Jump to content
Ghost Recon.net Forums

Columbine High School Shootings TV Documentary


Recommended Posts

If like me, you are into (decent) documentary programmes, then you may want to watch this.

This documentary will be shown on British TV tonight, about the Columbine High School shottings. I've visited a few of the web sites dedicated to this event, they make for a very intense and disturbing read.

WANRING: Not for the faint hearted!

Zero Hour: Massacre at Columbine High

10:30pm - 11:30pm

Discovery Channel

VIDEO Plus+: 4259693

This is a stark account of the US high-school shooting that left 13 dead and 23 others injured. Teenagers Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold spent a year planning the massacre, which they carried out on 20 April 1999. It makes uncomfortable viewing, though the programme skirts round the issue of American gun laws.

Link to post
Share on other sites

People need to just let Columbine go. Yes, it was bad, and yes, it could have been prevented. But not by stricter laws, and not by more government oversight. Existing laws were broken to get the weapons to the two knuckleheads in the first place.

In my opinion, there are four people (aside from the two knuckleheads) who are ultimately responsible: their parents. What kind of parents don't know that their children are building bombs in their own home? The parents of both boys should have been, and still should be, held 100% accountable. Make those inept parents pay for the actions of their sons, and then move on.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bowling for Columbine, like all of michael moore's documentaries, are very one-sided, almost completely untrue, and rely on bold subject matter to hide it's misgivings.

am I the only one who thinks it must be shocking for the families of the deceased to see re-enactments of this event on TV?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Bowling for Columbine, like all of michael moore's documentaries, are very one-sided, almost completely untrue, and rely on bold subject matter to hide it's misgivings.

am I the only one who thinks it must be shocking for the families of the deceased to see re-enactments of this event on TV?

No, you're not the only one. I'm in agreement with you. Michael Moore, for his part, is a greedy, unscrupulous, hypocritical scoundrel and propagandist. As for the Discovery documentary, more thought should have been given to just how it would affect people. The rationale that 'people need to know' doesn't hold water; people don't need to visualize anyone's last moments on earth. People don't need to know what the Columbine victims went through. "Why not?" Someone may ask. Here's why: Even if this documentary (or, God forbid, Mr Moore's farce of a documentary) stir people's emotions, it won't do any lasting good. Emotions are fleeting. People act irrationally when they're overly emotional about something. Rather than use bold subject matter (Nice wording MM) and a shocking display to shock people into action, we need to learn to hold ourselves and others accountable for each one's own actions. Mr. Moore and others who capitolize on Columbine, 9/11, etc, are nothing more than greedy ###### out for a buck. The false humility of such 'documentaries' should be readily apparent to anyone with any discernment.

Edited by Parabellum
Link to post
Share on other sites
Bowling for Columbine, like all of michael moore's documentaries, are very one-sided, almost completely untrue, and rely on bold subject matter to hide it's misgivings.

am I the only one who thinks it must be shocking for the families of the deceased to see re-enactments of this event on TV?

Michael Moore, for his part, is a greedy, unscrupulous, hypocritical scoundrel and propagandist.

I draw issue with this. That would be like me saying that the woman who poses on the 'Special K' cereal boxes is a liar, because that's supposed to show the results of eating it and I didn't turn into a think woman in a dress when I ate the cereal. You've never met him, to my knowledge, and can't really do a good job judging his character off a documentary.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Bowling for Columbine, like all of michael moore's documentaries, are very one-sided, almost completely untrue, and rely on bold subject matter to hide it's misgivings.

am I the only one who thinks it must be shocking for the families of the deceased to see re-enactments of this event on TV?

Michael Moore, for his part, is a greedy, unscrupulous, hypocritical scoundrel and propagandist.

I draw issue with this. That would be like me saying that the woman who poses on the 'Special K' cereal boxes is a liar, because that's supposed to show the results of eating it and I didn't turn into a think woman in a dress when I ate the cereal. You've never met him, to my knowledge, and can't really do a good job judging his character off a documentary.

