The public face of gun control... Michael Moore

[desert dude]

Michael Moore, the bloated, self righteous nincompoop, schooled by S.E. Cupp on the odious Bill Maher show.

Moore uses the same talking points that RIU's very own nincompoop's use.

Buck, you should be the public face of gun control instead of Michael Moore. You are a much more attractive nincompoop than the Michigan whale.

Does this sound like anybody we all know and love?
"Moore countered, "You have a dangerous device that can kill 20 schoolchildren, I want to know where that device is."

http://news.yahoo.com/e-cupp-vs-michael-moore-guns-just-happen-122813856.html

 

[Doer]

Just looking at him would harden my aim.

 

[desert dude]

Just looking at him would harden my aim.

Yeah, and deflate my desire to procreate.

S.E. Cupp, on the other hand...

 

[cannabineer]

Pfaah. I can double my kill rate with this device. BAN'm all!! cn

 

[Doer]

Yeah. You can bury those and try to kill everyone in there. Just ask the Chow-chillers.

Oh. You mean send them to public school for brain death.

Oh, you mean filling it with C4 and using card board childern to park it close enough.

Oh, you mean souping up the engine to 1000 hp and filling it with Depleted Uranium and driving all the way though IRS headquarters.

I can think of a few things.....

 

[redivider]

funny how nobody cares to prove or disprove either talking point or even elaborate on the issue.

1) can anybody say whether the increase/decrease in gun violence is in any way correlated to large urban centers' level of strictness in gun laws? actual question to ponder. and no I don't know the answer.
2) can anybody give an actual figure as to what constitutes a 'mass shooting'? where is moore getting his 'facts' and where is the lady getting hers? I mean you can't call something a 'matter of fact' and not back it up. both moore and the lady failed badly in this fashion.
3) do either moore or the lady know how many people die per year because of a gun shot? whether it's a kid in his house who accidentally shoots his dad or if it's a crime of passion?? I mean if you are going to go on tv and debate something, you better be informed on the issue. i don't think either moore or the lady really have the credentials to talk about this.

so yeah... basically the conversation sucked.

 

[Doer]

Butthead: Gun stats are coool.

Bevis: No! Stupid! Gun SURVEYS!!! are coool!

....cracks me up.

 

[Wavels]

Disarming Realities: As Gun Sales Soar, Gun Crimes Plummet


http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/05/14/disarming-realities-as-gun-sales-soar-gun-crimes-plummet/


A couple of new studies reveal the gun-control hypesters’ worst nightmare…more people are buying firearms, while firearm-related homicides and suicides are steadily diminishing. What crackpots came up with these conclusions? One set of statistics was compiled by the U.S. Department of Justice. The other was reported by the Pew Research Center.


..........what about the notion that tougher gun laws have or would make any difference? With the toughest gun laws in the nation, Chicago saw homicides jump to 513 in 2012, a 15% hike in a single year. The city’s murder rate is 15.65 per 100,000 people, compared with 4.5 for the Midwest, and 5.6 for Illinois. Up to 80 percent of Chicago murders and non-fatal shootings are gang- related, primarily young black and Hispanic men killed by other black and Hispanic men. Would tightening gun laws even more, or “requiring” background checks, change these conditions?

..........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

Mr. Moore will never let reality stand in the way of his delusion.

 

[Big Trees]

I could go to the city and in 20 minutes have a gun with the numbers scratched for 200 bucks. So I mean strict gun laws will just make that option more feasible

 

[cannabineer]

funny how nobody cares to prove or disprove either talking point or even elaborate on the issue.

1) can anybody say whether the increase/decrease in gun violence is in any way correlated to large urban centers' level of strictness in gun laws? actual question to ponder. and no I don't know the answer.
2) can anybody give an actual figure as to what constitutes a 'mass shooting'? where is moore getting his 'facts' and where is the lady getting hers? I mean you can't call something a 'matter of fact' and not back it up. both moore and the lady failed badly in this fashion.
3) do either moore or the lady know how many people die per year because of a gun shot? whether it's a kid in his house who accidentally shoots his dad or if it's a crime of passion?? I mean if you are going to go on tv and debate something, you better be informed on the issue. i don't think either moore or the lady really have the credentials to talk about this.

so yeah... basically the conversation sucked.

Imo the biggest nondatum is that while it's fall-off-a-log easy to tabulate times a gun was fired in a violent act, it's impossible to tabulate the number of times the threat or presence of an unfired gun prevented violence.
The guns, ewww crowd won't touch that one. cn

<add> when I looked up "mass shootings" some time ago, the criterion was "two or more shot".

