Loading...
Welcome to Anarcho-Punk.net community ! Please register or login to participate in the forums.   Ⓐ//Ⓔ

Bowling for Columbine (2002)

Discussion in 'Documentaries & Movies' started by Probe, Sep 17, 2010.

  1. Probe

    ProbeExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    693

    1

    57

    Jan 30, 2010
     
    [​IMG]

    Watch Here: http://stagevu.com/video/djadbgnoxdsy
    Watch Here: http://veehd.com/video/2521496_BOWLING-FOR-COLUMBINE-2002

    Michael Moore's superb documentary (following in the footsteps of Roger & Me and The Big One) tackles a meaty subject: gun control. Moore skillfully lays out arguments surrounding the issue and short-circuits them all, leaving one impossible question: why do Americans kill each other more often than people in any other democratic nation? Moore focuses his quest around the shootings at Columbine High School and the shooting of one 6-year-old by another near his own hometown of Flint, Michigan. By approaching the headquarters of K-Mart (where the Columbine shooters bought their ammo) and going to Charlton Heston's own home, Moore demands accountability from the forces that support unrestricted gun sales in the U.S. His arguments are conducted with the humor and empathy that have made Moore more than just a gadfly; he's become a genuine voice of reason in a world driven by fear and greed. --Bret Fetzer
     

  2. ungovernable

    ungovernableAutonome Staff Member Admin Team Experienced member


    4,294

    41

    23

    Aug 21, 2009
    Male, 32 years old
    Canada Canada
  3. nodz

    nodzExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    328

    0

    5

    Apr 4, 2010
     
    I like this movie, especially where they apply enough pressure to K-Mart to withdraw all ammunition from its' stores because they don't want the negative plublicity from the film.
    I hate the part where Charlton Heston, the dickhead, turns up after the tradgedy and says 'From my cold dead hands' while waving a gun about.

    I like Sicko and Fahrenheit 9/11, both good documentaries that make you think.
     
  4. Anxiety69

    Anxiety69Experienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    2,342

    5

    156

    Oct 18, 2009
     
    i really hate michael moore. but i liked this film, and Roger and Me also.
     
  5. punkmar77

    punkmar77Administrator Staff Member Admin Team Experienced member


    5,425

    76

    618

    Nov 13, 2009
     United States
    Do you mind if I ask why Anxiety?
     
  6. Anxiety69

    Anxiety69Experienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    2,342

    5

    156

    Oct 18, 2009
     
    Just don't like him, he seems kinda slimy.
     
  7. dwtcos

    dwtcosExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    642

    1

    3

    Oct 22, 2009
     
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    we're on to you, michael moore...
     
  8. Anxiety69

    Anxiety69Experienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    2,342

    5

    156

    Oct 18, 2009
     
    LOL, no there's just something about him, he rubs me the wrong way.
     
  9. ungovernable

    ungovernableAutonome Staff Member Admin Team Experienced member


    4,294

    41

    23

    Aug 21, 2009
    Male, 32 years old
    Canada Canada
    I used to dislike Michael Moore, but i got respect for him since i watched "Capitalism, a love story"
     
  10. nodz

    nodzExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    328

    0

    5

    Apr 4, 2010
     
    I don't think that he is too objective in a lot of his movies, he is quite biased in what he wants the public to hear but he does bring the issue to the attention of the general populace and make them think about the problems
     
  11. Corporate Deathburger

    Corporate DeathburgerExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    143

    0

    2

    Sep 29, 2010
     
    I thought it was rather admirable. Such a strong, solid message that a lot of people heard about.
     
  12. Bentheanarchist

    BentheanarchistExperienced Member Experienced member


    936

    1

    66

    Dec 10, 2010
     
    Columbine

    Yesterday, was the anniversary of the Columbine shooting when Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold shot up their school. I believe they were effected by the violence of society, and the school's hierarchy and conformity. What does anybody think about why the kids at columbine would engage in mass murder?
     