Draw all the issues you want. Your analogy is faulty.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Bowling for Columbine, like all of michael moore's documentaries, are very one-sided, almost completely untrue, and rely on bold subject matter to hide it's misgivings.

am I the only one who thinks it must be shocking for the families of the deceased to see re-enactments of this event on TV?

Michael Moore, for his part, is a greedy, unscrupulous, hypocritical scoundrel and propagandist.

I draw issue with this. That would be like me saying that the woman who poses on the 'Special K' cereal boxes is a liar, because that's supposed to show the results of eating it and I didn't turn into a think woman in a dress when I ate the cereal. You've never met him, to my knowledge, and can't really do a good job judging his character off a documentary.

Your analogy is faulty.

Care to tell me how?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Bowling for Columbine, like all of michael moore's documentaries, are very one-sided, almost completely untrue, and rely on bold subject matter to hide it's misgivings.

am I the only one who thinks it must be shocking for the families of the deceased to see re-enactments of this event on TV?

Michael Moore, for his part, is a greedy, unscrupulous, hypocritical scoundrel and propagandist.

I draw issue with this. That would be like me saying that the woman who poses on the 'Special K' cereal boxes is a liar, because that's supposed to show the results of eating it and I didn't turn into a think woman in a dress when I ate the cereal. You've never met him, to my knowledge, and can't really do a good job judging his character off a documentary.

Your analogy is faulty.

Care to tell me how?

The hypothetical woman on the cereal box is a marketing tool; she is a carefully chosen individual selected by ad executives to catch your attention as your eyes scan the cereal box in the grocery store. She is nothing more than a marketing tool. Nowhere on that box does the woman say "You will look like me if you eat this."

Now, let's look at Mr. Moore. Michael Moore presents his 'documentaries' as being proof. Mr. Moore tells us "Watch my movie, and you will see the truth." Mr. Moore presents one small side of a large issue, and presents it as if it were truth. For example, here is an exerpt from a letter typed by Mr. Moore:

I'll end by repeating what I have said many times before -- the handguns have to go. 16,000 gun murders last year in the US and 15,500 were killed by someone they knew (husband, boyfriend, neighbor) or by someone at work. Approximately 500 were killed by a stranger who broke into their home and 300 of those were killed by their OWN gun. Those are the facts. Easy access to guns by a species that often responds irrationally and with intense emotions is a lethal combination. Great Britain, a nation of 60 million people with a violent history of conquering the world at the barrel of a gun and now full of drunks and hotheads who eat up violent American movies and TV shows -- last year they killed a grand total of 12 -- that's TWELVE! -- of their own citizens with handguns. That's because handguns are TOTALLY banned. Let the hunters keep their rifles after a serious background check, but the handguns, whose only purpose is to take a human life, must go. The Brits have done it, the Australians have done it, the Canadians have done it. Even New York City mostly did it -- and the number of murders there has dropped from 2,200 a year to 600.

Here is what Mr. Moore didn't say in his letter:

-Less than 0.001% of all non-fatal injuries treated in hospitals were the result of gunshot wounds.

-Three times as many people are killed in alcohol-related auto-accidents than by guns each year.

-Handguns are used two million times each year by law-abiding citizens, to defend themselves against would-be attackers. Yes, you read that right. Two million.

-Britain's rate of crimes involving handguns has steadily risen since handguns were banned.

-Washington, DC, where handguns are banned, has one of the highest murder rates in the nation, with 45.6 murders per 100,000 people. Yet neighboring Virginia, with some of the laxest gun laws in the nation, and even allows open-carrying of handguns, has a murder rate of only 5 per 100,000 people. While this doesn't directly address the causes of the homicides committed, it does tell us something else: Despite strict gun control laws, Washington DC has the highest murder rate in the nation. This tells us that people will kill other people whether or not guns are freely available. This tells us that, despite gun control, murder rates continue to rise in DC. Strangely, though, murder rates continue to fall in Virginia, despite the loose gun laws.

Yet, Mr. Moore didn't have anything to say about those facts, did he? Of course not. That's because Mr. Moore wants to paint a one-colored picture of whatever issue he's presenting.

Moving on...

Michael Moore derides the wealthy, and yet he admits to being filthy rich.

