Larry Elder confronts Michael Moore on his anti-gun stance

[jumbopanda]

This looks pretty interesting, anyone own it?

http://www.larryelder.com/michaelandme.html

It's a film that follows Larry Elder, a libertarian/republican (republitarian as he calls it) radio talk show host, as he tracks down and confronts Michael Moore for the purpose of debunking his anti-gun documentary.

For those of you who have never listened to Larry Elder, he is very pro-gun and strongly believes in CCWs. He is very intelligent and always backs his arguments with plenty of facts and common sense. I think it'd be pretty entertaining to see him rip into that douchebag Michael Moore.

[Incitatus]

I've seen it, it's excellent. Buy a couple, pass'em to your anti-gun friends and relatives.

[naimad]

Have you seen the movie FARENHYPE 9/11 it shows what a liar manipulator michael moore is everyone should check this movie out it will piss you off

FARENHYPE 9/11 is a documentry which refutes and bebunks facts made by michael moore in farenheit 9/11

[Prc329]

Have you seen the movie farenhype 9/11 it shows what a liar manipulator michael moore is everyone should check this movie out it will piss you off

I would not even steel that garbage. He does not deserve 2 hours of my life. Period.

Go see 300 instead.

[naimad]

I would not even steel that garbage. He does not deserve 2 hours of my life. Period.

Go see 300 instead.

farenhype 911 not farenhyte 911 farenhype 911 shows farenhyte 911 is a total lie 2 different movies michael moore is a piece of s**t

[Prc329]

My bad, I get a little fired up about that bastard I will not name.

[AxonGap]

Don't get me started about Moore! :mad: "Bowling for Columbine" basically portrayed all gun owners as outright lunatics. His smug "sincerity" and "concern" throughout the film is enough to make you want to vomit.

The opening scene was one huge anti-gun montage of violent news footage from Waco, Ruby Ridge, Hollywood, etc. pretty much everything that says firearm = VERY BAD. Then he portrayed a family out at a range shooting and man firing a 50cal Barrett, his point was clearly, "….and these people are a bunch of redneck gun toting wacko's with a lust for violence".

[Rem1492]

My Fiancee is from W Europe. Many there knew I was a pilot and had guns. Their question to their friend who was dating me while I was in the desert was "why would you date a guy who bombs women and children and worse, has guns?" (they had seen booowling for columbine).
Yay for Europeans.

Nice naive public there as well :( That movie gave them all a perception that moore (not capitalized) is representing the real America, how sad.

On another note, my Fiancee now owns a plum-AK74 and shoots it well.

[jessegpresley]

I saw Bowling For Columbine, and I didn't see it as an anti-gun film, but rather as a commentary on American society and why we're more violent than others. I seem to recall him commenting about how Canadians also have alot of guns yet have a fraction of the gun crime we have. It's easy to come to knee jerk conclusions or see things that we assume we're gonna see, or that our contemporaries say they see, but for me, it wasn't anti-gun, it was anti-violent society.

[anotherted]

I saw Bowling For Columbine, and I didn't see it as an anti-gun film, but rather as a commentary on American society and why we're more violent than others. I seem to recall him commenting about how Canadians also have alot of guns yet have a fraction of the gun crime we have. It's easy to come to knee jerk conclusions or see things that we assume we're gonna see, or that our contemporaries say they see, but for me, it wasn't anti-gun, it was anti-violent society.

Im shocked.

[Incitatus]

I saw Bowling For Columbine, and I didn't see it as an anti-gun film, but rather as a commentary on American society and why we're more violent than others. I seem to recall him commenting about how Canadians also have alot of guns yet have a fraction of the gun crime we have. It's easy to come to knee jerk conclusions or see things that we assume we're gonna see, or that our contemporaries say they see, but for me, it wasn't anti-gun, it was anti-violent society.


Move to Canada.

