I found Michael Moore's arguments tonight on the Rachel Maddow Show weak

[krispos42]

It went something like this:

"Most of the guns owned by people are in suburban and rural areas, areas that have low crime rates. Why do those people there need more guns?"


Point A. This would seem to negate the "more guns=more crime" argument, or, if the argument is true, makes it a minor player when compared to education, income, and policing levels.

Point B. This would also seem to add credibility to the idea that law-abiding people owning lots of guns does not contribute, and may actually decrease, the crime rate.

Point C. Moore seems to suggest that there should be some relationship between crime rates and gun ownership rates. That when crimes go up, gun ownership should go up, and when crimes go down, gun ownership should go down. However, when crime levels rise, the inclination of Moore and other gun-control proponents is to make it harder to get guns. Witness the requirements to purchase any gun in New York City, Boston, Washington DC, Chicago, Los Angeles, San Francisco, etc., much less get a concealed-carry permit.


Point D. If honest people own guns in large numbers and this has the effect of lowering the crime rate, why would those same people then divest themselves of said guns?

Let me put it another way... in the early 1990's, New York City Mayor Dinkins pushed for and got a program to almost double the size of the NYPD. He lost in 1993 to Guiliani, who then (wrongly) got the credit for a steep decline in crime in NYC during his terms in office. Now that the crime rate is low, what would be the likely effect of slashing the NYPD's ranks by 40%?

Wouldn't it make far more sense to maintain the ranks of the NYPD to keep crime low, than to say "Oh, look, murder is down by 60%, let's get rid of half the cops"?




So that's it for now. I don't like knocking Michael Moore; he does an excellent job as a documentary film-maker and political activist. His last three films have been excellent. Nonetheless, get the impression that he has a feeling that things simply have to get better if fewer people own guns and structures his thinking and arguments accordingly.

I would like to add, also, that Rachel did mention last Friday that the Tuscan shooter would still have been able to buy a used 31-round magazine even if the 1993 ban was still in effect. It was in passing and during an interview, but she did mention it and I want to acknowledge that she did.

[pipoman]

1. But were they as weak as Rachel's, last week?

[krispos42]

3. Difficult to compare

Rachel was avoiding inconvenient facts. Michael was stating accurate facts but drawing conclusions that are not reasonable, but said in a reasonable tone with an illusion of reasonableness.

[pipoman]

8. I tend to like both

The problem with all of the pundit shows, left or right, is the absence of intelligent debate.

[RandomThoughts]

2. Thanks.

(continued from other thread)

The reason some want to get rid of education, is they think of knowledge as power, or a weapon. The thought of dumbing down schools or society is to try and keep order in an unjust system. Part of downward spiral.

Makes sense.


So the argument for dumb tv, or education that is memorization or to the test, not how to think and learn, is because thinking people, if available to everyone, will correct problems in society. And the problems don't want that, since they are the problems.


Bill may be working for better education, so not about Bill, again I would not know his motives from some posts on some web site.

[Katya Mullethov]

5. Bill has finally found a perfect avocation

Filleting the bones from ice cream in a clown abattoir .

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[napi21]

6. The tragedy in AZ, and all the others doesn't have anything to do with guns or the number of them.

It's all to do with the American society believing that violence is the only solution to their problems. It appears that the majority of Americans believe it's OK to settle their grievances with a punch i the nose or a shot in the head. I'm not sure if this is something relatively new, or if it's a carryover from the days of the wild west. Whatever the cause, the only way I an imagine the hatred & violence to stop is to transform the thinking of our own people.

[spin]

12. The tragedy in AZ has to do with how we recognize and treat serious mental insanity ...

Violence in America has been decreasing for years.

[SteveM]

14. Please try to see the debate in another light...

"It appears that the majority of Americans believe it's OK to settle their grievances with a punch in the nose or a shot in the head."

