Bill Moyers & Michael Winship: Why Have We Stopped Talking About Guns?

[vladbutsky]

I personally like Bill Moyers journal even though he is a hardcore liberal. I agree with some of them and disagree with others, but at least it gives a different from mass media look at problems.

But this one definetely deserves to get a harsh feedback:

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/blog/2009/06/bill_moyers_michael_winship_wh.html


Bill Moyers & Michael Winship: Why Have We Stopped Talking About Guns?
You know by now that in Washington, DC, on Wednesday, an elderly white supremacist and anti-Semite named James W. von Brunn allegedly walked into the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum with a .22-caliber rifle and killed security guard Stephen T. Johns before being brought down himself. He’s 88 years old, with a long record of hatred and paranoid fantasies about the Illuminati and a Global Zionist state. How bitter the bile that has curdled for so many decades.

You will know, too, of the recent killing, while ushering at his local church, of Dr. George Tiller, one of the few doctors in the country still performing late term abortions. Sadly, this case was proof that fatal violence works. His family has announced that his Wichita, Kansas, clinic will not be reopened.

You may be less familiar with the June 1st shootings in an army recruiting office in Little Rock that killed one soldier and wounded another. The suspect in question is an African-American Muslim convert who says he acted in retaliation for US military activity in the Middle East.

Soon, however, these terrible deeds will be forgotten, as are already the three policemen killed by an assault weapon in Pittsburgh; the four policemen killed in Oakland, California; the 13 people gunned down in Binghamton, New York; the 10 in an Alabama shooting spree; five in Santa Clara, California; the eight dead in a North Carolina, nursing home. All during this year alone.

There is much talk about hate talk; hate crimes against blacks, whites, immigrants, Muslims, Jews; about violence committed in the name of bigotry or religion. But why don’t we talk about guns?



We’re arming ourselves to death. Even as gunshots ricocheted around the country, an amendment allowing concealed weapons in national parks snuck into the popular credit card reform bill. Another victory for the gun lobby, to sounds of silence from the White House.

Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, wrote – just days before the Holocaust Museum incident – that “rather than propose concrete action that makes it harder for dangerous people to get firearms – while still respecting the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding gun owners – all Washington can seem to muster after high-profile shootings are ‘thoughts and prayers’ for the victims and their families.

“For his part, the President has also included sincere expressions of ‘deep sadness’ at these tragic losses – though without any call to change any of our policies to prevent those losses.”

Yet, as a presidential candidate, Obama pledged “our determination to do whatever it takes to eradicate this violence from our streets, from our schools, from our neighborhoods and our cities. That is our duty as Americans.”

The fact is, neither party will stand up to the National Rifle Association, the best known front group for the arms merchants. In Virginia, just across the Potomac River from the Holocaust Museum, this week’s Democratic primary for governor was won by state legislator R. Creigh Deeds, a man who supports allowing concealed weapons in restaurants that serve alcohol and opposes limiting handgun purchases to one a month.

After Wednesday’s shooting, a conservative organization immediately offered those of us in the media a chance to interview the founder of “Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership,” whose expertise, it was said, is in helping people understand why gun control doesn’t belong in a civilized society.

The e-mail went on to say, “Your audience will appreciate [his] non nonsense common sense talk that will make them wonder why anyone wants to ban guns in the first place.”

Thanks, but no thanks. And no thanks to his counterparts among Christians and Muslims who use every violent shedding of blood to try to promote the worship of guns. Guns don’t kill people, they say. People kill people. True. People kill people – with guns.

So let the faithful of every persuasion keep their guns for hunting and skeet, for trap and target practice, for collecting. They can even have a permit for a gun to protect their business or home, even though it’s 22 times more likely to shoot a member of the family (including suicides) than an intruder.

But please, there are already some 200 million, privately owned firearms in America. Every year there are 30,000 gun deaths and in some years more than 400,000 non-fatal, gun-related assaults. The next time someone wades through a pool of blood to sidle up and champion the preservation of firearms, can’t we just say, no thanks? Enough’s enough.