 

[desert dude]

funny how nobody cares to prove or disprove either talking point or even elaborate on the issue.

1) can anybody say whether the increase/decrease in gun violence is in any way correlated to large urban centers' level of strictness in gun laws? actual question to ponder. and no I don't know the answer.
2) can anybody give an actual figure as to what constitutes a 'mass shooting'? where is moore getting his 'facts' and where is the lady getting hers? I mean you can't call something a 'matter of fact' and not back it up. both moore and the lady failed badly in this fashion.
3) do either moore or the lady know how many people die per year because of a gun shot? whether it's a kid in his house who accidentally shoots his dad or if it's a crime of passion?? I mean if you are going to go on tv and debate something, you better be informed on the issue. i don't think either moore or the lady really have the credentials to talk about this.

so yeah... basically the conversation sucked.

Cupp was informed and accurate. Moore was a shrill, nanny.

1. Gun control laws have weakened or lapsed in the last thirty years. Violence of all kinds, including gun violence, has dropped to fifty year lows. The correlation is obvious: weaker gun control laws correlates to less gun violence. But... "correlation is not causation", so weaker gun control laws might, or might not be the cause of reduced gun violence. Gun free zones, such as Chicago (>500 murders using a gun last year, I think) speak for themselves in terms of gun related violence.

2. "There is no official definition of a "mass shooting," but FBI classifications describe the term as any incident in which a perpetrator kills four or more people, not including him or herself. Under that definition, 19 mass shootings have taken place since April 16, 2007, the date of the Virginia Tech massacre. That's a rate of more than one every four months -- only considering these most brutal examples. Other devastating shootings go largely unnoticed on the national stage." http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/14/mass-shootings-reactions_n_2302971.html There are also plenty of statistics available about mass shootings.

3. That information is widely available. http://www.nij.gov/topics/crime/gun-violence/ S.E. Cupp is quite well informed, she and packs a couple of 38 Cupps, Moore is an imbecile.

 

[desert dude]

Imo the biggest nondatum is that while it's fall-off-a-log easy to tabulate times a gun was fired in a violent act, it's impossible to tabulate the number of times the threat or presence of an unfired gun prevented violence.
The guns, ewww crowd won't touch that one. cn

<add> when I looked up "mass shootings" some time ago, the criterion was "two or more shot".

An inconvenient truth!

 

[Rak on Tur']

One of the things that both sides do, which is sort of disingenuous is they don't take in a community's social standing. That really matters more from what I always saw. Chicago has a lot of gang on gang violence, so of course they will have higher murder rates.

The problem with most laws that are supposed to deter a target action, be it stiffer gun laws to lower dui limits, is that they just don't work. In a lot of cases it only effects mostly people who take no part in the crime that the law supposedly deters. I'm not saying we should have zero laws, but it would make sense to go through and see what laws on the books we have that aren't being enforced.

 

[cannabineer]

A community's social standing? I don't understand. I'm not picking a fight, but would ask you to unpack that one for me a bit. cn

 

[Rak on Tur']

A community's social standing? I don't understand. I'm not picking a fight, but would ask you to unpack that one for me a bit. cn

Things like household income, job opportunities, substance abuse, ect.

Like for example a area with a young population with high unemployement with have much more problems than the same demographic in a area with low unemployement. That was always the biggest difference I saw while in law enforcement. If politicians wanted to get serious about crime they should stop the nonsense about new gun laws, harsher penalties for crime, and all the other lip service they give people. Then focus on how to improve living conditions in some areas via job training, taking a look at the schools, and as crazy as it sounds having cops be a little less proactive.

Sure that will cost tax dollars, but in reality, where most politicians don't live, it's sometimes cheaper to actually help people than throw them in prison.

 

[cannabineer]

Things like household income, job opportunities, substance abuse, ect.

Like for example a area with a young population with high unemployement with have much more problems than the same demographic in a area with low unemployement. That was always the biggest difference I saw while in law enforcement. If politicians wanted to get serious about crime they should stop the nonsense about new gun laws, harsher penalties for crime, and all the other lip service they give people. Then focus on how to improve living conditions in some areas via job training, taking a look at the schools, and as crazy as it sounds having cops be a little less proactive.

Sure that will cost tax dollars, but in reality, where most politicians don't live, it's sometimes cheaper to actually help people than throw them in prison.