[shark92651]

I saw Bowling For Columbine, and I didn't see it as an anti-gun film, but rather as a commentary on American society and why we're more violent than others. I seem to recall him commenting about how Canadians also have alot of guns yet have a fraction of the gun crime we have. It's easy to come to knee jerk conclusions or see things that we assume we're gonna see, or that our contemporaries say they see, but for me, it wasn't anti-gun, it was anti-violent society.

You're kidding, right? Did you catch the part where he spliced together two completely different speeches by Charleston Heston (you can see him switch suits between sentences) to totally change the meaning of what he was saying? Moore plays very loose with the facts in all his documentaries. He is the master of taking things out of context and leading you down his line of reasoning. To call his movies "documentarys" is an insult to documentary producers.

[dicast]

jessegpresley are you working for DOJ or michael moore?

[Super_tactical]

I saw Bowling For Columbine, and I didn't see it as an anti-gun film, but rather as a commentary on American society and why we're more violent than others. I seem to recall him commenting about how Canadians also have alot of guns yet have a fraction of the gun crime we have. It's easy to come to knee jerk conclusions or see things that we assume we're gonna see, or that our contemporaries say they see, but for me, it wasn't anti-gun, it was anti-violent society.

:ROFL

[Blackwater OPS]

Im shocked.

Don't be. There are actually quite a few closet commies and anti-gunners on here. Hey, it is CA after all.:eek:

[tankerman]

I saw Bowling For Columbine, and I didn't see it as an anti-gun film, but rather as a commentary on American society and why we're more violent than others. I seem to recall him commenting about how Canadians also have alot of guns yet have a fraction of the gun crime we have. It's easy to come to knee jerk conclusions or see things that we assume we're gonna see, or that our contemporaries say they see, but for me, it wasn't anti-gun, it was anti-violent society.
Please give us some more of your wonderful insight. I want to hear what you have to say about Mayor Bloomberg, Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer or maybe the Clinton Gun Ban. Please do tell.

[1911_sfca]

I saw Bowling For Columbine, and I didn't see it as an anti-gun film, but rather as a commentary on American society and why we're more violent than others. I seem to recall him commenting about how Canadians also have alot of guns yet have a fraction of the gun crime we have. It's easy to come to knee jerk conclusions or see things that we assume we're gonna see, or that our contemporaries say they see, but for me, it wasn't anti-gun, it was anti-violent society.

I agree with this interpretation. Despite some of the foam-at-the-mouthers who are putting down jessegpresley, his point is valid, and the issue is more complicated than some of you realize who are living in black and white worlds.

Just because I own a safe full of guns doesn't mean that I blindly believe that guns are always "good" and that we should just ignore all the violence that is done with guns in our society.

That doesn't make me a "gun grabber" or sympathizer. But those of you who are name calling and ridiculing someone for trying to understand someone else's point of view (even someone like Moore) are no better than the close-minded bigots on the other side of the issue.

[tankerman]

I agree with this interpretation. Despite some of the foam-at-the-mouthers who are putting down jessegpresley, his point is valid, and the issue is more complicated than some of you realize who are living in black and white worlds.

Just because I own a safe full of guns doesn't mean that I blindly believe that guns are always "good" and that we should just ignore all the violence that is done with guns in our society.

That doesn't make me a "gun grabber" or sympathizer. But those of you who are name calling and ridiculing someone for trying to understand someone else's point of view (even someone like Moore) are no better than the close-minded bigots on the other side of the issue.
"guns good"
They are inanimate objects, Micheal Moore is not offering a valid point of view. Twisting a story and lying does not = point of view.
Perhaps you could explain your use of the word "bigot", though I doubt it would be a legitimate definition.

[Blackwater OPS]

I agree with this interpretation. Despite some of the foam-at-the-mouthers who are putting down jessegpresley, his point is valid, and the issue is more complicated than some of you realize who are living in black and white worlds.

Just because I own a safe full of guns doesn't mean that I blindly believe that guns are always "good" and that we should just ignore all the violence that is done with guns in our society.

