I'm a newbie, pro gun, and ready for the Gungeon!

[texasdem99]

Hello! I'm new to DU, been lurking for a couple of months. I'm a very pro gun ex military dem.


I have a feeling that my opinions will not be very popular here.

I've got my flame retardant bullet proof vest on!


As the Smirk in Chief would say, "Bring em' on!"

[kalian]

1. Heh!

Welcome. :hi:

I too am pro-gun...but its not worth my time trying to debate with
folks that should know better than mess with my (our) rights.
You'll never convince them...so what's the point? Preach to the
choir?

Anyways...have fun and don't get yourself banned too quickly... ;)

[yardwork]

2. Some of us were just talking about the gun issue

on another thread.

I think you will meet quite a few people here who think that the Dems should drop gun-control as an issue because it is so divisive and appears to have helped cost Gore the last election.

I will say that I have been pro-gun control all my life, but I'm ready to drop the issue on the national level and let states take it up on the local level.

There's no question in my mind that W is a bigger threat to Americans than the great majority of people who own guns.

[Mr. McD]

3. There are others here that are pro gun

I am one.

[AngryYoungMan]

4. There are lots of pro-gun people here. LOTS.

I'm constantly surprised. I'm personally anti-gun but I'd rather debate DUers than anyone else.

[mstrsplinter326]

5. Watch bowling for columbine

Being pro-gun isn't necessarily bad (ask Canada), being anti-gun isn't necessarily good (ask England).

Being an American with a gun has a history of not turning out well. That's not a criticism of you, we just have more carelessness and crime with guns. I can't say I know why, that's just the way it is. I hope you don't find too many enemies here. I don't want to be one.

[FeebMaster]

6. What do you mean?

"Being an American with a gun has a history of not turning out well."

[mstrsplinter326]

8. Our per capita gun violence/murder rate puts us...

in the top ten worst of the 'developed nations,' or something like that. I'll find you some numbers if you need, but I know that's pretty close to correct.

of course I am not refering to military use of weapons in anyway. I hope that's clear.

[FeebMaster]

10. Yes I would like numbers.

Number of guns in the country. Number of gun owners. Number of murders. Number of murders directly related to the war on drugs.

Why would I think you were referring to military use of weapons? You said:

"Being pro-gun isn't necessarily bad (ask Canada), being anti-gun isn't necessarily good (ask England).

Being an American with a gun has a history of not turning out well. That's not a criticism of you, we just have more carelessness and crime with guns. I can't say I know why, that's just the way it is. I hope you don't find too many enemies here. I don't want to be one."

[Lefty48197]

30. I'm surprised one of the gun nuts hasn't posted one of those

"BFC is a bunch of lies!" links.

[jimsteuben]

16. international comparison of murder rates

Taiwan, Mexico, Jamaica and Brazil all have far stricter gun control laws than the US has, and far higher murder rates.

If you want to combine the murder and the suicide rates and make international comparison of the US, Canada, Israel and Europe, then you find that there are 11 countries with higher combined murder/suicide rates than the US. See _Armed: New Perspectives on GUn COntrol_ by Kleck and Kates.

BTW, I saw _Bowling for Columbine_. Moments of insight interspaced with rampant dishonesty. Lots of problems with that film. See http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html

[mstrsplinter326]

20. So were 12th worst -- I STILL WON'T TAKE YOUR GUN AWAY

12th worst among 40 or 50 developed nations? Not great by a long shot. I'm not going to defend MM, his web site will verify all the facts of the movie, and where he obtained them.

Why do we shoot ourselves more than gun loving Canadians?

I think your graphic should read, "Only one of these ladies accidentally shot their husband or kid when they approached their rooms in the dark."
-or-
"Only one of these two mothers' kids shot a friend after school one day."

I'm not saying I want hand guns banned. But those two above mentioned scenes are just as likely as being broken into.

Not to mention your graphic spreads fear, is that what you want to do in the post 9-11 society. Spread fear?? Bush isn't doing enough of that, so go ahead, tell me my numbers are slightly off or you've had your house broken into. I'm not going to take your gun away.

I just want to restate: Americans shoot each other 11,000+ times a year. That's bad. That's it, nothing more...

[FeebMaster]

21. Right.

"I think your graphic should read, "Only one of these ladies accidentally shot their husband or kid when they approached their rooms in the dark."
-or-
"Only one of these two mothers' kids shot a friend after school one day."

I'm not saying I want hand guns banned. But those two above mentioned scenes are just as likely as being broken into."

How about some numbers?

[mstrsplinter326]

24. www.michaelmoore.com

www.amazon.com -
Watch the movie or visit the site. You'll see what I mean. 11,000+ deaths per year.

I have a midterm to study for, I'll probably take a break again in an hour. See what you can't find out by then.

[FeebMaster]

27. Sure thing.

I'll order Michael Moore's movie right up and watch it before you get back. :eyes:

You brought up 2 situations you thought were more likely than the linked picture. What does that have to do with 11,000+ gun deaths per year?

As I recall from the last discussion on accidental gun deaths, it worked out to around 2 a day, so around 700-800 a year.

Your 11,000+ includes murders. How many of those murders were directly related to the War on Drugs?

[jimsteuben]

28. Excellent questions

>Why do we shoot ourselves more than gun loving Canadians?

Just so that I understand, you are asking why America suffers from a higher rate of violent crime, right?

In 2001, there were 20,308 homicides in the US. In 11,348, the killer used a firearm. http://webapp.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_sy.html

The use of life-threatening violence in the United States "is, in fact, largely restricted to a criminal class and embedded in a general pattern of criminal behaviour." This is abundantly documented by homicide studies so numerous and consistent that their findings have now become criminological axioms. See _armed: New Perspectives on Gun COntrol by Gary Kleck and Don Kates. Roughly 90 percent of adult murders had previous adult criminal records.

A very small number of people commit a large amount of violent crime. Most homicides in the US are drug-related in that they are the result of drug deals gone bad, fights over turf, and the like.

Bookmark this site. http://www.a-human-right.com/

[iverglas]

48. hm?

