Michael Moore on guns

[Quick_Draw_McGraw]

I reading the Huffington Post from time to time, I like to know how the other side thinks. It helps me have more intelligent arguments with my liberal friends.

Michael Moore is in the ANTI camp, but even he acknowledges that gun control won't stop the mass killings.

So here's my little bit of holiday cheer for you:

These gun massacres aren't going to end any time soon.

I'm sorry to say this. But deep down we both know it's true. That doesn't mean we shouldn't keep pushing forward -- after all, the momentum is on our side. I know all of us -- including me -- would love to see the president and Congress enact stronger gun laws. We need a ban on automatic AND semiautomatic weapons and magazine clips that hold more than 7 bullets. We need better background checks and more mental health services. We need to regulate the ammo, too.

But, friends, I would like to propose that while all of the above will certainly reduce gun deaths (ask Mayor Bloomberg -- it is virtually impossible to buy a handgun in New York City and the result is the number of murders per year has gone from 2,200 to under 400), it won't really bring about an end to these mass slayings and it will not address the core problem we have. Connecticut had one of the strongest gun laws in the country. That did nothing to prevent the murders of 20 small children on December 14th.

In fact, let's be clear about Newtown: the killer had no criminal record so he would never have shown up on a background check. All of the guns he used were legally purchased. None fit the legal description of an "assault" weapon. The killer seemed to have mental problems and his mother had him seek help, but that was worthless. As for security measures, the Sandy Hook school was locked down and buttoned up BEFORE the killer showed up that morning. Drills had been held for just such an incident. A lot of good that did.

And here's the dirty little fact none of us liberals want to discuss: The killer only ceased his slaughter when he saw that cops were swarming onto the school grounds -- i.e, the men with the guns. When he saw the guns a-coming, he stopped the bloodshed and killed himself. Guns on police officers prevented another 20 or 40 or 100 deaths from happening. Guns sometimes work. (Then again, there was an armed deputy sheriff at Columbine High School the day of that massacre and he couldn't/didn't stop it.)

I am sorry to offer this reality check on our much-needed march toward a bunch of well-intended, necessary -- but ultimately, mostly cosmetic-- changes to our gun laws. The sad facts are these: Other countries that have guns (like Canada, which has 7 million guns -- mostly hunting guns -- in their 12 million households) have a low murder rate. Kids in Japan watch the same violent movies and kids in Australia play the same violent video games (Grand Theft Auto was created by a British company; the UK had 58 gun murders last year in a nation of 63 million people). They simply don't kill each other at the rate that we do. Why is that? THAT is the question we should be exploring while we are banning and restricting guns: Who are we?

It's an interesting read into a fairly honest liberal's mind.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-moore/gun-violence-united-states_b_2358115.html

 

[trbii]

The fact that millions of firearms of all types are already owned, legally and illegally by so many citizens in the U.S., is not being mentioned by the "anti's". I've never been able to get the point across to one of them that how many LEO's would it take to round up, confiscate, destroy all firearms ALREADY existing in the U.S. How ridiculous and useless would that be, from a crime prevention viewpoint, to see police, sherrif's deputy's, BATFE agents and FBI agents swarming from door to door, 4473 copies in hand, disarming everyone on record as a gun owner. While letting all previous criminal investigations just slide by the way side. I can't get the fact across to people that the 1994-2004 assault weapons ban did nothing to alter existing ownership of these items.

 

[Stephen Cue]

.... I can't get the fact across to people that the 1994-2004 assault weapons ban did nothing to alter existing ownership of these items.

... ... ...

Opponents of the ban claimed that its expiration has seen little if any increase in crime, while Senator Diane Feinstein claimed the ban was effective because "It was drying up supply and driving up prices."

 

[DD10]

The fact that millions of firearms of all types are already owned, legally and illegally by so many citizens in the U.S., is not being mentioned by the "anti's". I've never been able to get the point across to one of them that how many LEO's would it take to round up, confiscate, destroy all firearms ALREADY existing in the U.S. How ridiculous and useless would that be, from a crime prevention viewpoint, to see police, sherrif's deputy's, BATFE agents and FBI agents swarming from door to door, 4473 copies in hand, disarming everyone on record as a gun owner. While letting all previous criminal investigations just slide by the way side. I can't get the fact across to people that the 1994-2004 assault weapons ban did nothing to alter existing ownership of these items.

Any most LEO's like myself would refuse to do that kind of crap. Many of us are NRA members and support the right for ALL good people to own firearms.

 

[Fredkrueger100]

Go figure. He is a fat moron.

 

[Glocktogo]

So let me get this straight:

I am sorry to offer this reality check on our much-needed march toward a bunch of well-intended, necessary -- but ultimately, mostly cosmetic-- changes to our gun laws.

So my rights should be infringed for his well intentioned but ineffective appearances? Gee, what a swell guy!

LawDog says it best:

I hear a lot about "compromise" from your camp (anti-2nd Amendment folks)... except, it's not compromise.

Let's say I have this cake. It is a very nice cake, with "GUN RIGHTS" written across the top in lovely floral icing. Along you come and say, "Give me that cake."

I say, "No, it's my cake."

You say, "Let's compromise. Give me half." I respond by asking what I get out of this compromise, and you reply that I get to keep half of my cake.

Okay, we compromise. Let us call this compromise The National Firearms Act of 1934.

There I am with my half of the cake, and you walk back up and say, "Give me that cake."

I say, "No, it's my cake."

You say, "Let's compromise." What do I get out of this compromise? Why, I get to keep half of what's left of the cake I already own.

So, we have your compromise -- let us call this one the Gun Control Act of 1968 -- and I'm left holding what is now just a quarter of my cake.

And I'm sitting in the corner with my quarter piece of cake, and here you come again. You want my cake. Again.

This time you take several bites -- we'll call this compromise the Clinton Executive Orders -- and I'm left with about a tenth of what has always been MY DAMN CAKE and you've got nine-tenths of it.

Then we compromised with the Lautenberg Act (nibble, nibble), the HUD/Smith and Wesson agreement (nibble, nibble), the Brady Law (NOM NOM NOM), the School Safety and Law Enforcement Improvement Act (sweet tap-dancing Freyja, my finger!)

I'm left holding crumbs of what was once a large and satisfying cake, and you're standing there with most of MY CAKE, making anime eyes and whining about being "reasonable", and wondering "why we won't compromise".

I'm done with being reasonable, and I'm done with compromise. Nothing about gun control in this country has ever been "reasonable" nor a genuine "compromise".

LawDog

Nuff said!

http://thelawdogfiles.blogspot.com/2010/09/ok-ill-play.html