That doesn't make me a "gun grabber" or sympathizer. But those of you who are name calling and ridiculing someone for trying to understand someone else's point of view (even someone like Moore) are no better than the close-minded bigots on the other side of the issue.

See what I mean?

[mblat]

I agree with this interpretation. Despite some of the foam-at-the-mouthers who are putting down jessegpresley, his point is valid, and the issue is more complicated than some of you realize who are living in black and white worlds.

Just because I own a safe full of guns doesn't mean that I blindly believe that guns are always "good" and that we should just ignore all the violence that is done with guns in our society.

That doesn't make me a "gun grabber" or sympathizer. But those of you who are name calling and ridiculing someone for trying to understand someone else's point of view (even someone like Moore) are no better than the close-minded bigots on the other side of the issue.

Dude,.... you didn't see that as anti-gun film? Regardless of it ALSO being commentary on American society, however erroneous this commentary was, it definitely was anti-gun film.

[anotherted]

Just because I own a safe full of guns doesn't mean that I blindly believe that guns are always "good"

Thats the whole friggin point, dood. Guns arent "good" or "bad", there a hunk of metal, wood, plastic, etc. Its the person behind the trigger.

[anotherted]

See what I mean?

yuppers

[MrLogan]

What is up with the closet commies on here?

[ravenbkp]

Aaaaaack! they are every where! Moore is a lying manipulative pile of filth he does what he does for three reasons 1 Power 2 Profit 3 lack of intellectual honesty/ability.
He actually believes that helpless people make better citizens! Dear lord even Gandhi understood the value of arms! he simply militated against their misuse.

[grywlfbg]

I also agree to some degree w/ jesse and 1911_sfca.

So for everyone else in this thread, can you give me a reason why when Canada has the same number of guns per capita as the US, our gun/violent crime rates are dramatically higher? I have my theories but I'd love to hear what the rest of you have to say.

While I disagree w/ the anti-gun stance Michael Moore has, I still found the statistics between the US and Canada interesting.

Instead of asking which guns to ban, the question I posed above is the one we should be asking ourselves.

[Pryde]

I also agree to some degree w/ jesse and 1911_sfca.

So for everyone else in this thread, can you give me a reason why when Canada has the same number of guns per capita as the US, our gun/violent crime rates are dramatically higher? I have my theories but I'd love to hear what the rest of you have to say.


It is because we have huge population concentrations of poor people who live in relative poverty. (some parts of LA, New York, Chicago, etc.) In these environments people kill each other constantly over stupid s**t with illegally owned guns. I remember reading a FBI crime report a few months back and the vast majority of America's murders come from these population centers and are more often than not committed with illegal Handguns. Very few murders are actually committed with legally owned weapons. Canada has fewer people than in the US and they tend to be more spread out.

Heres a link to a story about Michael Moore falsifying facts in his documentaries:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article1466668.ece

[Mssr. Eleganté]

So for everyone else in this thread, can you give me a reason why when Canada has the same number of guns per capita as the US, our gun/violent crime rates are dramatically higher? I have my theories but I'd love to hear what the rest of you have to say.

If we leave out the more impolite reasons, we still have...

More big cities.
Higher temperatures.

[mblat]

Here is the kicker for you - violence is indicator of society health. Non-violent societies are societies that completed their development. They, for all intensive purposes are dead. They lack the most violent and at the same time most productive members – alpha males. They no longer provide enough rewards to satisfy unorthodox behavior. While lack of rewards leads to reduce violence it also stymies further development.
So, yes, US society is more violent than Canada or England or Germany……. And it is a VERY GOOD thing.

[otteray]

"They lack the most violent and at the same time most productive members – alpha males."
You lost me on that one.
Gang bangers are the most productive?
That's where the most violence is.
Gun ownership does not equal a propensity towards violence, as many millions of American firearm owners know.
Illegal aliens have murdered more (edit:twice as many) Americans here than have been killed fighting in Iraq, in the same time frame.
Back to the point of Canada / USA, what are the total murder rates for similar sized cities?
Also, what is the rate of crimes prevented by gun ownership?
Moore doesn't seem to talk that point up too much.

