have been there since the sixties and have raised families there ever since. IMHO, that is pathetic. The immigrants lack the rights that Europeans enjoy and pride over. The police is barely existent in those ghettos, leaving the vulnerable to be either robbed, raped, or killed. And what is worse, those inciddents are hardly ever reported. But the general impression I get from Europe of this issue is that since these immigrants aren't European, the statistics doesn't really apply to them. So no attention is really ever paid to them. The racism there is more evident than any blantant acts of racism I have ever seen from the US.
I'm not pro-American nor anti-European, though this post may make you think otherwise. It just that most people I know try to accuse the States of atrocites I feel other countries are more guilty. Trust me, I have a lot of gripes with the States, but the reasons stated throughout this thread aren't any of them.
As a pathetic attempt to stay on topic here, I am going to source out the problem of the US.
I think Michael Moore was on the right track by saying the US was a paranoid country. In fact I think he hit it right on the nail when he said that the States has a culture of fear. But what I think he failed to mention was that this isn't exclusive to the States.
By being aware of basic American history, one would say it started out as a very fragmented nation. Obviously the government provide protection everywhere, so the government stated that it was the duty of every American to protect his land (from the Brits, I guess). So this creates a strong sense of paranoia and entitlement; what's-mine-is-mine. Anybody seen as having the slightest bit of potential to take another man's land could and would be instantly shot. Perfectly reasonable then, not now.
But this kind of attitude kinda permeated to what we see today in the States. However, it wouldn't be to this extent if it weren't for attitude the US government holds. Their Foriegn Affairs has just about the same sense of entitlement and paranoia but it, just like American history, is understandable. Any country that is immensely advanced in terms of military, economy, and culture would have the same attitude. The States feel, like any other powerful country, that it must secure it's position as world leader by squashing any potential rivals. But the level of paranoia the US gov't has shown is reflecting onto the people. The poeple see that gov't is fearful and that the US is vulnerable to attacks. They come to the conclusion that the gov't cannot protect them, so it is up to them to protect themselves. And thus, anybody is seen as being threatening and must be dealt with accordingly.
The American people's paranoia, coupled with the paranoia of the American gov't is the reason why the States is such a violent country.
IMHO, of course.
Originally posted by PowerPuff Grrl
I respectively disagree, here. If you think integration is the cause to the State's problem, then by your reasoning, Canada should one of the most chaotic countries in the world. Having Montreal, Vancouver, Ottawa, and Toronto (being the most culturally diverse city in the world) as it's major cities Canada should be experiencing more violence than the States. But seeing the documentary you can see we are quite the opposite.
However, Canada is different from the US when it comes to integration, like you said they are a melting pot, whereas we are like tossed salad (why do I feel uncomfortable saying that?). But the fact that the US is a melting doesn't mean people get angry over losing part of their culture. The main reason why people emigrated to the States during the turn of the century was to escape the hardships they had in their homeland. Leaving their homeland implicates their willingness to abandon their culture, it was a sacrifice they had to make and they knew this. Yes, cultures blended into one mainstream; Italian-Americans, Polish-Americans, Irish-Americans... who can tell the difference nowadays?
But the mainstream changed too. Pop music originated from African-Americans, Italian-Americans and Jewish-Americans made American cinema, etc.
I believe the reason why the American culture is so dominant is because it is all inclusive; the combination of various cultures creates a synergy which can only be accounted by integration. It is anything but destructive to the American society.
But the difference between US and Canada is that Canada doesn't melt different cultures into one...into a new one that previously didn't exist. Right?
I didn't say that people are frustrated because they have to live alongside different cultures. I meant that they are angry because their heritage and tradition gets slowly eaten away.
You think just because they're immigrants they are willing to give up their native culture? I don't think so. That would be a heavy price to pay. Giving up everything you knew since you were a child. I think that keeping a link to their native culture is the only way for some immigrants to remain sane in a cruel new world. There's been an interesting phenomenon with the fall of the iron curtain as many Russian, Polish and other immigrants went back to their homeland despite living in the USA for 20 or more years.