  13. Inna Ruts

    Inna RutsExperienced Member Experienced member


    71

    0

    0

    Nov 22, 2011
     
    wrote quite a reply to your question but lost it while saving, guess you still suffer in school?
    i think the anniversary is 20th of april, somehow i remember some connection with "fuhrers geburtstag" - hitler was born on april 20th (and eva brown did us all a favor 1945 ten days after his last birthday by shooting him, maybe harris and klebold should have shot themselves too before starting their desperate teenage nightmare).

    still working on the problems of "armed struggle" i was reading lots of stuff about serial- and spree killings, killing spree and amok runs - there isn't just one explanation, it happened all the time in modern times, and michel moore's equation "too many weapons too easily avaliable = school massacres and daily killings" doesn't really works for the school amok runs - they happened in germany and france too, and in both states personal property on fire arms is strictly regulated by the law, and even the surprising number of "illegal" arms kept by idiots is still far below the north american firepower-neurosis.

    of course it's "society" - you can't escape the smog on earth - but the question is what "in" society stirs up the trouble - because america is quite different from europe - so it's not just and only "society".

    "violence in society" - western civilisation lives off some dishonest delusions "violence/non-violence" is one of them.
    just think about what the societies we live in and even their peacenic hippie opposition preach every day: don't be...?
    the state holds the monopol on violence with the cops and the army - so the citizens don't have to be...?
    what have the victims of harris and klebold actually done, hiding beneath tables and crying for help?

    what would have happened if the students of columbine high school wouldn't have been good future citizens waiting for the cavalry to arrive and enact the state monopol on violence?
    how could it be that two crazed out teenagers terrorize several hundred students, or that this norwegian nazi idiot loner kills 70 teenagers just with his gun?
    do we have to think about whats wrong with the "non-violence" rap we keep repeating and repeating...
    and by the way: i strongly support a complete ban on firearms and gun clubs including NRA and their friends business - but you don't need to kill an assilant while defending yourself or protecting others.
     
  14. Bentheanarchist

    BentheanarchistExperienced Member Experienced member


    936

    1

    66

    Dec 10, 2010
     
    I believe in arm struggle. Believing in armed struggle doesnt make you a mass-murderer. I believe armed-struggle is the only way to cause a revolution or the government is going to kill everyone.
     
  15. Inna Ruts

    Inna RutsExperienced Member Experienced member


    71

    0

    0

    Nov 22, 2011
     
    are we talking at cross purposes somehow?
    where did i say that believing in armed struggle makes you a mass murderer?
    but because it's interesting:
    how similiar are the known examples of "armed struggle" with the isolated amok run of two teenagers?

    but the subject was columbine high school and your question
    are responsible for the massacre.
    i questioned the "violence" within western societies keeping the taboo of "non-violence" for the majority while using force and violence monopolized by the state to keep up authority.
    and i asked you what the survivors of the massacre did - after they witnessed the reality day-by-day prior to the massacre and did the very same about it as they did during the massacre - nothing.
    new question i want to ask:
    what is the difference between andreas baader, gudrun enslin, jean-marc rouillan or nathalie ménigon and eric harris and dylan klebold?
     
  16. Bentheanarchist

    BentheanarchistExperienced Member Experienced member


    936

    1

    66

    Dec 10, 2010
     
    Jean-marc Rouillan, and Nathalie Menigon and Action Directe attacked Capitalist leaders not innocent people. Andreas Baader, and Gundrun Enslin and Red Army Faction killed innocent people all for an authoritian revolution. Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold were bullied teenagers who went insane and bought guns and went on a indiscriminate killing spree. Not all their victims were bullies. I believe Children and Teens shouldn't own guns. Action Directe were anarchist revolutionaries not murderers. I have question to ask you? Whats the difference between cops and the state, and Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold.
     
