Bowling For Columbine (Guncontrol)

[OrbWeaver]

It's real.

 

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0486358/

 

The review suggests that it is quite well done -- making a point, but subtly rather than the "political message in your face" of Moore et al.

[obscurus]

Just a few points:

 

Anyone who thinks the small personal arms of the average American citizen would be a ward against state repression is mistaken.

 

Agreed

 

With the mass production of weaponry and the constant push for newer technologies, the power of the state grew exponentially. One armored platoon, say of tanks, has the equivalent firepower of ALL of the artillery of in the Union armory during the Civil War. States are constantly seeking new forms of weaponry, now non-lethal weaponry is the buzz word. They have foam cannons that can literally freeze a mob into place until the cops can bundle them all up. They have ultra-sound cannons that can make a crowd of people nauseous at the flick of a switch. Direct action against the state without a network of support and the backing of the locals is suicidal.

The thing is, the US military is primarily organised to combat enemies that can be bombed out of existence, or that are conveniently placed in a crowd, rather than enemies that live in suburban houses etc. While the Less-Lethal (there are very few weapons that are strictly non-lethal) are around, very few armed forces bother to use them. The US could easily end the conflict in the middle east with a few nukes if it wanted to, but it is constrained by the fact that that would not go down well with the majority of the worlds population.

 

Ironically, the best way to take out a tank or armoured platoon is to use similar foam type weapons - you only have to gum up the external mechanisms of a tank to prevent it from operating, and you can then just wait for the occupants to starve to death or poke their heads out to be shot or dragged out kicking and screaming. The US has a bad track record when it comes to dealing with an enemy that thinks lateraly and doesn't follow the pattern they expect.

 

The insurgency in Iraq is winning only because a. they dont have to win, only not lose b. they are on their home turf, an invaluable advantage in war, and c. they are being supported by outside agents with information and weaponry, and d. the U.S. is bungling the whole affair from the start, alienating the common folk and putting criminals in to power as our local representatives whom the Iraqis hate and fear.

 

The insurgency in Iraq is winning becasue the US is a. trying to limit civilian and infrastructural casualties, b. They have only sent in a fraction of the occupying ground forces neccessary to subdue a nation in a state of civil war (anyone who thinks Iraq is not in the grip of civil war needs to put things in perpective - 2000+ people per month are being killed in sectarian clashes, the same proportion of US casualties would be equivalent to 400,000 per month - that is a civil war in my book), c. as Saddam Husein demonstrated, Iraq is such an inherently divided, artificial country (it was cobbled together by the Brits out of the ashes of the Ottoman empire) that it can only realistically be governed by a ruthless despot - you can't expect to impose democracy overnight and have it work (not that the US idea of democracy is really very democratic).

 

At the same time the method of passive resistance has its limits as well. True, individual leaders and governments can be shamed out of power by public displays and marches but they are only the figureheads of a rotten, evil system.

 

Public protests and marches do SFA. The most effective method of passive resistance is to be grossly underproductive and highly disobedient. A single individual has no power on their own to rule others - s/he does so through the compliance and cooperation of those who support them. Attack the structures that support a corrupt government (you might have to make some difficult sacrifices to acheive this) and the top will crumble down. A government can't feed its army without the citizens who produce food being on board, and what most civilians don't realise is their power to cut off supply. It is like removing the blood supply to a tumour - once the blood supply is gone, the tumour dies.

 

You have to understand that many Americans view their country from a religious point of view, they see it as "chosen by God to lead the world", the "city on the Hill" as one of the early Puritan colonists put it. Many really believe this place was chosen for a special mission in the world.

 

 

This is why I despise religion so much. This is why religious organisations should not be allowed to participate in the education of children (i.e, ban religously based schools).

[Vadrosaul]

I think the reduction of religious monopolization needs to start with removal of non-taxation laws. I've always had a problem with their exemption.

 

I toil in Buddhism from time to time, not for the mystical mumbo-jumbo, but for the daily philosophy that tends towards a calmer approach.

[SplaTtzZ]

Wow, that Jesus Camp clip is really scary.

 

The baptist/pentecostal christian movement, (i.e. Bible Belt in the states) is even here in Australia now. I went to a school where it was regular to see 'the holy spirit!!!1!!' come down and make people convulse, 'speak in tongues'(which always sounded like a load of gibberish to me) and act like they were retarded. I always thought it was hilarious, but others in the school, including most of the staff, took it dead seriously like those guys in that clip. Hell, we even went to school camps that were on similar lines. A study camp i attended (designed to teach you study techniques etc. for final exams) was mostly indoctrination and 'prayer' to do well in your exams.