Why do we shoot ourselves more than gun loving Canadians?

Just so that I understand, you are asking why America suffers from a higher rate of violent crime, right?

Why would you say that you "understand" the question thus? I sure don't.

.

[jimsteuben]

51. "shooting ourselves"?

"We" do not "shoot ourselves." I have never shot anyone.

His question was poorly formulated. I believe his question was, why is it that the US has a higher rate of violent crime than Canada?

[iverglas]

54. I still don't get it (ed.)

Why would you represent a comment that contained the expression "shooting ourselves" -- and don't tell me you're having problems with collective noun thingies too -- as referring to, and ONLY to, violent crime?

C'mon now. I'll bet you can come up with examples of a group of people "shooting itself" (you know there's no pronoun for a group of people referring to itself in the aggregate -- "we" has to stand in, and obviously the action is an action on the part of individual members of the collective committing it against other individual members, amounting to some of "us" (you) shooting others of "us" ...) that have nothing to do with violent crime.

Suicides, negligent homicides, accidental shootings, shootings by children too young to have criminal responsibility. Even criminal shootings (e.g. of women by their intimate partners) that really just aren't connected with that criminal subculture of yours.

If you can't answer a question, it's probably wiser just to click on by than to attempt to reframe it and hope that nobody notices.

(edited to add missing word)

[jimsteuben]

58. "shooting ourselves"?

Inverglas asked:
Why would you represent a comment that contained the expression "shooting ourselves" -- and don't tell me you're having problems with collective noun thingies too -- as referring to, and ONLY to, violent crime?

That's why I asked mstrsplinter326 what he meant. First he asked "Why do we shoot ourselves more than gun loving Canadians?"

"Shooting ourselves." Does that mean homicides, suicides, accidents? All three combined?

Then later in the same post he asked "I just want to restate: Americans shoot each other 11,000+ times a year."

11,000 per year is the number of deaths in the US in 2001 in which a firearm was the tool used. (11,348 deaths, to be exact.) That's why I referenced violent crime in my post responding to mstrsplinter326.

Is this clear to you now?

[iverglas]

47. uh ... where's that comparison?

Taiwan, Mexico, Jamaica and Brazil all have far stricter gun control laws than the US has, and far higher murder rates.

Wow. The US has lower murder rates than Taiwan, Mexico, Jamaica and Brazil. Is that really whom you want to be comparing yourselves to??

Can we leave off the gun control laws straw fella? Firearms control legislation is one element of firearms control -- enforcement of that legislation is obviously a rather important 'nother element. (Lack of enforcement can result from lack of will or lack of ability, it's still lack of enforcement.)

So where's the comparison? No, I'm not gonna go order a book by Gary Kleck, thankee. The claim was made:

If you want to combine the murder and the suicide rates and make international comparison of the US, Canada, Israel and Europe, then you find that there are 11 countries with higher combined murder/suicide rates than the US.

Somebody gonna substantiate it?

And perhaps make the argument for comparing the US to "Taiwan, Mexico, Jamaica and Brazil" rather than to, oh, Canada, Australia, the UK and France? Hell, I'm sure that the US compares favourably to those countries in a whole lot of ways, but that's hardly something that *I* would be likely to boast about.

(html fixed)

.

[jimsteuben]

76. intnational comparisons

Somebody gonna substantiate it?

U.N. Demographics.


Did you know that Vermont has a lower murder rate than Canada? Vermont has the least restrictive gun laws in the entire US of A.

Any idea why?

[jimsteuben]

79. "someone gonna substantiate it?" yes, allow me

Somebody gonna substantiate it?

U.N. Demographics.

Cross-national crime comparisons are always a bit problematic as different nations gather crime statistics differently, also they have different histories and cultures.

Let's look at comparisons between states within the US.

Vermont has the least restrictive gun laws in the entire U.S. of A. Any adult who isn't a felon or an otherwise disabled person under federal law can carry a handgun - concealed or openly. No license, no registration, no 15-day waiting period.

According to gun control theory, Vermont should be an extremely dangerous place.

According to crime statistics gathered by the FBI, it is in fact one of the safest states in the union, ranking 3rd right behind North Dakota and Maine, and right before South Dakota, Idaho, and Wyoming. (All six of these states enjoy a high degree of Second Amendment freedom.)

Vermont's murder rate of 1.5 per 100,000 is lower than Canada's.

Any idea why?

New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, and Washington, D.C., have the strictest gun control laws in the US. They also suffer from extraordinarily high rates of violent crime. Washington, D.C., passed the strictest gun control laws in the country in 1977 and saw its murder rate skyrocket since then.

The murder rate in the District of Corruption is about eight times as high as in gun-friendly Virginia just across the river, where Virginians can legally sell each other handguns without background checks or waiting periods. Virginians also can carry concealed weapons.

In New Jersey the murder rate per 100,000 in 1998 was 4.0. Recall that Vermont doesn't even require a permit to carry a concealed weapon, while New Jersey has very restrictive gun laws. Pay attention to Vermont’s 13.4 per 100,000 robbery rate and contrast it to New Jersey’s 309 per 100,000 robbery rate. New Jersey’s robbery rate is twenty times higher than Vermont.

Still focused on the guns?

Have you seen Michael Moore's film, Bowling for Columbine? Despite all his dishonesty and cheap shots, even Moore reaches the conclusion at the end of the film that America's violent crime problem is not a function of its high gun ownership.

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/

[iverglas]

80. it just ain't that hard

If you want to combine the murder and the suicide rates and make international comparison of the US, Canada, Israel and Europe, then you find that there are 11 countries with higher combined murder/suicide rates than the US. See _Armed: New Perspectives on GUn COntrol_ by Kleck and Kates.

Yup, cross-national comparisons of crime stats *can* be difficult because of various factors. For instance, Canada no longer has a crime called "rape"; we have a crime called "sexual assault" (with degrees based on level of violence, injury, use of weapon, etc.) So that one's really hard to compare ... which hasn't stopped people claiming that Canada's rate of "rape" is way higher than in other places.