Michael Moore tells us about Americans being greedy and self-centered, yet he is close to 400 lbs - much larger than the average American.

Michael Moore speaks against the systems of capitolism and corporate America, and yet he uses those very systems to spread his angst and rake in millions.

Now, the point of this isn't necessarily to degrade Mr. Moore - he does a fine job of making himself look like an idiot, and he doesn't need anyone's help in doing that. The point of this was to answer your question Sup: How is Michael Moore different than the lady on the cereal box. The answer is as simple or as complex as it needs to be for you to understand it. The lady on the box is a showpiece, an advertising tool. She makes no claims about truth, right, wrong, or your weight loss. Michael Moore is the mind behind the proverbial showpiece. He's the guy who conceives the message, presents the message, and tells you that everyone who disagrees with him is either a liar or an idiot for believing the liars.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Para... add to that the many scenes where he intentionally lies. I can think of three off the top of my head:

- Gun gifted from the bank for account opening.

Staged event. The bank has even stated that you must go to a local FFL dealer who they work through in order to receive the firearm after a background check. What Moore did there was act out his own fantasies without the bank realizing how he would (mis)use the material.

- Reference to Lockheed Martin and their missiles of war.

The only missiles Lockheed ever made there carried satalites into space.

- Reading of a plaque on a bomber in a museum.

Someone even had a picture of the actual plaque to disprove this one. Unlike what he said, something to the effect of killing people on Christmas day, it in fact had a nice commerative to people who flew an operation on that day. Nothing even remotely like what he spouted off to the camera (which he never shows the plaque).

Plenty of sites are out there just showing his deception and how far he went to stir emotions and misplaced sentiment. It's only a google a way. Sup, your Special K analogy is false because the box doesn't actually say, "Eat this, you'll look exactly like her!"

Edit Sidenote: MM's bodyguard was recently arrested in NYC for getting off a plane with an unregistered handgun (violation of FOPA on NYC's part, but that's another issue) he used "in his duties." MM sure does hate firearms, especially handguns, to be making use of them himself, even indirectly through a bodyguard. Us peasants apparently aren't supposed to have such privileges of self protection unless we can afford our own bodyguards.

Edited by RooK
Link to post
Share on other sites

some of you didn't understand me. the thing i found shocking in moore's film were the pictures i saw, and not the crap that Mr. Moore told us.

i remember that in 9/11 he said (i can't remember his exact words) that Iraq was a peaceful country that had never killed or hurt american citizens. how many US soldiers killed in gulf war '91 were US citizens?

Link to post
Share on other sites
some of you didn't understand me. the thing i found shocking in moore's film were the pictures i saw, and not the crap that Mr. Moore told us.

i remember that in 9/11 he said (i can't remember his exact words) that Iraq was a peaceful country that had never killed or hurt american citizens. how many US soldiers killed in gulf war '91 were US citizens?

I understand what you're saying. The thing is, you really can't separate the images from what Moore says, not in the context in which he presents his 'documentary'. He presented those images to you for shock value. He grabs your attention with blood, guts, and sensationalism, and half of his work is done at that point.

Link to post
Share on other sites
-Britain's rate of crimes involving handguns has steadily risen since handguns were banned. 

Not disputing this, I'm sure you have evidence to support this, however, is there anything to suggest that it was the banning of Handguns which led to this increase?

Link to post
Share on other sites
-Britain's rate of crimes involving handguns has steadily risen since handguns were banned. 

Not disputing this, I'm sure you have evidence to support this, however, is there anything to suggest that it was the banning of Handguns which led to this increase?

What else would explain it? There are supposed to be less handguns on Britain's streets, and yet gun crime is rising. A corollary of banning guns is that only criminals will have them. Crimes involving firearms have risen a steady 3% - 5% each year since guns were banned in the UK. It doesn't take a lot of reasoning potential to see that there should be less gun crime if there are less firearms on the streets. The fact that gun-related crime has not been positively affected by the UK's ban should have led the UK to come to the same conclusion that the US government came to concerning our so-called assault weapons ban: The ban didn't work.