 

This non-denominational form of christianity, which I like to see as post-modern christianity, is catching on fast, with churches (like Hillsong) acting as gigantic global corporations, spreading their agenda and dogma to millions whilst making a massive profit. Using Hillsong again as an example, you're looking at a pre-reformation Catholic Church, but with seemingly more insidious methods for spreading its dogma and with much more clout and influence.

Edited September 8, 2006 by SplaTtzZ

[sparhawk]

I think the footage is real, but the movie titles and credits are a spoof. I have to wait to get home to listen to it but thats probably whats up. The footage looks too real: crazy ass fundamentalist women with super hairsprayed out manes babbling about angels watching them drive home on dark nights, moon-eyed children crying because baby Jesus had to die for the evil in their little hearts or because the homosexual Jewish fascists that run Hollywood and Wall Street want to force them to have abortions, the military fatigues and close cropped hair on the boys, yep, its a Christian summer camp.

 

That's why I'm not sure about it. The footage looks like the average "We are the only church" lunatics, but it's made up like it was for an upcoming movie about such churches, or this particular one, don't know.

[sparhawk]

When will this movie be released? Or is it already?

[Maximius]

obscurus: The thing is, the US military is primarily organised to combat enemies that can be bombed out of existence, or that are conveniently placed in a crowd, rather than enemies that live in suburban houses etc. While the Less-Lethal (there are very few weapons that are strictly non-lethal) are around, very few armed forces bother to use them. The US could easily end the conflict in the middle east with a few nukes if it wanted to, but it is constrained by the fact that that would not go down well with the majority of the worlds population.

 

No thats true, and they are paying for it in Iraq right now cause the Air Force cant simply reduce everything to rubble and let the troops take the ground. Street to street fighting is the worst kind of warfare. Your enemy hides amongst the population, who may or may not be your enemy. Your soldier live in perpetual fear because rather than facing an enemy across a line, they have to look 360 degrees, down alleys, in abandoned homes, whatever. You can see the desperation in the faces of the U.S. troops and in the brutality with which they often treat the Iraqi's. My point about Less than Lethals was only to demonstrate the constant interest in new ways to compel people.

 

obscurus: Ironically, the best way to take out a tank or armoured platoon is to use similar foam type weapons - you only have to gum up the external mechanisms of a tank to prevent it from operating, and you can then just wait for the occupants to starve to death or poke their heads out to be shot or dragged out kicking and screaming. The US has a bad track record when it comes to dealing with an enemy that thinks lateraly and doesn't follow the pattern they expect.

 

The best way to defeat a tank in Bagdhad right now is to simply avoid it. Pick off civilians and the occasionally unwary G.I. when possible and then duck and run when the heavy artillery rolls in. Let the tanks trundle all over the fucking city, it only alienates the inhabitants further and demonstrates the U.S.'s inability to stop the bloodshed even with all the hardware. A tank right now is an advertisment to the Iraqi's:We have the best tools for war and we can't stop a few kids in a pickup truck with Ak 47s and RPGs from killing 30 people waiting in line for bread

.

A similar situation has developed in Israeli. Although the Israelis beat the hell out of Lebanon, many analysts even in the West had to concede that Hezbollah did a damned good job of hitting back. The IDF is the worlds 5th (?) most powerful army I think and they could not shake Hez out of its position. They hurt it, a lot, but as someone said Hez doesnt have to win to win, they merely do not have to lose very badly. Right now, a lot of groups are reassessing the power and reach of the IDF. Especially since its big brother the U.S. is tied up with some screwups of its own right now.

 

The invasion of Lebanon has lowered Israeli security, not bolstered it, just as the U.S.s' imperial conquests are going to bite it right in the ass with higher levels of anti-U.S. sentiment worldwide, legions of willing new recruits to terrorist organizations, and other nations starting to push back against overstretched American power. Hugo Chavez is making good use of this time of distraction to try and consolidate power amongst other latin american states into a new southern hemisphere power bloc. While the CIA and State Department are too busy in the Middle East to conduct terror campaigns as they did in the fifties, sixties, seventies, eighties, and nineties.

 

obscurus:

Public protests and marches do SFA. The most effective method of passive resistance is to be grossly underproductive and highly disobedient. A single individual has no power on their own to rule others - s/he does so through the compliance and cooperation of those who support them. Attack the structures that support a corrupt government (you might have to make some difficult sacrifices to acheive this) and the top will crumble down. A government can't feed its army without the citizens who produce food being on board, and what most civilians don't realise is their power to cut off supply. It is like removing the blood supply to a tumour - once the blood supply is gone, the tumour dies.