But homicide? That one doesn't seem to be difficult at all. As I thought to myself all those years ago when I was losing consciousness ... either there's a dead body, or there isn't.

And nobody (i.e. not me) was asking anybody to cross-tab homicide rates by legisiation, or the Gini index, or anything else. Although it's interesting that here, somebody's talking about the "combined murder/suicide rate" when it's more common for somebodies not to want to hear/talk about suicide rates, I must say.

And ... anybody else wondering whether there's some gender confusion going on in the gun dungeon?

Those poor angry white men ... they just don't make cute poster children, do they?


Did you know that Vermont has a lower murder rate than Canada? Vermont has the least restrictive gun laws in the entire US of A.
Any idea why?

Several. None of which would provide a sound basis for arguing for the elimination of firearms control measures, or against the implementation of firearms control measures, either there or in non-comparable other places.

I mean, unless someone were planning a Pol Pot-like approach to social problems in the US.

.

[jimsteuben]

84. Speaking of Pol Pot

He supported reasonable gun control, as did Hitler, Stalin, and Mao. In just about every country where genocide has occurred, the perpetrators have first disarmed their future victims.

See _Death by Gun Control: The Human Cost of Victim Disarmament_ by Aaron Zelman and Richard Stevens.

[texasdem99]

12. Michael Moore? Wheeee! Here we go...

Yes, I've seen "Bowling."

In my opinion, Moore is the Ann Coulter of the left. When things don't suit the point he's trying to make, he distorts them so that they do.

Such as handing out a gun right in front of the bank when there was actually a waiting period. Hey, it looked good on camera, right?

Accosting a senile Charlton Heston.

Saying that the Lockheed plant made missles when they made something harmless like satellites. Please don't ask me to find links for all of these, they're well documented.

He does more to help the gun cause then he does to hurt it. His credibility's a joke. He's just preaching to the choir, for the most part.

(Cue ominous music, Pete Puma dons his vest and waits for the inevitable flame onslaught)

[papau]

17. I forgot to mention - at DU everthing will be challenged via cites/links

http://www.michaelmoore.com/

http://www.bowlingforcolumbine.com/library/teachers/index.php

http://www.bowlingforcolumbine.com/reviews/index.php

http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/wackoattacko/

How to Deal with the Lies and the Lying Liars When They Lie about "Bowling for Columbine"
by Michael Moore

One thing you get used to when you're in what's called "the public eye" is reading the humorous fiction that others like to write about you. For instance, I have read in quite respectable and trustworthy publications that a) I'm a college graduate (I'm not), b) I was a factory worker (I quit the first day), and c) I have two brothers (I have none). Newsweek wrote that I live in a penthouse on Central Park West (I live above a Baby Gap store, and not on any park), and the Internet Movie Database once listed me as the director of the Elvis movie, "Blue Hawaii" ( I was 6 at the time the film was made, but I was quite skilled in directing my sisters in building me a snowman). Lately, my favorite mistake is the one many reviewers made crediting the cartoon in "Bowling for Columbine" as being the work of the "South Park" creators. It isn't. I wrote it and my buddy Harold Moss's animation studio drew it.

I've enjoyed reading these inventions/mistakes about this "Michael Moore." I mean, who wouldn't want to fantasize about living in penthouses roughhousing with brothers you never had. But lately I've begun to see so many things about me or my work that aren't true. It's become so easy to spread these fictions through the internet (thanks mostly to lazy reporters or web junkies who do all their research by typing in "key words" and then just repeat the same mistakes). And so I wonder that if I don't correct the record, then all of the people who don't know better may just end up being filled with a bunch of stuff that isn't true. <snip>



So, how crazy are the things they've said about "Bowling for Columbine?" Here are my favorites:

"That scene where you got the gun in the bank was staged!"
Well of course it was staged! It's a movie! We built the "bank" as a set and then I hired actors to play the bank tellers and the manager and we got a toy gun from the prop department and then I wrote some really cool dialogue for me and them to say! Pretty neat, huh?

Or...

The Truth: In the spring of 2001, I saw a real ad in a real newspaper in Michigan announcing a real promotion that this real bank had where they would give you a gun (as your up-front interest) for opening up a Certificate of Deposit account. They promoted this in publications all over the country – "More Bang for Your Buck!"

There was news coverage of this bank giving away guns, long before I even shot the scene there. The Chicago Sun Times wrote about how the bank would "hand you a gun" with the purchase of a CD. Those are the precise words used by a bank employee in the film.

When you see me going in to the bank and walking out with my new gun in "Bowling for Columbine" – that is exactly as it happened. Nothing was done out of the ordinary other than to phone ahead and ask permission to let me bring a camera in to film me opening up my account. I walked into that bank in northern Michigan for the first time ever on that day in June 2001, and, with cameras rolling, gave the bank teller $1,000 – and opened up a 20-year CD account. After you see me filling out the required federal forms ("How do you spell Caucasian?") – which I am filling out here for the first time – the bank manager faxed it to the bank's main office for them to do the background check. The bank is a licensed federal arms dealer and thus can have guns on the premises and do the instant background checks (the ATF's Federal Firearms database—which includes all federally approved gun dealers—lists North Country Bank with Federal Firearms License #4-38-153-01-5C-39922).

Within 10 minutes, the "OK" came through from the firearms background check agency and, 5 minutes later, just as you see it in the film, they handed me a Weatherby Mark V Magnum rifle (If you'd like to see the outtakes, click here).

And it is that very gun that I still own to this day. I have decided the best thing to do with this gun is to melt it down into a bust of John Ashcroft and auction it off on E-Bay (more details on that later). All the proceeds will go to The Brady Campaign To Prevent Gun Violence to fight all these lying gun nuts who have attacked my film and make it possible on a daily basis for America's gun epidemic to rage on.