[MP301]

He is a Dips**t.... How anyone with common sense can actually think this way is beyond me....I would rethink listening to anything they had to say

[DDT]

It was so antithetical to everything that I believe I actually thought it was funny. It's painful to realize that this is what some people really believe.

My favorite quote though: "National Rifle Association, the best known front group for the arms merchants"

and of course he has no interest in hearing an opposing view from A JEW! Thanks, but no thanks.

[vladbutsky]

I would rethink listening to anything they had to say
Unlike Mr. Moyers, I don't mind to listen to arguments I don't agree with. It makes me to see my belives from different point of view and allows me to know my opponents.

[phamkl]

Seriously.... The man doesn't want to hear the opposing point of view? That sounds really open minded.

There is much talk about hate talk; hate crimes against blacks, whites, immigrants, Muslims, Jews; about violence committed in the name of bigotry or religion. But why don’t we talk about guns?

This really bugs me because, this is exactly why guns aren't the center of discussion anymore. Guns are at the very surface of all this, and they are common to criminals and the law-abiding all the same. What's the issue that he brings up here? Hate crimes, and the violence committed in that regard. It strikes me that most hate crimes aren't even committed with guns (so should we ban baseball bats, tire irons, wrenches, etc) but are committed with, I don't know, ignorance and bigotry... How about instead of all these social government programs, we promote social programs to raise racial awareness and promote acceptance? That seems like a better use of liberal time. Social reform through a grass roots efforts - leave our tax money alone!

[Knight]

They might have stopped talking about guns, but we sure haven't. Let's make sure it stays that way. :patriot:

[johnthomas]

People that don't own or shoot guns see only that if this old man was not armed a guard would still be alive. If gang members weren't armed there would be no drive by shootings. If home invader's and car jacker's weren't armed the crimes would not happen. We in real life knows criminals will get guns no matter what. In the absence of guns other weapons are used. The perfect example is the gun ban in England. The following is an excerpt from an article on the site I added.
" In the two years following the 1997 handgun ban, the use of handguns in crime rose by 40 percent, and the upward trend has continued. From April to November 2001, the number of people robbed at gunpoint in London rose 53 percent.
http://www.reason.com/news/show/28582.html

[navyinrwanda]

the National Rifle Association, the best known front group for the arms merchants.
In the interest group and identity politics cesspool of the Beltway — and particularly the Democratic Party — the NRA is assumed to represent corporations manufacturing and selling guns. That's why they're commonly referred to as the "gun lobby" in the New York Times and the Washington Post.

The conventional wisdom can't believe (or accept) the idea that the NRA might be a grass-roots organization of individuals focused solely on fighting for their individual right of self-defense.

And the Democratic Party machine assumes that all private political action must be on behalf of some financial interest. So they, too, believe that the NRA is simply another corporate lobby trying to maximize the profits of gun manufacturers.

The idea that the NRA is a civil rights organization not dissimilar from the ACLU or the NAACP is anathema to this crowd.

[Legasat]

He is a Dips**t.... How anyone with common sense can actually think this way is beyond me....

Well said.

Ignorance is bliss...

[BigDogatPlay]

People that don't own or shoot guns see only that if this old man was not armed a guard would still be alive.

But what they fail to grasp in their handwringing and kvetching is that all of their "gun control" laws..... didn't work!

This racist old clodhopper of a suspect is a previously convicted felon. He is barred by law from so much as touching a firearm or a round of ammo unless he is defending himself from a violent criminal attack.

Their laws did not stop him. Nor did their laws stop the yayhoo that shot down Dr. George Tiller... another convicted felon barred from ownership or possession.

What all of these gun grabbers don't get is that it is an impossibilty to legislate lunacy. Lunatics are the problem here, not firearms. But it is far simpler for elitist poofs like Moyers to attack an inanimate object than it is for them to address the real root cause of the problem... when that root cause is a living, breathing, walking around on two legs human being.