 

I can agree that a public that refused to turn its energies to the benefit of the state would be a powerful, nay revolutionary force in society. But try getting there from here. Most people are far too absorbed in their own lives and problems to even conceive of such a thing as a mass strike or massive civil disobediance. Remember, the much( larger than todays) Vietnam peace movement in the U.S., with all its vaunted influence and claims of reaching its goals, was in truth a VERY small movement whose impact was important but quite limited. It did not end the Vietnam war, economics and geopolitics did and the anti-war movement merely assisted them. U.S.ers love to talk about the peace movement, either as the great shining moment when the people's will was made heard and obeyed or as a degenerate mob who would sell out their motherland for an autographed photo of Uncle Ho. It was really neither, it had its influence but that was limited and cannot be said to have been a major factor in ending hostilities.

 

obscurus:This is why I despise religion so much. This is why religious organisations should not be allowed to participate in the education of children (i.e, ban religously based schools).

 

I agree, such pap needs to be exposed for what it is: anti-rational, anti-human horse shit. that being said, there is much of value to study in religious traditions, moral codes, history, philosophy, language, as Im sure you would agree. But the willingness to view the world through an utterly irrational lense is dangerous, it needs to be stamped out via education, discussion, and constant ridicule of the idiocies of articles of faith. I agree that religious thinking plays a role in maintaining the power of the state, by first and foremost dispensing with the notion that the world is to a degree knowable through one's own lights. When one is conditioned to believe "received" knowledge, unquestionable and of ultimate authority, one is also conditione d to believe alot of other silly crap, to accept other forms of authority as also being natural and something not to be questioned.

Edited September 8, 2006 by Maximius

[Maximius]

When will this movie be released? Or is it already?

 

 

that I dont know, I listened to it last night and now Im convinced that its real. Actually, didnt orbweaver post a real review of the film a few messages back up?

[Ishtvan]

It's real.

 

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0486358/

 

The review suggests that it is quite well done -- making a point, but subtly rather than the "political message in your face" of Moore et al.

 

Nice, it's about fucking time word got out about this kind of thing, especially in a way that's not clearly biased.

 

I especially like this part:

At Jesus Camp, the daily activities include standard camp fare such as spelunking and go-karts, but they also include speaking in tongues and smashing coffee mugs emblazoned with the word "government".

 

That "smashing of the government mug" along with the "fight in God's army" thing should be enough to make someone fail a background check... does that mean we can recall all our evangelical politicians who went to similar things as a child? I wish.

[sparhawk]

When one is conditioned to believe "received" knowledge, unquestionable and of ultimate authority, one is also conditione d to believe alot of other silly crap, to accept other forms of authority as also being natural and something not to be questioned.

 

Unfortunately the same can be said of students as well. A student that is conditioned to believe what his professor says for truth, is no different then a religious lunatic. The beauty of science is that you can verify it, but this is a hard task and gets ever more harder.

[OrbWeaver]

That "smashing of the government mug" along with the "fight in God's army" thing should be enough to make someone fail a background check... does that mean we can recall all our evangelical politicians who went to similar things as a child? I wish.

 

Actually I find it fascinating that the evangelicals would be anti-government, since I would tend to view them as two sides of the same coin.

 

Maybe they are pissed because the government is not theocratical enough.

[demagogue]

Shows how much you're glossing the movement and not really trying to look into the real-world, psychological/socio-political motivations going on beneath the surface.

 

To me, it's the most natural thing that they'll tend go anti-govt. It's like most "evangelical" periods in history are built on an anti-establishment base ... even if it's in or *is* the establishment. "Running against the grain" is part of the ethos that they have to tell themselves, in about the same way existentialism is ... because you're making a "radical" "personal" choice, by definition it's supposed to be "diverging" from the beaten path and not something you can adopt as being part of the establishment.

 

I mean, I like looking at groups like this because they usually have their finger on the pulse of deeper socio-economic and cultural undercurrents of the country in trying to vent them. They're frustrated with the superficial lifestyle that modern capitalist societies so easily fall into, like a lot of people are, and the dead-blah glob we watch it turn our daytime-TV-watching friends into ... and they're trying to break out in the only way they can see how.

 

The main issue to me isn't their motivations so much as their integrity to be critically minded towards their own beliefs and really take them seriously if they're going to believe it, like a professor of mine used to say: If you say you believe it, you really better believe it.

