Michael Moore Responds to BFC Critics

[DavidJames]

"Start thinking for yourself and don't let these creeps dupe you into thinking they do not hate gun owners."

As I suspected, you are unable to support either of your claims.

Have a nice day

 

[Tony]

"Start thinking for yourself and don't let these creeps dupe you into thinking they do not hate gun owners."

As I suspected, you are unable to support either of your claims.

Have a nice day

He showed you 3 pages that suppored his claims idiot.

 

[Chaos]

Ranb
I admit I know next to nothing about firearms, and I have never in my life even touched one.

However, two of your points make me wonder:

Assault rifles:
I suppose this term refers to rifles that are capable of bursts (fire several bullets by pulling the trigger once) and full-auto (fire a rapid succession of bullets as long as trigger is pulled) fire - the kind soldiers use.
Who on earth needs that capacity to hunt? Just what a ferocious monster are you hunting?
Automatic weapons are very useful for terrorists and criminals, but I cannot see anything a hunter might do with them that he could not do with non-automatic rifle.

Silencers:
Again, I see some use of this for terrorists, but no use for hunters or sportsmen that they could not get with ear-muffs or such.

 

[NightG1]

"A BATF survey of 735 hunting guides, conducted during the administration of President George H. W. Bush, found that sportsmen do not use assault weapons."

Appearantly, the opinions of 735 people are enough to convince the Brady group that no real American would dare use an "assualt rifle" for sport shooting. Very undemocratic and unamerican of them to say this. I guess they do not think target shooting is a sport.

Just an observation....735 hunting guides would represnt a fairly large population of hunters (assuming they all have a large clientel). And if they are saying that none of their clientel use assault rifles, then that would be far more substantive than just 735 "opinions" you assert in your strawman. And why would hunting guides care about "target" shooting. Do you need a guide to "target" shoot?

I also noted that nowhere in your link did anyone afiliated with the Brady Campaign state that they "hated" gun owners or that they wanted to "ban guns in the USA". I think you need to stick to plain old facts and leave the hyperbole and hysteria to Tony and RichardG.

 

[DavidJames]

Tony
"He showed you 3 pages that suppored his claims idiot"

Sorry, no he didn't - nowhere in any of his "3 pages" does it say:
Brady people "hate gun-owning Americans".

And his claim that "Brady Campaign is trying to ban guns here in the USA" is also unsupported. Perhaps he would like to restate this something to the effect of the "Brady Campaign is trying to ban some guns here in the USA".

Regarding your "idiot" comment, considering the source, I view that as a compliment.

In this thread
http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=29681
when you said:

"This is a case in which I advocate deadly force against the police"

You are saying the police officer should be killed for arresting the boy.

I have no interest in further discussions with someone who advocates cold blooded murder of policemen.

 

[a_unique_person]

His lies have already been proven, there is nothing he can say that will make his lying come true.

You've convinced me.

 

[Blarg]

While I cannot speak for Ranb, I hope to address some of his points:

If I was caught with my Browning 22lr target pistol in Hawaii, I would be in prison for owning an assault pistol.

He may be referring to an "assault weapon" ban similar to this one in California. Smallbore target pistols were mistakenly classified as "assault weapons" because their magazines were in front of the triggers instead of in the grips. However politicians may feel about "assault weapons", is it too much to ask that they double check for this sort of thing before passing kneejerk legislation?

If I decide to use my legally owned suppressor (aka silencer) at the rifle range in Washington state, it is 6 months behind bars.

Despite the Federal paperwork, $200.00 tax and registration that he completed to legally own that suppressor, that state doesn't trust him with it. Does it magically become more dangerous there?

Making or buying a standard capacity magazine (30 rounds) for my ar15 can put me in hot water too.

I have never understood the notion that one 30-round magazine is more dangerous than a dozen 10-round magazines. Please also note that the AR-15 is not a machine gun.

Making a semi-auto ar15 with a threaded barrel is illegal now, but machineguns are still allowed to be owned and built for private ownership here in the USA.