  17. Inna Ruts

    Inna RutsExperienced Member Experienced member


    71

    0

    0

    Nov 22, 2011
     
    i see you made your homework, so: sorry for the little trick i used to find out if you are really interested - and a big WELL DONE on you!
    before they attacked "innocent/guilty" people, both were part of the action directe actions against buildings and installations of the government and the military, the economy too, for example they machine gunned the residence of the french industrial employers association and promoted/supported sabotage actions.
    for this mode of operation, action directe enjoyed the cheering of the militant left and even the right-center"socialist" mitterand government was kind of sympathetic, of course the gov had to defend the claims of the state, but unlike in germany the french weren't that serious about it, the contemporaneously basque and near-east armed struggle was considered much more "terrorist" and outcrazed than the deeds of the action directe.
    i think the later real problem started when action directe went underground and became conspirative, loosing the contact with the militant movement - rouillan was arrested after becoming careless and pretentious, practically calling the cops to arrest him, but despite that he was released from prison after a relatively short time because of a amnesty.
    being underground he and his wife nath menigon rouillan took over the "lead" of the group, like baader and enslin claiming competence from the prison experience and the group started attacking representatives of state and military, right now i don't remember if they killed capitalists too - but in their later trial they denied the murder of the french renault-boss besse - but it doesn't really matter because as usual:
    their victims were replaced by better guarded successors, so the murderous business went on as usual - so what?
    applying some common sense: what's the use of taking a expendable marionette out of play, if the next one is already waiting to enter the scene? - killing those people changed "nothing", but:
    the repressive pressure received some justification, mitterand was spared the need to keep his police state preparations secret and the left wing movement asked "so what?" and received nothing but more or less helpless justifications from action directe as an answer. quite unable to deal with the fact that out of their isolated sectarian living they simply lost the understanding of the view points of the movement they claimed to be an avantgardist part of - c'est la vie:
    au revoir support of the militant movement preparing for the battles against the nuclear industry and la hague - organizing open mass actions carried out by thousands of activists supported by conspirative sabotage carried out by chosen cells working in the industry...

    what i find interesting is a possible similiarity between the columbine killers and the role rouillan and nath menigon played in the action directe after the first setback and rouillans prison sentence. the same goes with some obvious background dissimiliarities for baader/enslin in germany. i don't say that my point of view is something like an explanation, nor do i claim it to be "truth" - but i think it's something to consider:

    socio-psychological sciences claim, that amok-committers share an obvious common trait:
    they have a personal tendency of wanting to dominate, but are more or less unable to handle conflict, sometimes they are very aggressive inside their heads, eager to show off themselves in the public - but completely unable to defend themselves if challenged by opposition or critiques.

    eric harris and dylan klebold were teenagers in the multitude of styles and peer groups at school, the scene dominated by the sports bullies repressing less popular "loosers" and outsiders just for fun and reputation.
    harris and dylan wanted to be "someone" too, to enjoy the attention and respect of the crowd including the bullies, but they couldn't join the bullies - they weren't that good at sports and their "strenghts" were less popular. so they tried to promote the trench coat mafia, entering the competition but proving to be unable to defend their claim and reputation - they were bullied and victimized, and everybody watched - but nobody did anything about the pecking order.
    degraded and humilated harris and dylan entered kind of a isolation/exile and started brooding on making plans of retribution and revenge - not only against the bullies, but everybody at school - because nobody supported them in their needs. for over a year they worked themselves up and the planning gained detail and momentum - consequently heading towards 20th april...