In being consistent with my earlier statements, if cultural integration is beneficial to the US, then Europe's cultural segregation must be eroding European society. And it is. Yes there may be very few deaths committed by guns however it doesn't mean that violence isn't being committed. From what I hear, the ghettos of Paris, Berlin, Rome, etc., are on par with the ghettos of the US, perhaps even worse. What occupies these ghettos are third-world immigrants. Some of which have been there since the sixties and have raised families there ever since. IMHO, that is pathetic. The immigrants lack the rights that Europeans enjoy and pride over. The police is barely existent in those ghettos, leaving the vulnerable to be either robbed, raped, or killed. And what is worse, those inciddents are hardly ever reported. But the general impression I get from Europe of this issue is that since these immigrants aren't European, the statistics doesn't really apply to them. So no attention is really ever paid to them. The racism there is more evident than any blantant acts of racism I have ever seen from the US.
First of all Europe is not a country and it doesn't intend to be a country since it considers such integrations (national wise), to be harmful to the process of soveregnty and also tolearance between nations. There is a difference between an economic collaboration (economic integration) and national integration of different cultures. National Integration isn't always a bad thing - Places like The Netherlands and Canada showed us that clearly. But it can be harmful to the general psychy of the public if peole are subtly forced to conform to one dominat culture - basicly to be assimilated. That is where the conflict lies.
About the imigrants and racism: I'm not aware of any ghetto's (in that meaning of the word) in European cities. Surely there are poor districts in every city where some people are a social problem, but still... there are no illigal aliens in Europe that have been living there for 20 years...if they live in Europe they are citizens of the EU and they have much better opertunities to get a job then to stay in their native countries. And the country where they live in doesn't even attempt to force them into assimilation with the main culture.
The American people's paranoia, coupled with the paranoia of the American gov't is the reason why the States is such a violent country.
Possible this could be another reason. Fear of the dark. But still most shootout stories are caused by fruestration and anger which doesn't have to do a lot with fear. People are angry at the society they live in not frigten about their neigbours as much.
I mean: the Columbine massacre didn't have anything to do with fear whatsoever. There were just two angry boys who didn't know how too deal with their problems in any other way.
Originally posted by freddie
Michael Moore raised some good points, but it's clear troughout the documentary that he's heavily biased and has a clear dislike for american system. On some occasions he twists the words so skillfully I could swear he was a lawyer. It's not fair to list the american millitary faliures strickly superficiality without the mention of complicated political sitautions that contributed to some of the bad decisions. He knows about the special circustances...he just decided not to mention them too prove his point.
Michael Moore did a big hoolabaloo in the Oscar Ceremony but I found his point valid. It is a personal thing of his: just like my bias is based on my activism against homophobia and violence of all sorts, his is based on the eternal irony that when USA wants to help with their interventionism, they wound up screwing everything up.
For example, Pinochet was imposed by US to Chile, and believe it or not, even the smallest country in southamerica which is Uruguay (where my family lives) felt a repercusion. It was a tiranny. People dissapeared because of their stupid interventionism.
Today in the road to get an exam done, mom told me about the "tupamaros", Uruguayan nationalists that in an ocasion killed an American residing in Uruguay. That event got the whole nation indignated, until it was discovered that American was an interventionist that was training soldiers to carry out torture manners to those "dissapeared". How do you like it that USA has made an intervention in every war it has seen and always carried up a big big mess? They are not always the victims, but no one is innocent.
On another hand, I don't think you have foundations to accuse Moore of hiding the facts. I for one sympathize with him because he doesn't hate his country, he hates the way it is managed to manhandle people around and fill them with fear to keep them controlled. I hate that it happens here too. What he did was compare USA to other countries, not say they were better. If he didn't use guns, the guy would not be in that damn NRA, he wants to prove why US lives in fear and I think it's respectable that he doesn't want to live in fear too.