Yep. It's perfecly sensible to outlaw threaded barrels on semi-automatic(one shot per trigger pull) rifles while allowing the ownership of fully automatic firearms if you fill out the paperwork.

Many of the gun control laws on the books in the USA today merely serve to excessively control or ban guns that law abiding citizens want to own.

The Gun Owners' Lament is the proliferation of all of these technicalities(most of which are felonies to violate, even in ignorance or by accident) that don't really inconvenience(much less disarm) criminals.

Assault rifles:
I suppose this term refers to rifles that are capable of bursts (fire several bullets by pulling the trigger once) and full-auto (fire a rapid succession of bullets as long as trigger is pulled) fire - the kind soldiers use.
Who on earth needs that capacity to hunt? Just what a ferocious monster are you hunting?
Automatic weapons are very useful for terrorists and criminals, but I cannot see anything a hunter might do with them that he could not do with non-automatic rifle.

It is already illegal to hunt with full-auto firearms in the US. Many people shoot them recreationally. I posted a bit here about recreational full-auto shooting (and more concerning Brady "mistakes" and the "assault weapons" controversy, if anyone is interested).

 

[Segnosaur]

No way to prove it either way, I just want to register guns, because I think a lot of stolen guns aren't stolen they are sold and then resold.

Personally, I do believe that having enforced gun registration would save some lives (a small number of people would secure their guns better, report them stolen, etc.) However, you have to look at the relative costs. A registration program will cost money to set up, and the government doesn't have unlimited cash; decisions have to be made. If the goal is to save lives, instead of spending money on a gun registry (that not everyone will bother with; certainly not criminals), better results might be obtained by putting the money into better policing, education, or health care.

Here in Canada, we have had much stricter gun laws for a while. Recently, the government started a program to register all firearms (including rifles). They originally said it would cost $35 million, then upgraded that to $200 million. Now that they've actually started implementing it, the costs have already reached $1 billion, and the process is nowhere near complete. In fact, its been a disaster. There have also been far too many problems; people sending in their applications, and either getting 2 registrations, or none at all, misassignments, etc.

Now, you have to wonder... what could you have done with $1 billion? How many free vaccinations could be given? How many new MRI machines could be set up (reducing the wait for medical tests). How many police could be hired to crack down on real crime?

 

[Ranb]

Is it just me, or does this paragraph display a worrying tone of increasingly dangerous weapons? First a pistol, then a silencer (to use on a rifle range? Go figure), then a 30-cartridge magazine for a semiautomatic rifle, then a privately-owned machine gun, then a sawed-off shotgun...

I can see the next paragraph: "Modifying my hand grenades is TOTALLY outlawed now, I need a special permit for my APC, My Abrams' tank has to be registered, and don't speak to me about the mess I had with that H-bomb..."

Really, having a pistol, a silencer, a semiautomatic with 30-bullet clips and a machine gun should be enough no matter how p*ssed off you are. Do you REALLY need that sawed-off shotgun as well?

It is just you. I am not an angry man. I just do not like reading about how it is wrong to own firearms. I do not like giving an inch, because then they will want a whole mile.

I do need that sawed off shotgun. I don't have one yet, but I intend to have a pistolgrip mossberg 500 registered as an AOW so I can attach a 7" barrel. This will make it a pistol and not an SBS. Why do I need it? Just to enhance my firearms collection.

I'm sure I can't convince people like you, that I present no threat to anyone. But I should not have to justify my ownership of small arms to anyone, especially someone who seems to be as insecure as you and DavidJames.

DavidJames,

Surely you can read between the lines. Regarding your "Sorry, no he didn't - nowhere in any of his "3 pages" does it say:
Brady people "hate gun-owning Americans"." when someone tells a lie and tries to demonize people who make or own guns, then it is clear to me that they hate them. When the Brady's say they are trying to only ban SOME guns, what they mean is all the guns they do not like. To them almost all guns are either, too small, too big, too cheap, too powerful, too accurate, too military looking, or otherwise offend them too much that they will get to any gun you yourself may own someday if given the opportunity. If they come right out and say that they hate gun owners, then they will lose too many people who are sitting on the gun control fence or are willing to give up anything they themselves do not own. They speak in full-blown lies, and half-truths where it suits them.