[7x57]

The point is that Moyers and his ilk really mean that you are just as viscious and evil as the antisemite who shot up the museum. You are just as likely to kill innocents. Just as in need of imprisonment if you will not submit to society's dictates.

That's what they think of you. You are more of a murderer than a gang-banger who shoots someone in a drug deal gone wrong--he's a victim of the evil society you created, but you choose to be a savage animal.

7x57

[Sleepy1988]

$@!% him.

[umoja]

he's a victim of the evil society you created, but you choose to be a savage animal.

I never thought about it that way. That's an interesting double standard.

[7x57]

I never thought about it that way. That's an interesting double standard.

It's a consequence of class-based thinking. He's a criminal because of the inequitable society you evil traditionalists have made; it's not his fault, it is yours. He belongs to a protected class, you see (unless he's a white male, perhaps). However, you are an evil traditionalist because you reject the advancing moral consensus of mankind, which now realizes that all weapons are evil. Therefore, you are morally culpable for placing yourself outside of the leading-edge consensual morality. You belong to a deprecated class, you see.

7x57

[lioneaglegriffin]

It's a consequence of class-based thinking. He's a criminal because of the inequitable society you evil traditionalists have made; it's not his fault, it is yours. He belongs to a protected class, you see (unless he's a white male, perhaps). However, you are an evil traditionalist because you reject the advancing moral consensus of mankind, which now realizes that all weapons are evil. Therefore, you are morally culpable for placing yourself outside of the leading-edge consensual morality. You belong to a deprecated class, you see.

7x57

slowly get off of the soap box sir, your preachin' to the chior. :)

[7x57]

slowly get off of the soap box sir, your preachin' to the chior. :)

Actually, I'm practicing in front of a home-town audience. It's harder when you take it on the road. :D

7x57

[lioneaglegriffin]

Actually, I'm practicing in front of a home-town audience. It's harder when you take it on the road. :D

7x57

i see, well carry on then don't let me get in the way. I thought you were getting into a tizzy for nothing and didn't want you to get too worked up for people that agree with you.

[7x57]

i see, well carry on then don't let me get in the way. I thought you were getting into a tizzy for nothing and didn't want you to get too worked up for people that agree with you.

No tizzy. At the most, I was publicly engaging in my nasty little hobby of attempting to dissect other people's assumptions and core thought processes. People often just shake their heads and say the gun control crowd is "crazy." Well, possibly, but usually the defect is not being randomly unpredictable. It is usually being consistent to false premises, and it's useful to work out those premises instead of just shrugging. If nothing else, it makes it easier to have some human sympathy for people who sincerely believe they are doing good by recklessly endangering everyone.

That goes for them as well as us. That piece follows a pattern I've been seeing recently, especially post-election when it became clear that, after all, it would not be a carnival of gun control: plaintive pieces by gun banners wondering why the world is so absolutely barking-like-a-dog mad. That's really what Moyers' piece says: "why are all of you so blind to the blood that comes up to your neck?" He doesn't understand because he believes things that are not true. When he sees the contradiction with reality, he does not re-examine his premises, but instead assumes everyone is crazy.

Of course it isn't true--he and we are both consistent to our assumptions. The difference is that ours are fairly congruent with reality, while his are myth. He is captive to his mythology and starts in fear from mythological monsters that simply are not there. He's crazy in a sense, but crazy in his presuppositions and inferences and not crazy-random.

BTW, the price of that little hobby is that to understand crazy you have to make a little part of your own brain crazy in just the same way they are. :eek: But hey, I try to do it so you don't have to. :p

7x57

[KylaGWolf]

After reading Moyers comments I have to say that he is totally and completely delusional. Someone else said it oh so well the bad guys that have done the killings were FELONS meaning they were not allowed to have guns in the first place. But instead of making laws that deal with that they would rather disarm the rest of society and make easy pickings I guess. I know that more people die in this country every year by drunk/drugged drivers yet we are not pasisng laws that make it harder for everyone else to drive.