The man's point was personal. Let that be. We're discussing about the documental itself and what it says, not about Moore "twisting the words".
Originally posted by darje
Michael Moore did a big hoolabaloo in the Oscar Ceremony but I found his point valid. It is a personal thing of his: just like my bias is based on my activism against homophobia and violence of all sorts, his is based on the eternal irony that when USA wants to help with their interventionism, they wound up screwing everything up.
For example, Pinochet was imposed by US to Chile, and believe it or not, even the smallest country in southamerica which is Uruguay (where my family lives) felt a repercusion. It was a tiranny. People dissapeared because of their stupid interventionism.
Today in the road to get an exam done, mom told me about the "tupamaros", Uruguayan nationalists that in an ocasion killed an American residing in Uruguay. That event got the whole nation indignated, until it was discovered that American was an interventionist that was training soldiers to carry out torture manners to those "dissapeared". How do you like it that USA has made an intervention in every war it has seen and always carried up a big big mess? They are not always the victims, but no one is innocent.
On another hand, I don't think you have foundations to accuse Moore of hiding the facts. I for one sympathize with him because he doesn't hate his country, he hates the way it is managed to manhandle people around and fill them with fear to keep them controlled. I hate that it happens here too. What he did was compare USA to other countries, not say they were better. If he didn't use guns, the guy would not be in that damn NRA, he wants to prove why US lives in fear and I think it's respectable that he doesn't want to live in fear too.
The man's point was personal. Let that be. We're discussing about the documental itself and what it says, not about Moore "twisting the words".
Even if we discuss the documental doesn't the directors views have an importaint role in this? The way he was twisting the words is the way the documentary was made.
I'm not saying he was wrong about comparing America to other countries nor with the whole gun issue for that matter. I was just saying he was twisting the words regarding American interventionalism around the world. That was so tailor-made it hurt.:p I don't know about Pinochet or other South American tyrants, but I DO know that the things he said about Sadam Husein and Osama Bin Laden shouldn't be said without explaining the background of the situaltion. Things are always more complicated then they seem and Michael took it to simply - he didn't take into account that the cold war was at the critical point in the mud 80s, that the situaltion in mid east was such that you had to chose the lesser evil... Michael remained quiet about that... not very good for a documentary which is a form that should naturaly be objective. He clearly took a stance against the US external policy (and later internal but he was right about that).
OK just needed to say thi. Now we can talk strickly about the documentary itself and the effect guns and society have on people.
Mexico is a country that suffers from a huge everything: huge index of homicides every day, and an even greater index of homicides p/year. Huge index of raped women every day. Huge poverty index a year. Huge number of kids out of school, and huge number of kids in a school that falls apart. Huge corruption index, mostly by cops at that. And yet, you see American brands here there and everywhere, and just about anything. There’s a Seven Eleven, two McDonald’s, a Mrs. Fields, three Burger Kings, a Wal Mart, a White Castle, a Tower Records and God knows how many more, and that’s just in my area which is kind of small.
I am worried about going to work in the morning because I don’t know who will I see throw him/herself down the rails of the subway I take, because he/she has no school to attend, no job whatsoever, no money to pay rent or worse, drugs.
Gee darje you are gonna freak out the turists :P
Mexico has a high rate of all that stuff but it's not that bad...come on what were you expecting from a 20 million city, cause yes the capital is the main place of crimes, homicides, rape, etc. But Mexico is not that bad, of course if I had the change to move out of this country I will without hesitation I'm not a patriot but I'm kinda objective and I have discovered in this vacations where I have been going out all day everyday that it's more the fear created by the media than the reality. I have been in the street until 12:00 am and nothing bad, of course I do not risk myself cause I don't go to horrible places, but believe me I have been in metro, in taxi in almost all the city and nothing has happened to me, the reason? well the media wins more with scary news not with happy ones the yellow and red news always are more attractive than the good ones.