Here's another whopper I've had to listen to from the pro-gun groups:

"The Lockheed factory in Littleton, Colorado, has nothing to do with weapons of mass destruction!"
That's right! That big honkin' rocket sitting behind the Lockheed spokesman in "Bowling for Columbine"-- the one with "US AIRFORCE" written on it in BIG ASS letters – well, I admit it, I snuck in and painted that on that Titan IV rocket when Lockheed wasn't looking! After all, those rockets were only being used for the Weather Channel! Ha Ha Ha! I sure fooled everyone!!

Or....

The Truth: Lockheed Martin is the largest weapons-maker in the world. The Littleton facility has been manufacturing missiles, missile components, and other weapons systems for almost half a century. In the 50s, workers at the Littleton facility constructed the first Titan intercontinental ballistic missile, designed to unleash a nuclear warhead on the Soviet Union; in the mid-80s, they were partially assembling MX missiles, instruments for the minuteman ICBM, a space laser weapon called Zenith Star, and a Star Wars program known as Brilliant Pebbles.

In the full, unedited interview I did with the Lockheed spokesman, he told me that Lockheed started building nuclear missiles in Littleton and "played a role in the development of Peacekeeper MX Missiles."

As for what's currently manufactured in Littleton, McCollum told me, "They (the rockets sitting behind him) carry mainly very large national security satellites, some we can't talk about." (see him say it here)

Since that interview, the Titan IV rockets manufactured in Littleton have been critical to the war effort in both Afghanistan and Iraq. These rockets launched advanced satellites that were "instrumental in providing command-and-control operations over Iraq...for the rapid targeting of Navy Tomahawk cruise missiles involved in Iraqi strikes and clandestine communications with Special Operations Forces." (view source here).

That Lockheed lets the occasional weather or TV satellite hitch a ride on one of its rockets should not distract anyone from Lockheed's main mission and moneymaker in Littleton: to make instruments that help kill people. That two of Littleton's children decided to engineer their own mass killing is what these guys and the Internet crazies don't want to discuss.

The oddest of all the smears thrown at "Bowling for Columbine" is this one:

"The film depicts NRA president Charlton Heston giving a speech near Columbine; he actually gave it a year later and 900 miles away. The speech he did give is edited to make conciliatory statements sound like rudeness."
Um, yeah, that's right! I made it up! Heston never went there! He never said those things!

Or....

The Truth: Heston took his NRA show to Denver and did and said exactly what we recounted. From the end of my narration setting up Heston's speech in Denver, with my words, "a big pro-gun rally," every word out of Charlton Heston's mouth was uttered right there in Denver, just 10 days after the Columbine tragedy. But don't take my word – read the transcript of his whole speech. Heston devotes the entire speech to challenging the Denver mayor and mocking the mayor's pleas that the NRA "don't come here." Far from deliberately editing the film to make Heston look worse, I chose to leave most of this out and not make Heston look as evil as he actually was. <snip>

[texasdem99]

19. Um, sorry, using Michael Moore to refute distortions by Michael Moore

Doesn't really change my opinion.


His explanation of the scene at the bank is particularly priceless. Yes, he walked out of the bank with the gun. But only after he's challenged about whether or not the bank did a background check or not does he mention that yes, indeed, the bank did a background check. Why not mention that in the film? Simple. That's not the way he wants it to look...Looks better if he just walks in and walks out with a gun.

That's what I mean by distortions. Not outright lies, but twisting the truth.

Here's a link from the Chronicle detailing some of his other hypocricies.

Granted, it doesn't have anything to do with Columbine. But it gives you insight into the man's character, which leads me to question anything he puts forth as his version of the truth.

You'll never convince me on Moore, because I simply don't believe he's genuine.

Bowling for Credibility:

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2003/10/30/EDG0R2LB101.DTL

[papau]

26. Bank did do a 5 minute "background" check - and it is not mentioned

in film as I recall.

Score a point for your point that Moore is telling partial truths. And Indeed I do not like partial truths at Fox and the GOP and at the NRA with their Social Scientist studies funded by the NRA and then quoted by the NRA - so there is no way I like it in Moore.

But in world of relative honesty, the complaints about Bowling seem a con - but that is just my opinion. :-)

Meanwhile Moore invites negative email to his site - and if you choose to confront him, I'd love to see you post the exchange!!

Meanwhile, the DJS stats that he quotes seem to hold up over time - but that is just my memory. I am into hunting as a way for non-rich to get meat - although being "poor" is no longer a reason for me, field butchering is something I think every hunter should learn - if only to save his back getting the meat home after a deer hunt!

I realize a lot of folks do not sweat meat - a lot of friends kill a day shooting rats at the dump! That is just not me.

Thanks for the response.

:-)

[texasdem99]

32. No, thank you for a polite discussion

And I will give you this--it's not like there isn't a shred of truth to anything Moore says. He's not a stupid guy and he has some interesting arguments, and the people that listen and believe him are not exactly fools.

I just hate propaganda, from either side of the issue, (Mary Rosh, anyone?) I like facts. Propaganda weakens the overall argument, because when the truth is distorted, then the whole argument is flawed.

Thanks!

[Columbia]

41. The bank scene

http://www.dailyvidette.com/news/413482.html


That we would give out guns in the bank is very untrue,” Helen Steinman, the customer service representative seen greeting Moore in the bank, explained when I contacted her in February.

“Under the account Moore opened, instead of getting interest on a CD, you get a gun,” Steinman continued. “But before you get the gun, there’s a ton of paperwork that has to be done. We have to do the background check. There has to be a designated place where you pick up the gun - at a gun shop.

“You can’t just come in here and get a gun.”

Nor does the bank “just hand you the gun,” Steinman added. “No way - no way. That was very misrepresentative on Moore’s part.”

Steinman said the bank, “didn’t realize Moore would be insinuating what he insinuated. He was only supposed to be coming in and pretending to open up a CD. What the girl who opened up the account really told him was that there would be a background check and that he wouldn’t get the gun for six weeks.”

[iverglas]

50. actually

As I recall, the film included a clear statement that the bank is a registered firearms dealer, or authorized dealer, or licensed dealer, or whatever those things are called.