You really believe them when they say silencers are illegal in the USA when they are actually legal to own in 35 states of the union? Illegal in the USA is a blanket statement. They are clearly legal here.


Ranb

 

[Ranb]

Just an observation....735 hunting guides would represnt a fairly large population of hunters (assuming they all have a large clientel). And if they are saying that none of their clientel use assault rifles, then that would be far more substantive than just 735 "opinions" you assert in your strawman. And why would hunting guides care about "target" shooting. Do you need a guide to "target" shoot?

I also noted that nowhere in your link did anyone afiliated with the Brady Campaign state that they "hated" gun owners or that they wanted to "ban guns in the USA". I think you need to stick to plain old facts and leave the hyperbole and hysteria to Tony and RichardG.

Well, lets see.......... 735 guides said that "sportsman" do not use assault rifles. Sportsman is a rather broad term. I think the guides were referring to hunters of large game, I may be wrong, but I do not think so. The Brady group is equating "sportsman" with anyone who shoots for a sporting purpose. Why didn't they go to the local target range during a three-gun shoot to get opinions on the sporting uses of assault weapons? Because it would not have fit their agenda. Instead they use a survey conducted by someone else that was a perfect fit for them. That survey will not work so well if/when they decide to go after the owners of scoped 460 weatherby magnums.

Not everyone uses a guide either. Take a look at the second quarter VHP magazine. It shows a lady who used her 50bmg to take an elk at 750 yards. Good shooting. Not luck.

What would you say is sport?

High power target shooting? I have worked long and hard to make myself into a skilled shooter at high power matches.
An ar15, sks, ak47, m1 carbine all work well at the 3 gun shoots. They are accurate when aimed from the shoulder and powerful enough to drop popper targets. Tell the IPSC shooters they are not engaging in sport. I'm sure you can think of other sporting uses for a semi-auto rifle.

Since it was only "guides" who were surveyed, and not the likely large number of clients, I was not making a strawman argument.

I am not engaging in hyperbole. I know a rat when I smell it and Brady stinks.

Ranb

 

[Ranb]

Ranb


Assault rifles:
Who on earth needs that capacity to hunt? Just what a ferocious monster are you hunting?
Automatic weapons are very useful for terrorists and criminals, but I cannot see anything a hunter might do with them that he could not do with non-automatic rifle.

Silencers:
Again, I see some use of this for terrorists, but no use for hunters or sportsmen that they could not get with ear-muffs or such.

I have about 30 guns in my collection. Most of my rifles are suitable for hunting, including my semi-auto rifles. I prefer bolt action rifles for hunting though. I have a couple of rifles and handguns capable to taking game between 100-400 yards away. Hunting is not the reason I own most of my guns. Some of them (including the semi-autos) are useful for target shooting and competition. The rest I own merely because it pleases me to do so. I enjoy shooting loading ammo and gunsmithing. I have a few antique guns, but they are not collector's items.

Assault rifles (usually shooting medium or low power cartridges) are not suitable for so called monsters. They can be suitable for small game. I saw an elephant rampaging in Honolulu one time. I watched on TV as the HPD tried for a long while to put it down with M16's and shotguns. The poor thing suffered for too long until it finally succumbed to all the 22 caliber bullets and buckshot.

Please do not get hung up on hunting as the only reason for owning guns of any kind. There are many other reasons to own them as you can find out for yourself by looking into American gun culture on the net. Shooting paper and busting up hard targets is lots of fun when using a semi-auto rifle.