Maybe you should go out more often it can change your mind.
PD. forgot one little thing, althought we are such a pitiful country we do not have students killing teachers or classmates...
althought we are such a pitiful country we do not have students killing teachers or classmates...
^^;; No, we have students falling off third floors because they can't stand the education.
mmm never heard about that :P maybe you should switch from schools....oh forgot open system right?
MWAHAHAHAHAHAHA. *coughs* Right. :P
Actually, a friend told me about that, plus a case I read about on the papers. But apart from blades being freely introduced in public schools, no, I guess our education system is actually clean.
darje, the reformatory is not considered a school :P
blades...well yes I use a cutter in my school :P Design and Arts Division remember? so yes we use scissors, cutters and sometimes swiss blades... but until you don't see students killing each other or killing teachers I guess you can say it's clean...
Pd. what's wrong with you? I mean Im no patriot (in fact I'm the most anti patriot person in this country) but I don't describe it as a hell's pit. Also we don't kill each other every day as in Middle East or go making stupid little wars as the USA do.
Why so much hatred against your own country?
and about the guns...well now a days wars have no sense in the past it was worst to cut a person in little pieces with a sword or an axe...now you only pull the trigger or push a button.
Maybe because I was not raised to behave like most people behave in this country. I hate, quite frankly, being idolized as one in many because of the color of my skin.
I don't hate Mexico. It's a beautiful country. I hate the fact that the hands that manage it are so lazy, it is a beautiful country slowly going to waste.
alien_urbano
08-09-2003, 06:20
Originally posted by darje
[* About the Mexican Government: in 1968, thousands of University students were murdered by militia and police forces on the plains of Tlatelolco, one of Mexico City’s outer sectors. It was later discovered it was on the President’s orders and that although these students did have socialist tendencies, there were no coup d’йtat planning to be taken into action.
[So to make a long story short, plots, tendencies and all, President Gustavo Dнaz Ordaz just wanted them out of his hair.]
No offense brother but this is NOT so true, this is the text book version, not the true one. It was actually carefully planned for USA goverment 'cause they didn't want socialism invading mexico. That genocide back in 1968 was the perfect way to erase socialism from Mexico. Not only students were murdered, also soldiers were shot. It was carefully planned, there was people dressed as students and as soldiers these people had a white handkerchief, and these people were the ones with arms that started the fire. It wasn't an only Mexico's thing. This was planned by external forces and its not the only place on earth where it happens.
I also feel the need to ask those who live in Europe and Asia if their country’s situation is of fear, and if it is not, why it isn’t? I mean, from 63 killed on homicidal intentions a year in Australia, to 11,000 killed on those same intentions in the USA, there’s a big big big gap and I don’t think that less guns are the solution (not that I enjoy them anyway…). Maybe a culture gap? What is it?
There's a huge difference there bro... there isn't the same amount of people living in Australia and in USA. You're talking about a country about 20 million people (Australia) and another one with 300 million people (USA) you do the math bro. Also Australia hasn't the inmigration that USA has. We all know USA is full of people that is trying to reach the american dream, and left their own countries following that dream. It's a fact that the most urbanized cities/countries has a higher delicuency index than cities/countries with a lower index of urbanization. Also stressed people are more capable of everything you said, murder, suicide, rape, and the list goes over.
You know bro, isn't everything government's fault. People has to do something too in order to live in a better place. If you're raped and remain silent for whatever reason you're being part of this crappy scenario you're showing us. If the only thing you do is complain about it then you're builind this scenario up.
As karxwp said, news on tv (specially those on TvAzteca), radio and newspapers earn money selling bad news. Or tell me have you ever read something actually nice that is not on the Socials section? All news talk about murders, suicides, car crashes, drugs, prostitution and so... they never talk about good things such as someone giving to a lady back her purse, or a neighborhood that plants trees to beutify the place, or about organizations that gives people support. They never talk about it! Tell me, when was the last time you read a good new? not in the socials not in entertainment, but on the local/national/international news.