 

I think of it is our duty to be benevolent and show them a more responsible way to enlightenment and personal spiritual awareness that is every bit as invigorating and meaningful in the face of the grey-blah of modern "soulless" capitalist socieities but that also shows integrity and honesty with the world as scientists have spent the last 400 years fighting to understand ... or why even bother struggling to understand the universe! Haha ... there's my manifesto; I've been caught!

[SplaTtzZ]

Well, if 'Jesus Camps' are that bad; I don't even want to think about Muslim ones.

[sparhawk]

I don't think that it's THAT different. Different words to the same tune.

[Order of the Hammer Bureaucrat]

I was mugged yesterday morning. Walking to a lecture at 6:40AM on Spadina st. (chinatown) when an african-canadian starts walking besides me, then the standard mugging procedure. I was then so absorbed with calculating CO2 emissions, and then bioreactor calculations, that I didn't remember about it until evening. Posting it here because of the thread started regarding guns, and I used to be a member of the UofT gun club, occasionally practicing at the range until school got tougher. Now I'm thinking of joing the UofT kendo club, and buying a $500 tanto.

[OrbWeaver]

Of course, if he thought you were carrying a gun he would just have shot you in the back before taking your money.

[Crispy]

And you probably wouldn't have had the gun on you in the first place.

 

Martial arts for self-defence is a good thing though.

[AluminumHaste]

I'm in favor of gun ownership and carry rights with few restrictions, but I don't want to argue about it or type long essays to expain why. I just thought it was worth mentioning, to show that not everyone online is against guns. But I can respect and mostly understand the other side.

 

The only problem I have with people owning guns is this; alot of them do it because they think guns are cool.

Guns are dangerous weapons, made to kill living beings. They aren't cool except in video games.

Just my 2 cents.

[Ishtvan]

And you probably wouldn't have had the gun on you in the first place.

 

Martial arts for self-defence is a good thing though.

Just don't rely on carrying around a tanto either. Doesn't Canada have laws about not carrying concealable large knives too, or is that just the US? (I'm not directing that at Crispy but at Bureaucrat)

 

The best self-defense is to give the mugger your money if he presents any kind of weapon. Is $30-40 of cash and some credit cards that you're not even liable for really worth risking your life over?

 

One time I was psuedo-mugged within sight of my own home when I was pretty young. These two guys came up to me on my left and start talking to me, asking if I had any money etc, as we are walking up to a blind corner on the right. I was looking to my left at this guy because I thought he might attack me, I said no I don't have any money, and I guess they took pity on me or something, because the guy I'm talking to gave a "stand down" signal to someone as we passed the blind corner, and I turn to see who he's signalling to and there is this HUGE guy standing right behind me with his fist drawn back... I would've been screwed if he'd punched me in the back of the head like he was planning to.

 

So I guess the lesson I learned from that was don't fix your attention on any one thing, and don't go around blind corners without checking first and leaving a buffer of space between yourself and the area that's hidden from sight, to allow yourself time to react if someone is there.

[sparhawk]

The only time I was "threatened" with a gun was when I went home from my martial arts training. It was already getting dark, and I couldn't be sure wether it was a real gun or not. I was walking through the park and there were two boys about 16-17 years old. And when I approached, because the path lead straight through them, suddenly the one of them held a gun and said I should stop. This is not very common in Vienna, and I didn't know what to do at the moment. So I just laughed and went by ignoring them. I considered my options afterwards, and I thought I might have kicked the gun from his hands or something and actually I started to think what would have happened if it were a real gun, or the guy was serious. Next day I talked to my trainer about this and asked him what he would have done. He is really good at Hap-Ki-Do (what I was training at that time) and guess what he said. He said, if they had been serious, he just would have yielded his money without making any fuss about it. He said, even if you are good at martial arts, the risk, if a gun is involved is to high, because you don't know how the other might react. And it's not worth it for the few Schillings that he usually carries with him.

Actually I also never carry much money with me. I'm basically always broke (when it comes to actual money in my pocket) even though I have a very good income. I rather rely on cards, and I buy my stuff once a week, so I never need much money with me. I never carry around much more than 20 Euro and most of the time not even that. Simply for the reason, if I don't have much money with me, I don't spend it on crap.