I think I see. "Stop scapegoating the gun, and pay attention to the bigger social factors". If this is what you're saying, i heartily agree.

However, as being on the wrong side of Federal law (even for us Legal Users) has given us ample opportunity to experience, the prison industry is powerful. Their lobbyists fling more quatloos at our esteemed public servants than those on the side of truth, justice and the American Way. ~sigh~ cn

 

[Rak on Tur']

I think I see. "Stop scapegoating the gun, and pay attention to the bigger social factors". If this is what you're saying, i heartily agree.

However, as being on the wrong side of Federal law (even for us Legal Users) has given us ample opportunity to experience, the prison industry is powerful. Their lobbyists fling more quatloos at our esteemed public servants than those on the side of truth, justice and the American Way. ~sigh~ cn

Yes, my view is guns are just a scapegoat and does deter a look at the real problems. Those problems will never be addressed because they are going to be more difficult than saying no guns, manditory minimums for drug charges, and so on. People would rather talk about why republicans are better than democrats or visa versa. Sadly that is the mindset of the majority of our voters, minus youth. Seems kids these days are much more intellectually honest.

 

[redivider]

Cupp was informed and accurate. Moore was a shrill, nanny.

1. Gun control laws have weakened or lapsed in the last thirty years. Violence of all kinds, including gun violence, has dropped to fifty year lows. The correlation is obvious: weaker gun control laws correlates to less gun violence. But... "correlation is not causation", so weaker gun control laws might, or might not be the cause of reduced gun violence. Gun free zones, such as Chicago (>500 murders using a gun last year, I think) speak for themselves in terms of gun related violence.

2. "There is no official definition of a "mass shooting," but FBI classifications describe the term as any incident in which a perpetrator kills four or more people, not including him or herself. Under that definition, 19 mass shootings have taken place since April 16, 2007, the date of the Virginia Tech massacre. That's a rate of more than one every four months -- only considering these most brutal examples. Other devastating shootings go largely unnoticed on the national stage." http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/14/mass-shootings-reactions_n_2302971.html There are also plenty of statistics available about mass shootings.

3. That information is widely available. http://www.nij.gov/topics/crime/gun-violence/ S.E. Cupp is quite well informed, she and packs a couple of 38 Cupps, Moore is an imbecile.

i didn't see her cite any studies. the thing is that you can make anything say anything, that's why physicists hate statisticians, even though both their jobs involve copious amounts of math.

I don't think she made any sort of valid argument. she just blurted out things that were on the right track but she was unable to pin down the point she was there to make. then she started self-aggrandizing, which completely threw her off....

moore on the other hand, did what he does best, use humor... he didn't try to come off as the most informed.....he is a satirist not a scientist.

the bimbo vs. the fatass...

 

[desert dude]

i didn't see her cite any studies. the thing is that you can make anything say anything, that's why physicists hate statisticians, even though both their jobs involve copious amounts of math.

I don't think she made any sort of valid argument. she just blurted out things that were on the right track but she was unable to pin down the point she was there to make. then she started self-aggrandizing, which completely threw her off....

moore on the other hand, did what he does best, use humor... he didn't try to come off as the most informed.....he is a satirist not a scientist.

the bimbo vs. the fatass...

What is so humorous about: ""Moore countered, "You have a dangerous device that can kill 20 schoolchildren, I want to know where that device is."

What is so humorous about: "Moore then said he wanted the Second Amendment altered to spell out the Founding Fathers' intention: that it covers muskets."

Those are both right out of the lefty loon "Silly assertions for every situation" handbook.

 

[UncleBuck]

...be it ... to lower dui limits, is that they just don't work. In a lot of cases it only effects mostly people who take no part in the crime that the law supposedly deters. I'm not saying we should have zero laws, but it would make sense to go through and see what laws on the books we have that aren't being enforced.

first of all, any gun laws on the books not being enforced are due to the NRA lobby making it that way.

secondly, glad to see you brought up DUI laws. common sense DUI laws work. ask any arizonan about how DUI laws have escalated: ignition interlock devices, more jail time for offenders, more fines, more court mandated counseling, license suspension and revocation, the list goes on. the result? DUI fatalities are down big time.

that does tend to disprove the assertion that common sense laws "just don't work". hundreds and thousands of lives have been saved.

but Dog forbid we try to make it any tougher for a mass murderer to wipe out a classroom full of children.