[Blackwater OPS]

So for everyone else in this thread, can you give me a reason why when Canada has the same number of guns per capita as the US, our gun/violent crime rates are dramatically higher? I have my theories but I'd love to hear what the rest of you have to say.


It is a culture issue, some cultures are simply more violent than others. For example, blacks are imprisioned for violent crimes far more than whites, even in areas where there are more poor whites than blacks. The reason is probably that the current black culture in those areas is more tolerant of aggressive violence than the white culture. Does that mean we should ban blacks from owning guns? Of course not, all that will do is make the problem worse by arming only the criminals, while unconstitutionally stripping away a civil right. The same applies to the US, we are more accepting of violence than Canada, so should we ban guns here? Get real.

[tankerman]

Here is the kicker for you - violence is indicator of society health. Non-violent societies are societies that completed their development. They, for all intensive purposes are dead. They lack the most violent and at the same time most productive members – alpha males. They no longer provide enough rewards to satisfy unorthodox behavior. While lack of rewards leads to reduce violence it also stymies further development.
So, yes, US society is more violent than Canada or England or Germany……. And it is a VERY GOOD thing.
England and the UK as a whole has had a sky rocketing murder rate for years, do not try to classify them as non-violent, check your facts. Please show facts that support your claims that a non violent society exists.

[mblat]

"They lack the most violent and at the same time most productive members – alpha males."
You lost me on that one.
Gang bangers are the most productive?
That's where the most violence is.
Gun ownership does not equal a propensity towards violence, as many millions of American firearm owners know.
Illegal aliens have murdered more (edit:twice as many) Americans here than have been killed fighting in Iraq, in the same time frame.
Back to the point of Canada / USA, what are the total murder rates for similar sized cities?
Also, what is the rate of crimes prevented by gun ownership?
Moore doesn't seem to talk that point up too much.

Well... in a sense gangs leaders are very productive. They managed to build multinational corporations with billions of dollars in business every year.
<shrugs>
However that wasn’t my point. I didn’t say that violent man are productive once… However, the same type of the male are violent and productive.
It is in genetics of alpha males.
Not every single illegal alien are alpha male, however they are among the most active members among members of their society – at least they had enough in them to get of their asses and cross the border. In a future our country benefit from their genetic material the same way it benefited from genetic material of the most active Irish, Polish, Jewish Italian males and females.
The rest of your post is irrelevant – I don’t see where in my post I implied that guns cause violence. I am for one belive that rate of gun ownership have little to no effect on crime rates.
And I don't see where I was defending Moore. I do consider him lier and his work WAY overrated.


England and the UK as a whole has had a sky rocketing murder rate for years, do not try to classify them as non-violent, check your facts. Please show facts that support your claims that a non violent society exists.

Even after "sky-rocketing" UK crime rates are still very low compare to American.

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs05/hosb0205.pdf

That doesn't mean that gun control works - England crime rates were always lower and after gun control actually went up..... but they still WAY lower than ours.....

[midnitereaper]

Does Canada have gangs?

I also agree to some degree w/ jesse and 1911_sfca.

So for everyone else in this thread, can you give me a reason why when Canada has the same number of guns per capita as the US, our gun/violent crime rates are dramatically higher? I have my theories but I'd love to hear what the rest of you have to say.

While I disagree w/ the anti-gun stance Michael Moore has, I still found the statistics between the US and Canada interesting.

Instead of asking which guns to ban, the question I posed above is the one we should be asking ourselves.