Why would anyone imagine that he was then trying to portray the bank as not having complied with the requirements that such dealers are subject to -- such as doing a background check? Surely if it *hadn't* done that, it would have been news and he would have mentioned it.

Dog bites man ...

.

[iverglas]

49. and another thing you might note

Um, sorry, using Michael Moore to refute distortions by Michael Moore
Doesn't really change my opinion.

... is that using ad personam "argument" doesn't impress anyone. Your opinion about a source is not rebuttal of what the source says.

Nor does petitio principi - begging the question. Your assertion that Michael Moore committed "distortions", and a recitation of alleged "distortions" without proof of them followed by a claim that his statements don't refuge the allegations, is not evidence, let alone proof, of any distortions.

You're the one making the claims. Over to you, now. Substantiate or look unable or unwilling to put your money where your mouth is. And don't be flattering yerself about flames; neither your nor your opinion (nor anyone else's, of course) is that important to much of anybody.

.

[texasdem99]

71. You can google "Columbine" and "Distortions" and get all kinds of articles

The first is from Spinsanity, which I think is usually pretty bipartisan, or at least tries to be:

http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20021119.html

Plus a host of other references that are, admittedly, from more of a rightward perspective. But then again, just because they might be from a right wing source, it doesn't mean that it's categorically not true, right?

"... is that using ad personam "argument" doesn't impress anyone. Your opinion about a source is not rebuttal of what the source says."

[jimsteuben]

23. Heston's speeches

Watch this part of the film and listen very carefully. Moore took parts of different speeches by Heston and edited them together. You can tell this directly from the audio. His cadence is different, the background noise is different, Heston even appears wearing different clothing in the different edits. This part of the film nails Moore because you do not need to take anyone's word for anything. Just roll the film and pay attention.

Moore claims that after the shooting of Kayla Rolland at Mt. Morris, MI, Heston rushed out to Flint, "to have a big pro-gun rally." Not at all true.

Fact: Heston's speech was given at a "get out the vote" rally in Flint, which was held when elections rolled by some eight months after the shooting ( Feb. 29 vs Oct. 17, 2000).

Fact: Bush and Gore were then both in the Flint area, trying to gather votes. Moore himself had been hosting rallies for Green Party candidate Nader in Flint a few weeks before.

[iverglas]

52. and how dumb would an audience have to be

Moore took parts of different speeches by Heston and edited them together. You can tell this directly from the audio. His cadence is different, the background noise is different, Heston even appears wearing different clothing in the different edits.

... not to have noticed *that*?? Did Moore represent the clips as comprising a single event? I didn't notice ...


Fact: Heston's speech was given at a "get out the vote" rally in Flint, which was held when elections rolled by some eight months after the shooting ( Feb. 29 vs Oct. 17, 2000).

Fact: Bush and Gore were then both in the Flint area, trying to gather votes. Moore himself had been hosting rallies for Green Party candidate Nader in Flint a few weeks before.

Mm hmm. And which of them took the opportunity, and a fine and appropriate one it was, to do what Heston did?

.

[jimsteuben]

63. Moore has talent

... not to have noticed *that*?? Did Moore represent the clips as comprising a single event? I didn't notice ...

I noticed it, although the way in which Moore quickly cut from one scene to another was very crafty.

If you have any doubt, watch the film again. Also, check out David Hardy's website and you can see pictures from the film which demonstrate this.

http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html

[MrBenchley]

67. It's a small world after all.....

This hardylaw ass is a guy who's proud to have been published on Free Republic....

[mstrsplinter326]

22. Just read the info on MM's site

everything was and still is verified. The plant made missiles. The bank gave him a gun, etc...

if heston is senile, how come he leads the nation's gun lovers? What does that say about the NRA. Why did he speak the day after a young girl got shot in her home town in Michigan. Why did he try to lie after the movie came out about the circumstances of the speech, and even when it occurred?

[jimsteuben]

25. the answers

"if heston is senile, how come he leads the nation's gun lovers?"

He doesn't. The current president of NRA is Kayne Robinson.

>Why did he speak the day after a young girl got shot in her home town in Michigan.

He didn't. Heston's speech was given at a "get out the vote" rally in Flint, which was held when elections rolled by some eight months after the shooting (Feb. 29 vs Oct. 17, 2000).

>Why did he try to lie after the movie came out about the circumstances of the speech, and even when it occurred?

Heston did not lie.

See "Bowling for Columbine: Documentary or Fiction?" by David T. Hardy
http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html

"Bowling Truths, Michael Moore’s mocking" by Dave Kopel
http://www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel040403.asp

"The Perils of Michael Moore, Political Criticism in an Age of Entertainment" by Kevin Mattson
http://www.dissentmagazine.org/menutest/articles/sp03/mattson.htm

"Michael Moore and The Awful Truth: Volume One" by Anthony Zoubek
http://www.dailyvidette.com/news/406627.html

http://www.mooreexposed.com/

[slackmaster]

45. I've got a big news flash for you

if heston is senile, how come he leads the nation's gun lovers?

Charlton Heston is no longer the president of the NRA.

[iverglas]

56. oh dear oh dear oh dear

Here's the statement that Pete Puma made:

When things don't suit the point he's trying to make, he distorts them so that they do.
Such as ... Accosting a senile Charlton Heston.

He was asked:

if heston is senile, how come he leads the nation's gun lovers?

and comes the answer:

I've got a big news flash for you
... Charlton Heston is no longer the president of the NRA.

C'mon, folks, follow the dots ... and let's not pretend they weren't there.

Pete Puma's statement was made about Charlton Heston IN THE FILM, at which time Heston WAS PRESIDENT OF THE NRA, asserting that he was senile AT THE TIME MOORE "ACCOSTED" HIM. (Isn't that what journalists do? Didn't he also in fact schedule an interview with him, which Heston granted and then walked out of?)

So c'mon, now. There was a question on the floor:

"What does that say about the NRA"?

.

[jimsteuben]

59. Heston

Heston's Alzheimer's set in *after* he became president of NRA.

[iverglas]

73. why do you do this?