Looking objectively at pure statistics from various areas in the US leads me to believe that banning firearms is not the answer to solving violent crime. As we've already established, handguns are banned in Washington DC, yet the city is the murder capitol of the US, with more murders per 100k population than anywhere else in the nation. Clearly, there is another factor which has been overlooked. What that factor is, I do not know. The fact that gun crime continues to rise in areas where guns are banned, and continues to fall in areas where guns are available to the public, should be reason enough even for the staunchest anti-gunners to realize that there are other contributing factors which outweigh the public availability of firearms.

Edited by Parabellum
Link to post
Share on other sites

@ Para, how many of those murders in DC are committed with guns? I'm just curious.

IIRC, in the UK, gun crime has dropped a little bit, but assaults and murders with knives have skyrocketed. It all depends on what you'd rather have more of, knives or guns. The simple banning of guns doesn't really solve much, it only makes criminals switch methods temporarily and takes away a valuable tool for the innocent victims to use if it happens for good. I personally feel that a more effective route is to go after black market suppliers more aggressively, but that's just my own opinion.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you miss my point, Parabellum. Y'see, I never disputed that he presented documentaries heavily skewed to his own beliefs. I simply said that you can't really judge what kind of a person he is off of how he presents himself to make money.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I think you miss my point, Parabellum. Y'see, I never disputed that he presented documentaries heavily skewed to his own beliefs. I simply said that you can't really judge what kind of a person he is off of how he presents himself to make money.

I don't really think that's a very valid statement either. Granted, he could be a very different person when he's not in documentaries, but his record definetely isn't a very good one for supporting this point.

    "I'm a millionaire, I'm a multi-millionaire. I'm filthy rich. You know why I'm a multi-millionaire? 'Cause multi-millions like what I do. That's pretty good, isn't it? There's millions that believe in what I do. Pretty cool, huh?"

But . . .

"I walk among them. I live on the island of Manhattan, a three-mile-wide strip of land that is luxury home and corporate suite to America's elite..... Those who run your life live in my neighborhood. I walk in the streets with them each day"

So, how much does an apartment on Manhattan cost? Or a house, if there are any? He doesn't identify with the lower-class as he wants to make it seem in the 2nd quote. Moore is a trend that will pass with the Bush-hating generation, which is mostly caused by people who don't have a clue what they're talking about. From what I can see, he's just a self hating bull dog that lets loose on people above him and below him to better his own personality.

"Terrorists, serial killers, and mass murderers can be phenomenologically described as narcissists in a constant state of deficient narcissistic supply. . . . They decompensate and act out. They bring "down to their level" (by destroying it) the object of their pathological envy, the cause of their seething frustration, the symbol of their dull achievements, always incommensurate with their inflated self-image.

They seek omnipotence through murder, control (not least self control) through violence, prestige, fame and celebrity by defying figures of authorities, challenging them, and humbling them. Unbeknownst to them, they seek self punishment. They are at heart suicidal. . . .. These are all primitive, infantile, and often persecutory, defense mechanisms.

When coupled with narcissism - the inability to empathize, the exploitativeness, the sense of entitlement, the rages, the dehumanization and devaluation of others - this mindset yields abysmal contempt for the narcissist's victims. The overriding emotion of terrorists and serial killers, the amalgam and culmination of their tortured psyche - is deep seated disdain for everything human, the flip side of envy. It is cognitive dissonance gone amok."

That's our buddy in a nutshell.

So anyway Sup, you can judge Moore by the way he acts in public. That's really what he's like, as he has yet to prove otherwise. I'm sure that in the USSR, hardly anyone knew what Stalin was really like on the inside, if he really truly enjoyed murdering millions, but they knew that he would kick their asses if they did anything wrong. The real Moore could be completely different, but the public Moore doesn't know what Moore's up to.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm sure that in the USSR, hardly anyone knew what Stalin was really like on the inside, if he really truly enjoyed murdering millions, but they knew that he would kick their asses if they did anything wrong. 

Now we've both used unfair analogy's.

Anyway, I, myself, like the 'innocent until proven guilty' style of thinking. I don't see how we could possibly know he's 'unscrupulous... [and a] scoundrel' from what we know.

I'll agree to disagree with both of you, though.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...