[tankerman]

Well... in a sense gangs leaders are very productive. They managed to build multinational corporations with billions of dollars in business every year.
<shrugs>
However that wasn’t my point. I didn’t say that violent man are productive once… However, the same type of the male are violent and productive.
It is in genetics of alpha males.
Not every single illegal alien are alpha male, however they are among the most active members among members of their society – at least they had enough in them to get of their asses and cross the border. In a future our country benefit from their genetic material the same way it benefited from genetic material of the most active Irish, Polish, Jewish Italian males and females.
The rest of your post is irrelevant – I don’t see where in my post I implied that guns cause violence. I am for one belive that rate of gun ownership have little to no effect on crime rates.
And I don't see where I was defending Moore. I do consider him lier and his work WAY overrated.



Even after "sky-rocketing" UK crime rates are still very low compare to American.

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs05/hosb0205.pdf

That doesn't mean that gun control works - England crime rates were always lower and after gun control actually went up..... but they still WAY lower than ours.....

YA OK, according to their own statistics there were 1,054,913 violent crimes committed in England last year. Care to make anything else up?

[mblat]

YA OK, according to their own statistics there were 1,054,913 violent crimes committed in England last year. Care to make anything else up?

K, I stand corrected. Statistic I was relying was statistic on murders
863 per 60 mil population in England
and
16500 per 300 mil population in US.

about 4 times higher murder rate in US. However, as you pointed out overall violent crime is actually higher in Britain and even in Australia...... Hmmm... I didn't realize that.....
However, that does beg the question. Why is that? Why in more violent society like England murders are so rare, compare to US? What we, Americans, more predispose to kill? So we are more violent by nature? Because the only other explanation I can see is that we have an easy access to instruments of murder (i.e. guns) ?

[6172crew]

I also agree to some degree w/ jesse and 1911_sfca.

So for everyone else in this thread, can you give me a reason why when Canada has the same number of guns per capita as the US, our gun/violent crime rates are dramatically higher? I have my theories but I'd love to hear what the rest of you have to say.

While I disagree w/ the anti-gun stance Michael Moore has, I still found the statistics between the US and Canada interesting.

Instead of asking which guns to ban, the question I posed above is the one we should be asking ourselves.


Are you sure the firearms per capita stats are true? Where did you find that info? Linky?

I cant believe there are as many guns in that country as ours, no way.:cool:

[1911_sfca]

"guns good"
They are inanimate objects,

I agree. There is a point of view that I commonly see expressed here by a minority of members: that guns are just inanimate objects, and therefore no value should be attached to them, and they should not be considered in the discussion of gun crimes. Extending this argument, many "gun people" also think that RPGs and tanks and bombs are just inanimate objects, and it's only bad people violating the law that make them dangerous; therefore, anyone should be allowed to possess them. Strictly speaking, this is true; however it is a very academic opinion and does not take into consideration the totality of conditions in our society.

It may or may not be a valid and well-reasoned view. Personally I find it just as extreme as the treatment given the subject by Moore. That's my opinion and I'm entitled to it just as much as you're entitled to yours. If anyone thinks that makes me a "closet commie" (who says that anyway? Are you stuck in 'nam or something?), then that's your own problem.

Micheal Moore is not offering a valid point of view. Twisting a story and lying does not = point of view.

Everyone is entitled to his point of view, and in my estimation Moore is very articulate at expressing himself and getting his message out, if nothing else based on the fact that people are discussing him here. You may disagree, you may hate him and think he's all lies, that he twists and edits the truth, and that's a valid opinion, but I find that some of what he says and the points he brings up are interesting and worth consideration and thought, regardless of whether I agree with his methods and conclusions, or not.

Perhaps you could explain your use of the word "bigot", though I doubt it would be a legitimate definition.

I was referring to the groups commonly spoken of as "gun grabbers" as "close-minded bigots", and by that I meant that they jump to judgment based on their stereotypes and superstitions about guns, rather than the facts of any individual discussion. My point was that some people on "our" side of the issue sometimes do the same thing, and my point was that this isn't really any better than the bigotry of anti-gunners.

Random House defines bigot as "a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion." (emphasis added.)