Heston's Alzheimer's set in *after* he became president of NRA.

So the fucking hell what? WHAT has that got to do with the discussion taking place here?

Your pal Puma Pete was the one who raised the issue of Heston being senile
- AT THE TIME HE WAS "ACCOSTED" BY MOORE,
- AT THE TIME HE WAS THE PRESIDENT OF THE NRA.

What does when he became senile, or when he stopped being president of the NRA, have to do with what Puma Pete said and the question put to him in response?

I pointed out that when Heston stopped being president of the NRA was irrelevant to what he was when he was "accosted" by Moore.

Now I'll point out that when Heston became senile is irrelevant to what he was when he was "accosted" by Moore.

Are there any other red herrings you'd like to fling into the stew?

.

[slackmaster]

61. An answer to the question on the floor

"What does that say about the NRA"?

Not much.

[MrBenchley]

66. It says volumes about Moore's detractors, doesn't it?

And a brain-dead leader perfectly suits the extremist right wing NRA...

[texasdem99]

69. Who cares about the NRA?

They don't speak for me. I guess they serve a some sort of purpose, they are mostly a bunch of shilling lobbyists, IMO. Blind ideologues that are ultimately against any registration, licensing, or moderate restrictions at all.

My concern is with my existing right to own a firearm, which in my state, at least, is still an existing right.

"Senile" was mainly hyperbole on my part anyway, I meant to infer that when he was approached by Moore, he probably thought that it was some sort of regular interview, when Moore ambushed him and started grilling him on stuff. So he looked dopey on camera, because he was unprepared for the skewering.

I mean, come on! To split hairs and say that Heston was coming down with Alzheimer’s and therefore that discredits the NRA...

He was just a figurehead; a celebrity spokesperson that showed his mug in ads in National Rifleman as a celebrity endorsement.

Wayne Lapierre is the one who runs that show.

[iverglas]

72. my dear fellow

You raised the issue by making a statement. If you don't like what you said, it ain't nobody else's fault.

"Senile" was mainly hyperbole on my part anyway, I meant to infer that when he was approached by Moore, he probably thought that it was some sort of regular interview, when Moore ambushed him and started grilling him on stuff. So he looked dopey on camera, because he was unprepared for the skewering.

My goodness gracious me. Imagine, a journalist approaching a public figure with a camera and mike, a public figure who has no problem expressing his own controversial views in public and has years of practice at it, and grilling him. What is the world coming to?

I mean, come on! To split hairs and say that Heston was coming down with Alzheimer’s and therefore that discredits the NRA...

Excuuuuuse me. Who was it raised Heston's "senility" as an issue?

Is there some reason that it is improper to raise questions about an organization whose leadership cannot but have been aware of the issue, and the people who choose those leaders and allow them to speak on their behalf?

Would you have the same sort of thing to say about questions about Ronald Reagan's fitness?

He was just a figurehead; a celebrity spokesperson that showed his mug in ads in National Rifleman as a celebrity endorsement.

Nice try, no cigar.

.

[Columbia]

77. Appeal by verbosity?

You stated erroneously, "if heston is senile, how come he leads the nation's gun lovers?"

Slackmaster responded with a correction, "Charlton Heston is no longer the president of the NRA."

If you meant Heston at the time of the interview, you should've stated as such. However, you used "leads" in the present tense indicated your belief that he is currently the Pres of the NRA, which he is not.

Just admit your mistake and clarify, that's all there is to it.

[iverglas]

81. name that fallacy

You stated erroneously, "if heston is senile, how come he leads the nation's gun lovers?"

This one's really easy.

It's called "false assertion", I'd say.

'Cause *I* didn't state any such thing. Damn, those breadcrumbs seem to get eaten up fast around here ... except there they still are, plain as day and twice as whatever it is, right in this thread and subthread.

Here's the statement that Pete Puma made:

"When things don't suit the point he's trying to make, he distorts them so that they do.
Such as ... Accosting a senile Charlton Heston."

He was asked <***>:

if heston is senile, how come he leads the nation's gun lovers?

and comes the answer:

I've got a big news flash for you
... Charlton Heston is no longer the president of the NRA.

C'mon, folks, follow the dots ... and let's not pretend they weren't there.

<***> "He was asked" -- NOT BY ME.

So why anybody would say TO ME:

If you meant Heston at the time of the interview, you should've stated as such. However, you used "leads" in the present tense indicated your belief that he is currently the Pres of the NRA, which he is not.

Just admit your mistake and clarify, that's all there is to it.

... well, that's not for me to guess.

And why anybody would want to pretend that the question "if heston is senile, how come he leads the nation's gun lovers?" was asked just out of the blue and à propos of nothing, when the statement that IT WAS IN RESPONSE TO was right there in my post, and THAT STATEMENT was about Heston AT THE TIME OF THE INTERVIEW, so O-B-V-I-O-U-S-L-Y the issue of when Heston was head of the NRA and and when he wasn't head of the NRA is one great big giant red herring ... well, I have my theories.

So ... there's sure somebody here who needs to follow the advice to "Just admit your mistake and clarify, that's all there is to it." It just doesn't happen to be me.

.

[MrBenchley]

82. Yes, but....

if only you'd SEEN a gun, you'd feel much differently.....

Such is the lame standard that passes for serious "argument" nowadays among the Gotta Geta Gun fraternity.

Oh, and don't forget how "divisive" it is for liberals to publicly oppose some of the scummiest right wingers around.

[slackmaster]

85. So tell us, MrBenchley

Have YOU ever seen a gun?

Do you personally know someone who has been shot?

Have you ever been the victim of a crime in which a gun was used?

[metisnation]

7. I think I am gonna oil

my grand daddys 45 from fighting fascism in Germany.


:dem:

:kick:

whatever welcome and thanks for your service to this country!

[Catch22Dem]

9. What branch?

And when/where did you serve? I don't consider myself pro-gun, but that doesn't mean I can't wish you a hearty welcome. Hey, as far as I'm concerned, you're here, which means you care enough about other issues besides guns. That's good enough for me!