[Order of the Hammer Bureaucrat]

I don't know how such a behaviour can be interpreted, but in my opinion honour is more important than my life even if I was to earn my PhD eventually and invent something revolutionary like anti-gravity or whatnot. I haven't looked into the laws, nor do I really care about them - because I don't often get searched, and that I would get arrested on grounds of possession of a cold weapon is unlikely, and even then I can say I'm just a collector who's interested in history and I've got 2 more at home. As long as the weapon is not one of those black mechanical-looking army knife types. I only discovered that dueling is illegal here when I was 14 years old. But when it comes to protecting my honour or that of any female I'm walking with, I'd prefer to defend my-self even if I risk lethal injuries. Besides, self-defense is legal. But! I will only carry a self-defense weapon when I feel comfortable with it, and that means several years of kendo and Iaido lessons. Until then, I'll increase my security by avoiding bad streets, carrying less valuables, having back-up plans for cards lost, and giving over cash when asked.

[Ishtvan]

@Spar: Yeah, that's what martial arts teachers have told me as well: it's not worth it to try and fight someone with a gun pointed at you. You should only try if you're fairly certain that the person intends to kill you regardless, and you've got to be willing to kill them without hesitation if you take that route, since that's what it might come down to.

 

@Bureaucrat: Well, I can't convince you to value your life more than "honour," so that decision's up to you. All I can say is that people with that philosophy tend to die or get maimed earlier than the rest of us. Personally I think it's more honorable to live another day and continue to help others, rather than die stupidly over the $20 in your pocket and help no one but yourself (by not losing your "honour").

 

I haven't looked into the laws, nor do I really care about them - because I don't often get searched, and that I would get arrested on grounds of possession of a cold weapon is unlikely, and even then I can say I'm just a collector who's interested in history and I've got 2 more at home.

Whatever story you concoct won't sway the police, they'll still arrest you for carrying a concealed weapon. Also, there are various gradations of legal self defense nowadays, where you can only respond "up to the same level" of the threat leveled at you. So if someone punches you and you stab them with a knife, you can go to jail. I know it's a pretty stupid law, because how the hell are you supposed to know if someone's intent is to kill you or not at the time when they're punching you and you have to respond, but that's the law.

 

Also, I wouldn't rely on taking Kendo to protect yourself in a life or death situation. AFAIK, Kendo is intended as a sport, not a self-defense art. Some people claim to teach Kenjitsu, but there are so many BS artists out there that you're probably better off taking something like Filipino Escrima, then you just have to carry a stick around.

[OrbWeaver]

Actually I'd rather like to know a martial art that involves a stick. Completely legal, you can find one anywhere and I bet they are pretty effective in combat as well.

 

I also like the idea of defensive Tai Chi, which is purely about blocking and deflecting rather than kicks and punches. However I think a great many of the Tai Chi courses actually don't focus on the martial art and simply use it as a form of relaxation (like Yoga).

[Domarius]

If I have to see this thread title in the New Posts page every time - can someone please explain this niggling little detail that's gnawing at my mind - what's the meaning of the "Bowlling" in the title? I get the Columbine bit.

[sparhawk]

regardless, and you've got to be willing to kill them without hesitation if you take that route, since that's what it might come down to.

 

Yes. That's also my understanding, and that's why I always think it is more dangerous to carry a weapon if you are not prepared to actually use it with all consequences. Many people think, that the presence of the weapon will already protect them, but in fact, it will just increase the level of violence. A robber, who might have not harmed you, might feel threatened so much that he might kill you rather, because he is under stress at this moment. So if he manages to get my gun from me, just because I can't press the trigger, it can get much more dangerous to me, then having no gun at all.

 

Whatever story you concoct won't sway the police, they'll still arrest you for carrying a concealed weapon. Also, there are various gradations of legal self defense nowadays, where you can only respond "up to the same level" of the threat leveled at you. So if someone punches you and you stab them with a knife, you can go to jail. I know it's a pretty stupid law, because how the hell are you supposed to know if someone's intent is to kill you or not at the time when they're punching you and you have to respond, but that's the law.

 

Around here, you might even get convicted depending on the level of comptence you have. So for example, if I have no martial arts training, and I kill somebody in self-defences, it might be considered self-defense. If my teacher does the same in the same situation, he could get sentencedfor murder, because he would be expected to have such a level of competence, that it can be assumed that he wouldn't have needed to kill. It shou.ld be assumed that he is capable enough to handle such a situation without a lot of violence, so the law is harsher there. I know of a wrestling champion from Vienna, who got provoked by some drunks. After some time, he couldn't bear it anymore and he beat them up. The judge said, that in other circumstances, somebody else would have gone free, but in his case he got sentenced, because they said, that with his kind of training, he could have handled the guys with much less injuries.