I'm not proud of what happens in my country, but at least I try to be a good person in order to foreign people can say "yes, mexico's goverment sucks but mexicans are really good, trust worthy people"
I don't understand your statement about the color of your skin....maybe you ment an outcast and not idolized... well you are not the whitest person I have seen in this city if you go to "la condesa" wow...the whole place is filled with almost european people :D gorgeous blonde girls and very handsome blonde guys sooo don't understand it...
about the people...well define hands that manage it...politicians?
Guns don't kill people, people kill people.
luxxi, you are completely right, people is the one that have the killing instinct, with out guns they would use what ever they have, swords, knifes, sticks, stones, the instrument is not important
taty994945
08-09-2003, 10:43
Guns don't kill people, crazy fuckers with guns kill people.
parrish122
08-09-2003, 14:07
I disagree with the statement that the instrument used in killing isn't important.
It's a *lot* easier to kill someone with a gun than with a knife, stones, and everything else that was mentioned.
With a gun you can kill more people, much faster.
I don't believe banning guns is the way to solve all our problems, but we should also acknowledge the fact that guns have made us humans that much more efficient at killing.
Parrish
You could kill a person during the middle ages with a crossbow just as quickly and efficiently as you can do today with a gun.
I remain with my thesis: Don't cure the consequences, cure the cause of the problem. Change the way people think so they won't feel the need to kill anymore.
Originally posted by parrish122
I disagree with the statement that the instrument used in killing isn't important.
It's a *lot* easier to kill someone with a gun than with a knife, stones, and everything else that was mentioned.
With a gun you can kill more people, much faster.
I don't believe banning guns is the way to solve all our problems, but we should also acknowledge the fact that guns have made us humans that much more efficient at killing.
Parrish
Then why doesn't Switzerland have similar massacres? That country is flooded with guns.
Originally posted by luxxi
Then why doesn't Switzerland have similar massacres? That country is flooded with guns.
people who want to kill or hurt other people mostly are not content with something..what could a switz want that he hasn't really got? Their economy is great..they are indipendent..I don't think Switzerland is a good example
and guns make it easier for people to kill other people..I could kill many of my classmates with a gun..but I couldn't even hurt any of them without one because I'm smaller then they are
or that's what I think..
Originally posted by Lena410
...and guns make it easier for people to kill other people..I could kill many of my classmates with a gun..but I couldn't even hurt any of them without one because I'm smaller then they are
or that's what I think..
You could poison them, cut their brakes on the car, run them over with your car... There are plenty ways to hurt a man. A gun is just conveniant. But if you're set on hurting another human, then you'll do it using a gun or not.
Originally posted by Lena410
people who want to kill or hurt other people mostly are not content with something..what could a switz want that he hasn't really got? Their economy is great..they are indipendent..I don't think Switzerland is a good example
and guns make it easier for people to kill other people..I could kill many of my classmates with a gun..but I couldn't even hurt any of them without one because I'm smaller then they are
or that's what I think..
I ask again. If possesion of guns make killing people easy why aren't such things happening in Switzerland which is flooded with guns? to kill a person there shouldn't be that hard.
parrish122
09-09-2003, 01:17
My point, and Lena410's point, was that guns make it *easier*. Neither of us said that you can't kill someone another way.
And Freddie? Um...I *said* that banning guns were not the way to solve our problems. I agree that we need to change the way people think. I believe (just my opinion) that many people just don't value life these days. Hence, it makes it easier for them to kill.
Still, we now have weapons that can take out a room full of people in seconds. That bothers me...even if a person is in a full-out rage, I don't believe if they use any *other* type of weapon that they can kill so many people in so short a time. Having that sort of weapon doesn't mean that the person owning it will do such a thing. It takes a desire to kill to make such a weapon deadly.