:toast:

[texasdem99]

13. Regualar Army, four years,

Served at Ft. Ord, Korea, Texas, among others.

I liked it, for the short stint I was in. Didn't want to stay, though, there are a lot of neanderthals in the Army, I can't deny that.

I've shot everything: 9mm's, M-16's, M-60's, AK-47's, Claymores, Grenades, AT-4's, a M242 25mm "Bushmaster" Chain Gun from a Bradley fighting vehicle, and double barrelled 50 cals.

[Catch22Dem]

39. Cool

I was 8 years Air Force. Langley VA, and Okinawa, with several trips here and there. Had a great time, but got a degree while I was active, and decided to move the family back home and let my daughter grow up around close relatives. Made many good friends, and that's the part I miss most. My wife and I haven't made friends NEARLY as close as our military friends. Different atmosphere I guess.

Well, good to know ya, and I hope you stick around a long time. Dip your foot in the lounge each once in a while to get away from the things that annoy ya most. Unless of course the lounge annoys ya most, then yer screwed. HAHAHA.

Talk at ya again :toast:

[texasdem99]

40. Funny you should say that,

Two of my closest friends now are friends I had in the military. I think there's something about the shared experience of the extreme SUFFERING you sometimes go through in any branch of the service that brings people together and makes them so close. Plus the service is kind of a small fascist state in and of itself, when you think about it; marching, saluting, the whole rank thing, so we get sort of institutionalized.

This can actually make for a good thing in life, strangely. Military and ex-military are usually used to waiting, follow orders and a chain of command implicitly, enjoy structure and order, are very neat, and are usually pretty disciplined. They pound all those skills into your head in four years.

Thanks!

[DarkPhenyx]

11. Whatever.

As long as you bring something new to the conversation who cares. If it's more of the same wasted air then....*soft sigh*

[papau]

14. Welcome to the fray - there are many pro-gun - to some point - folks here

We have folks that are techies of the gun world and tend to see the 2nd - read as an individual right to own/carry - as the cornerstone of American rights; and Folks like myself that know enough to hunt and that shooting a gun is fun, but don't see the 2nd as a "right" except to the State and have no problem with Lic., registration, background checks, and skill testing; and folks that see the low death rates in Japan and the UK - and even in Canada - and would like to restrict private ownership - period.

So many voices.

But there have been many scream fests in our little gun world board, so dropping in is usually just a select few who want to have a go at it!

But the Techies on this board are good folk who can point you to some pretty good pro-gun boards, if that is what you are looking for.

As to politics, Kerry is more or less in the same position I am - only he knows more about it!

Good luck - and have fun!

:-)

[morningglory]

15. I'm pro gun, but not automatic weaponry. Welcome! n/t

[FeebMaster]

18. fully or semi? and why? (nt)

[Lefty48197]

29. Bush and the Repub controlled Senate support the assault weapons ban

Remember when the NRA called Bill Clinton everything from Hitler to Stalin and back for supporting the original ban? Does anybody think that the NRA will attack Dumbyah or the Republican Senators for supporting the extension of the ban?
Personally, I don't think they will. To me, that's just more evidence that the NRA is a branch of the Republican party, which uses the gun issue to lure bubba into their party.
The NRA and the Republicans aren't interested in making assault weapons legally available, they're just interested in getting gun owners to vote Republican.

[jimsteuben]

34. NRA, Clinton and the "assault weapons" ban

"Remember when the NRA called Bill Clinton everything from Hitler to Stalin and back for supporting the original ban?"

Actually, I don't remember that. Can you document this claim? (Take your time.)

[MrBenchley]

53. Gee, Jim....how is it you don't remember that?

It's not like it was any sort of secret that these racist loonies were lying their asses off...and still are.

http://www.nrawinningteam.com/0003/morelies.html

http://www.clintongunban.com/FactSheets.aspx?i80&aFact+Sheet

http://www.nrawinningteam.com/0003/mediasupport.html

Here's the sort of sick sccummy trhings they said:

"WASHINGTON, Mar 16, 2000 (AP Online via COMTEX) -- The White House reacted angrily today to what it called ``sick rhetoric'' by a National Rifle Association executive who said the blood of a murdered coach is on President Clinton's hands.
It urged Congress to ``push aside the NRA'' and pass long-stalled gun legislation. The comment by NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre, was patently unfair to the president, White House spokesman Joe Lockhart said today.
``Just when you think a human being couldn't go any lower, Wayne LaPierre and the NRA found a way,'' Lockhart said. ``This kind of sick rhetoric should stop.''
In an interview on ABC Wednesday night, LaPierre responded to Clinton's call that LaPierre ``look into the eyes'' of parents whose children were killed by gun violence by saying: ``Has he looked into the eyes of Ricky Byrdsong's family? Because that blood is on his hands.'' "
Earlier today, Lockhart told ABC's ``Good Morning America'' that Clinton spoke with Byrdsong's wife, ``something Wayne LaPierre or anyone from the NRA doesn't have the guts to do.'' "

http://www.evote.com/index.asp?Page=/news_section/2000-03/03162000NRA.asp

"The president directed Attorney General Janet Reno to work with state and local authorities over the next three months on a plan to improve hate crimes reporting.
He was joined by the widow of Ricky Byrdsong, a former Northwestern University basketball coach killed in a 1999 hate-motivated shooting rampage, and Laramie, Wyo., police investigator David O'Malley, who handled the 1998 slaying of gay college student Matthew Shepard. "

http://www.evote.com/index.asp?Page=/news_section/2000-09/09132000Hate.asp

"In a letter to President Clinton, Byrdsong's widow, Sherialyn, called LaPierre's comments ``appalling.''
``I certainly do not in any way think my husband's blood is on your hands,'' she wrote, ``and I applaud your efforts.'' "

http://www.evote.com/index.asp?Page=/news_section/2000-03/03202000NRA.asp

[jimsteuben]

55. I'm looking

But I still don't see where the NRA compared Clinton to Hitler and Stalin.

:shrug:

[MrBenchley]

57. Keep looking...

There's no rhetoric too stupid for glocksuckers...