I really don't think most Americans believe as you do, though I would rather see a few fisticuffs whenever some blow-hole right-winger seeks to bully another (all-too-willing) "liberal/socialist/communist." Might make a few of those blowhards straighten up a little.

I think liberals or the "Left" (whatever that is) might be better served if they engaged in a little push-back; as it is now, Obama, The Democratic Party, and MSM want NOTHING to do with "the Left," and waste no time in constructing Jerry-built "false equivalences" to appease the extreme Right.

[old mark]

7. I missed it on purpose. I don't like anti-gun festivals that continuously

rehash the same tired old lies. I used to think highly of Ms. Maddow till this issue crossed her desk.I have not watched her program recently, and probably will not do so anytime soon.
Mr. Moore made some great movies, but I don't understand why so many people believe he has all the answers to every problem.He is a film maker and not necessarily a sage.

mark

[SteveM]

15. I'm afraid these 2 commentators are still deeply wedded to culture war...

and not to solving social problems with effective social policy. Perhaps it is the only way they can somehow get back at what they envisage as the Far Right. Jeez, I could think of a dozen other issues, but they choose to sling gasoline about while smoking.

[one-eyed fat man]

9. Tuscan shooter ?

The Mafia do something in Italy again?



http://www.discovertuscany.com/

[krispos42]

16. Bah, the founders of Tucsan deserve all the scorn they get...

...for their tragic misspelling!

[Katya Mullethov]

18. And their ghastly housing shortage

Can't find as much as a broom closet for rent . Don't even try .

[ProgressiveProfessor]

10. Moore actually validated that many gun laws are racist and classist with his comments

Why so many antis support such laws and then claim to be liberal is beyond me.

[Flyboy_451]

11. I have never been a fan of either Maddow or Moore

Probably because I am not a fan of any outlet that pushes a particular view. Political commentators may present news stories, but it is rare that they are presented in a manner that would be considered unbiased. What is the point of collecting news from a source that is obviously biased to a particular view? I prefer news, not opinions.

Rachel Maddow and Micheal Moore have both demonstrated that they have no particular interest in actual facts with regard to this issue. In Moore's "Bowling For Columbine", Moore blatantly uses half truths, misinformation, creative editing, and outright lies to forward an agenda. Calling his work a documentary, let alone presenting an Academy Award as such, is an abomination of the idea of documentaries. IF this is the best that can be done by the proponents of gun control, they deserve to lose the issue due to blatant stupidity.

Rachel Maddow immediately got on the air and went into a rant about every urban legend and false premise that has been shown false over the last twenty years. She has demonstrated that she is less interested in being honest than being sensationalized. Whether a person, or a small group of people, agree with her is not a particularly powerful argument for her integrity. Having seen how she has attempted to distort truth with regard to this issue, why should we not question her integrity regarding other issues?

We live in an age that enjoys the ability to gather and review information with far more ease than we have ever seen. I would guess that both Maddow and Moore have staff members to assist in research. If this is true, there are only two possibilities. Their researchers are either incompetent or they have chosen to spread lies to forward an agenda. I think I will look for my information from sources with at least some shred of journalistic integrity. It seems that, on this issue at least, Maddow is in short supply, and has now brought Moore in as her ringer. This makes me question how smart she is, as a whole.

Just my two cents....

JW

[X_Digger]

13. The other thing that was not very honest..

.. were Moore's argument about home invasions.

Paraphrasing, since I didn't bother to check the transcript:

Moore said that there were only 500 or home invasion murders, therefore there wasn't a need to have a gun.

How about home invasion rapes? Home invasion assaults?

The problem with his assertion that only Michigan specifically records 'home invasions'.

In every other state, they get recorded as robberies, homicides, assaults, rapes, etc etc etc.

If you look a the UCR details, there are ~450,000 robberies of a residence at night. There were 90,000 rapes, 70% happen in the victim's home.


Disingenuous at best.

[krispos42]

17. Good catch. I thought the number seemed a bit low n/t