But it *does* make things easier for the person who wants to kill. That's all I was saying.
Parrish
taty994945
09-09-2003, 01:29
I agree about guns not being the only factor in murder. But for example, in Australia there was the Port Arthur massacre in which a mentally ill man killed 35 people with a sub-machine gun. He is now in jail for life and can't be cured because he is severely mentally ill. So this had nothing to do with the economy or whatever. It was simply a crazy man in possession of a massive cache of guns that allowed him to kill with brutal effectiveness.
On the flip side, we have the educated "Dr. Death" who killed 215 people without guns.
But I would still prefer no guns than guns.
Originally posted by freddie
You could poison them, cut their brakes on the car, run them over with your car... There are plenty ways to hurt a man. A gun is just conveniant. But if you're set on hurting another human, then you'll do it using a gun or not.
It's not only more convinient..I could not run over twenty people with one car..not only because I can't drive and I could not poison my classmates if I wanted to kill a lot of them..we don't have a cafeteria..so my point was that I can kill more people with a gun then with something else..of course I could built a bomb but I would have to find out how first...
I ask again. If possesion of guns make killing people easy why aren't such things happening in Switzerland which is flooded with guns? to kill a person there shouldn't be that hard.
I don't think Switzerland is a good example. Because Switzerland was not included in the two world wars, its economy is more or less booming, it is independ and neutral. People living in Switzerland are under far less social and economical pressure. Massakers mostly include anger and I know that living in a country that's telling you you have no job future and the only reason the state is keeping you is to pay for the retired people angers very much. I don't think the Switz Secretary of School would tell the Switz pupils to stop going to parties and concieve children instead.
It probably isn't too hard killing a person in Switzerland, but why should they kill someone?
And I agree that people and not guns kill people, but guns make killing for people a lot easier..
Originally posted by Lena410
I don't think Switzerland is a good example. Because Switzerland was not included in the two world wars, its economy is more or less booming, it is independ and neutral. People living in Switzerland are under far less social and economical pressure. Massakers mostly include anger and I know that living in a country that's telling you you have no job future and the only reason the state is keeping you is to pay for the retired people angers very much. I don't think the Switz Secretary of School would tell the Switz pupils to stop going to parties and concieve children instead.
It probably isn't too hard killing a person in Switzerland, but why should they kill someone?
And I agree that people and not guns kill people, but guns make killing for people a lot easier..
So when a guy comes home and sees his wife in bed with another man and gets agry he thinks "Wait, we have high GDP, we weren't in war almost 2 centuries. There is no reason for me to kill them both."
You say that guns make killing people easy. In Switzerland many people have guns at home, so it is easy to kill somebody. Yet they don't. So I guess guns have little to do with level of violence.
It's also a question of mentality, of the way how you've been brought up and the way violence is presented to young people, whether it's something you get to know as positive or negative.
No offense intended but I think there is a huge difference in the way children in the US are confronted with violence and for example the children in Switzerland. Violence is kinda accepted in the US and guns are part of this thinking, it's out of question that you take your gun and use it when necessary but here (and I think it'sd the same with Switzerland) people still consider using a gun as something unusual and dangerous.
Besides in the US violence is shown 24/7 on screen, it's okay to see someone kill a person but it's forbidden to see sexual stuff, maybe on some level it's the contrary here, discussions over too much violence are louder and more intense than discussions over something sexual on TV.
parrish122
09-09-2003, 15:43
Let's see if I actually can say something that everyone will agree with. Big challenge, yes? :)
1) If a person doesn't want to kill, it doesn't matter *what* kind of weapons are around, they won't do it. (Defending yourself or others is a whole different category, I think.)
2) If a person *does* want to kill, then some weapons will make it easier for them to kill, and will make it more likely for them to kill more people faster.