    jean-marc rouillan and nathalie menigon, andreas baader and gudrun enslin were more or less leftwing activists, the degree of their attitude/knowledge varies, but from an early stage on rouillan and baader showed both tendencies to brag and promote themselves with dominating behaviours, easily hooting down critiques and opposition if they found it necessary. both had their wifes/lovers as a backup, often softening the lack of plausibility behind their husbands/boy friends claims - often a perfect match.
    each pair tried to engage in the political scene of their surroundings, trying to gain influence and reputation - official version: to get things moving, but behind the curtain?
    but they don't went very far with this, so both pairs lost patience and escalated the struggle, going avantgarde - the phase of attacks against property started.
    some fame and cheering was earned for this - but the stardom didn't lasted for long - the first prison sentence came up for arsoning, sabotage, machinegunning buildings - the movement protested but did nothing else.
    after going underground the contact with the "apathic" movement waxed and waned and the brooding started in isolation - the movement didn't followed the first escalation of the wannabe-avantgarde, so it became time for the next step of escalating - "terrorism" - direct action against representatives and collaborators of the system...
    especially for the "armed" germans i would say that their personal ambition outpaced their claimed attitude very much, practically from the beginning of the conspirative stage, the RAF was infiltrated and instrumentalized by the german federal secret service, their weapons and explosives came from government sources and the leading figures had all their appointments with snitches and under cover cops - mind me saying that they were useful idiots easily to manipulate in their personal ambition "to move something"?
    very similiar in this aspect the action directe, first based upon two previous groups with some serious experience in armed struggle in franco-spain, based upon the remnants of the anarchist movement and gaining support from people being activists and fighters all their life - but then cutting all connections and becoming increasingly alienated from their origin - now led by personal ambition into a short story of a handful of useless murders and ending up in long term jail sentences - roullain went free only this year and is still prone to be called back behind bars if sarkozy needs some "success" for his domestic messy politics.
    conclusion:
    uncontrolled personal ambition + social isolation/desintegration = going boom for nothing?
    in my eyes the state (democratic/communist/whatever else) is the illusionary promise of safety and protection even for the weak and helpless individuals living under it's rules - abused and taken over by a subculture of selfdeclared experts and dogooders still claiming that their version of organized living together isn't really the best, but still the most effective, eagerly covering up the incapacitation of able human beings and if necessary their suppression and disfranchisement with the illusionary general agreement that the effects justify the means and everybody can go for the top too.

    eric harris and dylan klebold were teenagers heading towards a life in promised-only equal opportunities and personal freedom, but badly slapped back into the line by the reality and the imminent hypocrisy that "the effects justify the means" still supports only the toughest, the bullies and those with opportunities to keep the weaker individuals from claiming their share at the bullies expense.
    from this viewpoint harris and klebold are victims too - but with the given circumstances i have no doubt that they would have been perfect bullies themselves, if only given the chance to rise far enough.
     
  18. Bentheanarchist

    BentheanarchistExperienced Member Experienced member


    936

    1

    66

    Dec 10, 2010
     
    Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold were a product of the school system. The jocks bullied them and the school did nothing about it because the school is meant to conform. They weren't Neo-Nazis like the mainstream media says they were and Eric Harris was jewish. Like most terrorists; theyre motives were to start a revolution. as a response to the state.
     
  19. Inna Ruts

    Inna RutsExperienced Member Experienced member


    71

    0

    0

    Nov 22, 2011
     
    which school system?
    the official one trying to "produce" future good citizens by educating them in the socio-cultural-political standards of the society they are part of, like supporting the weak, defending the attacked ect.?
    or:
    the sub-youth culture of competeting peer groups bringing up the student pecking order often conflicting with the constitutional social principles of tolerance, community, non-violence ect.?
    conform to what - the pecking order breeding out a possible massacre-excess? how much of the mess happening every day did made it's way to the people in charge of the school, the teachers and social workers?
    and an old question: why always waiting for the cavalry to arrive if someone is bullied or other shit happens?
    any evidence for this? i remember this norvegian murder idiot wanted to make "a statement" to the public and still gives the wise visionary from the wastelands - but these two teenagers too?
     
  20. Bentheanarchist

    BentheanarchistExperienced Member Experienced member


    936

    1

    66

    Dec 10, 2010
     
    They wanted to start a revolution against bullies at school by killing so many people that it would cause public outrage and they would martyrs to bullied kids. It is Columbine highschools fault for the massacre because the jocks bullied kids in front of the teachers and principal but the school did not do anything about it in the name of "school spirit". They suceeded in gaining martrydom from bullied and abused kids and teens; just look at what happened at Virginia Tech. Columbine also had weapons factories and bomb compounds, so it is no suprise where they learned how to make bombs and shoot guns and plant bombs. The pharmaceutical companies also had an effect on the massacre. Erik Harris had been taking Luvox(Fluvoxamine); an anti-depressant at the time of the shooting and wanted to join the United States Army but was rejected because he was taking Luvox. The side-effects of the drug include increased agression, loss of remorse, depersonalization, and mania. One of the columbine victims is now sueing The company that produced luvox.