I have an idea lets pass a law that bans all forms of media that passes false information. Hell better yet lets make it a crime for politicians from lying.

Not sure who came up with this quote but I like it. One difference between golf and politics is that in golf you an't improve your lie.

[oaklander]

Gun control was originally racist, and now it is classist. Totally makes sense now.

I never thought about gun control being classist - but it's obvious now.

"Hunting" is therefore OK, since that it something that the upper classes did/do - but self defense and defense against government is NOT OK, since it would destabilize the classes.

It's a consequence of class-based thinking. He's a criminal because of the inequitable society you evil traditionalists have made; it's not his fault, it is yours. He belongs to a protected class, you see (unless he's a white male, perhaps). However, you are an evil traditionalist because you reject the advancing moral consensus of mankind, which now realizes that all weapons are evil. Therefore, you are morally culpable for placing yourself outside of the leading-edge consensual morality. You belong to a deprecated class, you see.

7x57

[dfletcher]

I've always thought of Mr. Moyers recent efforts as being his fashion of making amends for his 1960's service with President Johnson. I suppose when you help a President deceive the country and 58,000 death follow - well, I should think it has a sobering effect on one's psyche.

[Lex Arma]

Still,... Moyer's comments contain the seeds of our victory (and his defeat) and the reason that we must keep vigilant. He DID NOT call for a gun ban and he conceded that guns have a role in exercising the right to self defense. We are winning the war of ideas. The logical applications and common sense extensions of those ideas will follow - if we stay on the offensive.

[vladbutsky]

Still,... Moyer's comments contain the seeds of our victory (and his defeat) and the reason that we must keep vigilant. He DID NOT call for a gun ban and he conceded that guns have a role in exercising the right to self defense. We are winning the war of ideas. The logical applications and common sense extensions of those ideas will follow - if we stay on the offensive.

It is absolutely clear that we present a lot better arguments in intellectual discussion than anti-gun crowd therefore we are winning war of ideas. But the fact that a lot of smart and honest people are still against guns tells me that we have a lot more work to do. I am not talking about dishonest people who use gun control for their political gains - these cannot be reasoned with. But there are a lot of people who were not exposed to gun culture or not interested in it too much to give enough attention to the logical arguments. These people often hear only emotional side of the debate and this is where we are still loosing.

I was involved in a lot of gun rights debates verbally and in blogs and in virtually all cases it all comes down to logic against emotions (mostly fear of armed strangers who will snap and kill everyone around without warning). It takes a long debate to make a crack in this emotional position. A lot of people simply do not want to debate it this long and this is where we need to improve. We need to add emotional part to our arguments as well. Something that would resonate with people. Statistics does not appeal too much to the emotions. We need real stories to be known and mention them every time somebody tells us about another psychopath who kill N people with a GUN. I think this would work a lot better tactically. At least it may grab their attention and prepare them to hear dry statistics to finish the job.

I read these types of stories in NRA publications all the time, but anything linked to NRA will not be seen as unbiased by emotionally anti-gun people we want to win. We need to have a collection of successful self defence stories published in neutral news papers so we can present it in our argument to show that a lot more lives saved by gun that killed by psychopaths.

Does anyone know if there is already a collection of links like this. If not, we could start a thread dedicated to links to such publications.

[7x57]

"Hunting" is therefore OK, since that it something that the upper classes did/do - but self defense and defense against government is NOT OK, since it would destabilize the classes.

And notice how they generally go after big-game hunting instead of bird hunting? Bird hunting and shotgunning has more of an upper-crust following, thanks to the great British tradition of wingshooting, and it's less threatening to the omnipotent state. If it's British, it must be civilized and sophisticated...(think how insane that ancient prejudice is NOW). :eek:

As so as the British came here where the king didn't own the deer, it was rifle-hunting time and the seeds of the tradition that every American should be a rifleman was sown. I have a great book on stock fitting by a British man who comments that even today Americans tend to use a shotgun wrong because we're so rifle-oriented.

I wish he knew just how proud that criticism made me feel.

7x57