Are these the two basic points that we've all said in different ways, or am I totally off base? :)
Parrish
Originally posted by parrish122
Let's see if I actually can say something that everyone will agree with. Big challenge, yes? :)
1) If a person doesn't want to kill, it doesn't matter *what* kind of weapons are around, they won't do it. (Defending yourself or others is a whole different category, I think.)
2) If a person *does* want to kill, then some weapons will make it easier for them to kill, and will make it more likely for them to kill more people faster.
Are these the two basic points that we've all said in different ways, or am I totally off base? :)
Parrish
Exactly. And if we want a temporary solution we will worry just about those who do want to kill and create a mass histeria over guns. If we want a more permanent solution though we will try to reach the goal from the first point - where people don't want to kill eachother anymore.
This is the base of my thinking: those that do want to kill, will kill anyway, wheather they are restrictions or not. Maybe it'll be even more of a challenge for them to get a gun when it's prohibited to have one.
It was the same with prohibition. Nobody stoped drinking alcohol. It became even more appealing with the ban.
parrish122, but in some ocasions that person can't *afford* to kill. So we're stuck with someone who wants to kill and can't afford to. Wee?
Originally posted by luxxi
So when a guy comes home and sees his wife in bed with another man and gets agry he thinks "Wait, we have high GDP, we weren't in war almost 2 centuries. There is no reason for me to kill them both."
You say that guns make killing people easy. In Switzerland many people have guns at home, so it is easy to kill somebody. Yet they don't. So I guess guns have little to do with level of violence.
no..but when that guy comes home already being bad at the government and society then he will be even more mad at his wife and I don't think that cheating is a reason for killing anyway.
The level of violence and the amount of people being killed are a totaly different thing. And what I meant with all the things I said about Switzerland is that they have a completly different culture, society and history. That's the reason they don't go around shooting everyone else's head off, although they could.
And Freddie I don't think that you can devide people into two black and white type categories..there are people who want to kill and who don't want to..I agree with that...but there's also a group in between..and that's the group that could be limited through stricter laws about guns..and alcohol is something completly different..or that's my opinion
Originally posted by Lena410
And Freddie I don't think that you can devide people into two black and white type categories..there are people who want to kill and who don't want to..I agree with that...but there's also a group in between..and that's the group that could be limited through stricter laws about guns..and alcohol is something completly different..or that's my opinion
I didn't made that limitation. That was Parish. I just recognized it as a proper way to indentify the problem of curing the disease and not the consequece. Of course there are people in between but all of those would be affected if the changes started to happen.
The alcohol was just given as an example on how a ban can make an activity even more atractive.
Oh..ok..then I missunderstood your post Freddie..sorry :rose:
PowerPuff Grrl
10-09-2003, 01:23
Maybe we can follow Chris Rock's idea and charge $5,000 for every bullet.
I think it can work.
Anyhoo, to prevent myself from veering off-topic; Freddie, I'm going to send you my rebuttal, try to empty out your PM box I think it's full.
Lena410: Alright no problem.:)
PowerPuff Grrl: Did it. Go right ahead. ;)
Well I just wanted to start off by saying that Bowling for Columbine was a very good movie and alot of my thoughts and opinions were shared with you guys.
But I guess you an't get the real understanding of how it is out here till you live out here. I agree, the system is very corrupt. And violence does play a big role out here. Sometimes growing up in wrong places and hanging around with the wrong people can be hard on the youth. I know this cuz there was a point in my life where i carried a fully loaded 9mm beretta stuffed in my pants. Yes I was hard-headed as are many young teens in this country today. Thankfully I realized there is so much beauty in this world and you just gotta make the best of everything. Violence is unavoidable at times but people can still make a choice.
Now the system here is very corrupt, you got cops that shoot first and ask questions later politics who lie out their asses just to make their pockets heavier, and a society who is blinded by their own fear and ignorance to realize the truth.
Many people just believe what they see on T.V. everyday, oh but then again it is a govt. controlled media...
vBulletin® v3.7.3, Copyright ©2000-2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.