And by the way, I am very pro-gun rights, and have spent a considerable amount of my own personal time and energy, not just ranting about guns on the Internet, but actually going out, putting up signs, talking to people on the street, and campaigning to prevent more anti-gun laws, as well as proselytizing and bringing new shooters into the sport and changing preconceptions about guns. I have gone to DOJ hearings and presented oral and written arguments to prevent bad gun policy and law; I have written and called my elected representatives on issues that are important to us.

However, that does not make me incapable of holding a reasoned conversation about the toll of gun violence or what can be done to stop it. And I also spend a considerable amount of time volunteering in my community to reduce that and all types of crime and enforce the laws. I believe that our country has a very unique take on guns, and that's part of what makes us great. But I believe we should not be blinded by the past; rather, we should be reasoned and articulate about what it is about our gun freedoms that help our country, and be willing to defend those rights, not only by bravado and posturing online, but also by reasoned argument and action offline. In the end, I believe it's only the latter that can really preserve our rights: time spent preaching to the choir will be worthless when push comes to shove.

[ibbryn]

Because the only other explanation I can see is that we have an easy access to instruments of murder (i.e. guns) ?


You'll benefit from a little more research. Take guns out of the equation. Americans still kill each other with their hands, feet, bricks, etc. more than the other countries do.

[grammaton76]

What we, Americans, more predispose to kill? So we are more violent by nature? Because the only other explanation I can see is that we have an easy access to instruments of murder (i.e. guns) ?

Here's one possible answer:

Brits get annoyed, and their focus is inflicting pain on the other person.

Here, you know the guy's going to come back and 'repay' you after he recovers from a serious beat-down. So, you tend to take a more drastic approach that actually ends the issue. We don't like having to deal with issues more than once, so we take care of it thoroughly the first time.

As a culture, we're a bit more Machiavellian and focus a bit more on long term solutions...

[chiefcrash]

Have you seen the movie FARENHYPE 9/11 it shows what a liar manipulator michael moore is everyone should check this movie out it will piss you off

FARENHYPE 9/11 is a documentry which refutes and bebunks facts made by michael moore in farenheit 9/11

check out Celsius 41.11: The Temperature at Which the Brain... Begins to Die

[taloft]

I also agree to some degree w/ jesse and 1911_sfca.

So for everyone else in this thread, can you give me a reason why when Canada has the same number of guns per capita as the US, our gun/violent crime rates are dramatically higher? I have my theories but I'd love to hear what the rest of you have to say.

While I disagree w/ the anti-gun stance Michael Moore has, I still found the statistics between the US and Canada interesting.

Instead of asking which guns to ban, the question I posed above is the one we should be asking ourselves.

It would appear that you've supported the case that guns are not the problem. If they were, then going by your post, the Canadians would have the same crime rates per capita that we have. Canadians, for the most part, live in less congested environments. I would like to see the statistics for a major Canadian city verses a U.S. city of comparable population with similar environmental conditions. Then it would be an interesting comparison.

Guns, Tanks, RPG's, and Bombs are all inanimate objects. They have no volition of their own. Put them in a room by themselves for an extended period of time and they will hurt no one. Give them to a dirt bag and people will get hurt/killed. It is the dirt bags that are the problem. Are you seriously suggesting that it may be otherwise?

1911_sfca, you say that we do not take into consideration the totality of conditions in our society when discussing gun crimes. On the contrary, I'm well aware that society is in deep trouble. It is filled with idiots and low lifes. However, murder is murder whether I use a gun or a brick to commit the crime is irrelevant to the overall picture. Using a gun instead of a brick won't make you anymore dead. The problem is the act, not the implement used. Once you shift the focus from the criminal and the crime to the implement used to commit the crime, you have created a red herring fallacy as to the cause of the problem. This fallacy is what drives the anti-gun movement. Michael Moore perpetuates this fallacy in his "documentaries". If taking people out of context and cropping footage to make your point appear to be valid is documenting the truth, then he has done a bang up job.:rolleyes: That's my opinion.