Silencers, more properly called suppressors, are useful because they reduce noise pollution and reduce the chance of hearing loss. While there is no substitute for using good hearing protection, (even when using a silencer, gunfire can hurt your ears) a good sound suppressor or moderator can reduce the chance of hearing loss for the shooter and any bystanders who are not wearing protection. Also they are useful for the hunter when he can use them legally. Hunters find game by listening for it as well as using their eyes.

I make my own suppressors. It is as rewarding as making something in high school wood shop.

If you live in an area where guns are legal, I would encourage you to learn how to shoot. You may find it to be a rewarding experience.

Ranb

 

[Tony]

You are saying the police officer should be killed for arresting the boy.

I have no interest in further discussions with someone who advocates cold blooded murder of policemen.

Nice strawman.

 

[NightG1]

Well, lets see.......... 735 guides said that "sportsman" do not use assault rifles. Sportsman is a rather broad term...snip

735 guides have a representative clientel that do not use assault rifles. You went off on a tangent claiming that only 735 "opinions" were used to arrive at a conclusion. Unless you are prepared to provide evidence that these guides were lying, then the 735 guides could actually represent the defacto standard for a far greater population of hunters on the issue of whether assualt rifles are used as hunting weapons. Why would a "sportsman" need a guide for anything else other than assistance in finding game (i.e. to hunt)? If each guide had 50 clients, that could be over 35,000 hunters. Get it now spunky?

 

[Tony]

You've convinced me.

Convincing you of anything beyond your pre-conceived notions is akin to convincing a gay dude to have sex with a woman.

 

[Tony]

Sorry, no he didn't - nowhere in any of his "3 pages" does it say:
Brady people "hate gun-owning Americans".

It doesnt have to, you judge by their actions. Using this "logic", the KKK wouldn't hate black people because their website doesn't say "We hate ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊".

And his claim that "Brady Campaign is trying to ban guns here in the USA" is also unsupported. Perhaps he would like to restate this something to the effect of the "Brady Campaign is trying to ban some guns here in the USA".


You just believe their propaganda.

 

[a_unique_person]

Convincing you of anything beyond your pre-conceived notions is akin to convincing a gay dude to have sex with a woman.

You're very pursuasive. Where's the woman?

 

[Ranb]

735 guides have a representative clientel that do not use assault rifles. You went off on a tangent claiming that only 735 "opinions" were used to arrive at a conclusion. Unless you are prepared to provide evidence that these guides were lying, then the 735 guides could actually represent the defacto standard for a far greater population of hunters on the issue of whether assualt rifles are used as hunting weapons. Why would a "sportsman" need a guide for anything else other than assistance in finding game (i.e. to hunt)? If each guide had 50 clients, that could be over 35,000 hunters. Get it now spunky?

"A BATF survey of 735 hunting guides, conducted during the administration of President George H. W. Bush, found that sportsmen do not use assault weapons"

I am quite certain that what the guides said in the survey is in fact true. Most hunters do indeed use far more powerful rifles than the assault weapons that the Brady's are trying to ban. I could not give a rat's ass what 35,000 hunters had to say about what I can use to hunt.

I am saying that the Brady group is distorting the truth with this report. They are using the BATF survey of a small group of Americans to define what sporting use is. I am saving my venom for Brady, not the BATF, guides, or Bush.

Ranb

 

[Dancing David]

I dont see how you could miss it, it was posted on this very website a long time ago, with sources and everything. I forgot who posted it, but I think he has a Bugs Bunny avatar.

I was involved in other hreads at the time, I was hoping for a 'best of' but I am sure this thread will have links. many of the anti-Moore sites seem even whackier than Moore, which is pretty whacky!

 

[BTox]

Sorry, I don't hunt home invaders. In fact I'm not sure how that works. Enlighten me. I wouldn't reach for a shotgun if my home was invaded.

Actually a shotgun is the best home protection weapon. Intimidating, easy to aim and shoot, better chance of hitting the invader, and much less chance of accidentally killing a neighbor as could happen with a rifle or pistol slug blowing through a wall or window.

 

[BTox]

And BTW, Michael Moore is a blithering idiot. Anyone really cares about his movies?