[jimsteuben]

60. admit it

You can't point to any specific statement by any NRA representative comparing Clinton to Hitler or Stalin.

lefty48197 claimed Remember when the NRA called Bill Clinton everything from Hitler to Stalin and back for supporting the original ban?

lefty48197 was either confused, or deliberately inventing statements that the NRA never made.

[MrBenchley]

62. Who the hell do you think you're kidding, jim?

"Wayne LaPierre, the Director and CEO of the National Rifle Association, visited campus last Thursday. Part of the College Republicans' Conservative Awareness Week, LaPierre's visit occurred amid strong opponents and avid supporters of the NRA.
Opposite the Mount Holyoke protesters were members of a local gun club and the UMass Republicans, all advocating their right to own and use firearms. The groups carried numerous posters with slogans such as "Famous People for Gun Control: Hitler, Stalin, Clinton" and "If I had my Smith and Wesson we wouldn't be having this discussion." "

http://www.mtholyoke.edu/org/mhnews/archives/041201/news/story1.shtml

"Hundreds of NRA supporters who attended the DeWitt rally, which came between appearances by Heston in Grand Rapids and Flint, chanted ``No more Gore'' and waved signs that said ``Al Gore wants to ban guns in America'' and ``Clinton, Hitler, Gun Control.''
A coalition of state House Republicans also attended the rally,
including Larry DeVuyst of Alma, Valde Garcia of St. Johns, Larry
Julian of Owosso and Sue Tabor of Grand Ledge.
NRA vice president Wayne LaPierre told the audience that Bush
has protected the Second Amendment as the governor of Texas."

http://www.imfnet.com/discus/msgfeed/messages/1/31.html?971827286

"Theirs is a dark-no, realistic, they insist-vision of history and human nature. And every NRA speech, publication and mailing reflects and amplifies that view. Talk to a dozen NRA members on the convention floor and eight will repeat the catechism: The first thing Hitler did after consolidating power was round up the guns. Stalin did the same. So did Pol Pot. When white supremacists ruled Southern statehouses, they banned gun ownership by blacks. When Iraqi tanks rolled into Kuwait, an NRA article limned the subtext: "Gun Control: Iraq's Ally.""

http://www.hipweb.net/jgrisafi/articles/Call_to_Arms2000Aug5.html

That last ought to sound familiar--it's the same crap peddled here by the RKBA crowd.

[slackmaster]

64. Looks like you nailed it, Jim

A few slogans and signs wielded by "NRA supporters" but nothing from the NRA itself.

[jimsteuben]

65. not kidding anyone

lefty48197 said:
Remember when the NRA called Bill Clinton everything from Hitler to Stalin and back for supporting the original ban?

By "the NRA" I take it he meant the official representatives of the NRA, not just "some members of the NRA," which is a category broad enough to include Michael Moore (who purchased a life membership in the NRA a few weeks before he started filming BFC).

Opposite the Mount Holyoke protesters were members of a local gun club and the UMass Republicans, all advocating their right to own and use firearms. The groups carried numerous posters with slogans

Nothing there about representatives of the NRA comparing Clinton to Hitler and Stalin.

Strike one.

"Hundreds of NRA supporters ...coalition of state House Republicans

I see "NRA supporters" and "statehouse Republicans," but nothing here here about any NRA leaders comparing Clinton to Hitler or Stalin.

Strike two.

Talk to a dozen NRA members ...

Nothing there about Heston, LaPierre, Cox, or any other NRA officer or official representatives making the comparisons.

Strike three.

Back to the dugout, Mr. B.

[MrBenchley]

68. Well, you got THAT right at least...

[lcordero]

31. LOL

You'll find a lot of people that agree with you here. You may find a lot more people here that may be more pro-gun than you are:D

on edit: welcome to DU:hi:

[texasdem99]

33. Thanks for the welcomes, and a great discussion

So civil! I'll take my flameproof vest off now and store it back in the armory!


Thanks to all for the great responses, I look forward to discussing more with you all further in the future.

[Wickerman]

35. Welcome

to the Gungeon.

Its DU's own little slice of hell on earth, or an oasis of gun-loving Dems - depends on your take. It gets a tad feisty down here at times - both sides are pretty well-informed even if they chose not to admit it to each other.

Have fun. :hi:

[FeebMaster]

36. I'll heartily admit that

I'm fairly well informed.

[Wickerman]

37. There are even a few

legends in their own minds :P

[FeebMaster]

38. Hah

:smoke:

[Columbia]

42. Welcome to the Gungeon, Peta Puma!

Enjoy the flamefests.. err... friendly and civil discussions!

:toast:

[FeebMaster]

43. Don't listen to all these crazy people!

It's a trick! They say "welcome" but they mean "there is no escape." Run while you can! It's too late for the rest of us, but you can still save yourself.

[Frodo_Baggins]

87. ROFLMAO!

Cool!

[Romulus]

44. Welcome Pete Puma!

Get ready for a ride!

There are lots of great discussions down here. Despite the personal attacks you will receive, it's great to hear opposing viewpoints on this issue because it challenges you to constantly reconsider the validity of your own views.

USMC '90-95

[slackmaster]

46. Welcome Pete Puma!

:toast:

[FatSlob]

70. Get ready!

Remember, in the gungeon, it isn't who makes the rational arguement. The winner is determined by who paints their opponents with the broadest brush.

[jhfenton]

74. Welcome!

Welcome! I'm another of the (fill in the blank: "racist," "scummy," "extremist, "right wing," "lying") pro-RKBA crowd who will not rest until everything back to the 1934 National Firearms Act is repealed. ;)

[FeebMaster]

75. Don't you mean

back to and including the NFA?

[jhfenton]

78. Yes, that's what I meant (n/t)

[beevul]

83. Welcome to DU!!

[Lori Price CLG]

86. If you send me a private msg. w. your email addy...

I will invite you to join our egroup, CLG_Revolution_Tactics, http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CLG_Revolution_Tactics/

Thanks,
-Lori