@ Wilse
First off, two points to show that I am not unreasonable:
1) You're right that I shouldn't pigeon-hole you.
2) The story about Michael Moore's bodyguard being arrested on firearms charges is not as big a deal as it is made out to be, because Burk wasn't working for Moore at the time. Ironically, this was first raised by one of the sites that is critical of Moore, and a great source of interesting facts concerning Moore. (moorewatch.com) I found it out today.
However, I would like to explore one little point you made:
"...I didn't. I challenged your pathetically ignorant attempt to discredit and belittle it..."
I would hate to appear ignorant, so perhaps I can give you a different angle on Moore's deception of the viewer. An angle that does not involve a man who you perceive to be an 'arse'. And I'm going to be very reasonable now, not just because I know you would prefer it, but also because I don't want other users here to go away from this thread thinking that Moore can be trusted to put the facts forward in an honest way. And to save those who don't like clicking links, I will provide the salient points here.
Let's see another example of Moore's deception : the apparently innocuous clip of the rifle giveaway at the bank. He walks in to the bank, opens up an account, fills in some papers and walks out with a rifle, apparently in a very short space of time. There are three relevant issues here:
1) The apparent ease with which Moore got the rifle.
2) The special arrangement that was made for Moore to enable him to make (1) above appear real.
3) The nature of the weapon that he got (whether it was acquired easily or not).
Firstly, as concerns (1) above (from moorexposed.com) the transfer of that rifle was and is subject to the Gun Control Act, and could not have been acquired as easily as portrayed unless some staging was carried out prior to filming:
"...One note as to how far the staging may have gone: the bank is in Michigan, and Moore is a resident of New York City. I found a June 6, 1997 article indicating that he'd moved out of Flint and into a $1.2 million apartment in Manhattan, so he was already a resident by the time Bowling was filmed. The importance? Under the Gun Control Act, transfers to a nonresident of your state are tightly limited. A person who is not a licensed dealer cannot (with a few narrow exceptions, none applicable here) transfer a gun to a resident of different state, period. A licensed dealer can transfer a rifle or shotgun to a nonresident, but only if "the sale, delivery, and receipt fully comply with the legal conditions of sale in both such States." 18 U.S. Code sec. 922(b)(3). This requirement is well-known to firearm dealers, and violation is a felony, so they're serious about it. The buyer is also required to produce picture ID to establish his residence. New York City has some of the strictest gun laws in the nation. One of them makes it illegal to transfer a rifle or shotgun to anyone who does not hold a rifle and shotgun purchase permit. NY Admin. Code sec. 10-303. The permit is supposed to be issued within 60 days of application, although in practice it takes much longer -- e.g., a 2001 comment, " I recently inquired at the Rifle and Shotgun section of the NYPD. The say it now takes up to six months to get the permit, before it was 3-4 months." So (assuming Moore didn't just slip the dealer his old Michigan driver's license, which would constitute two federal felonies and maybe a third), he probably also spent 6 months or so getting a permit, then persuading the Michigan dealer that he had covered all his NYC legal bases, then getting the rifle ordered in -- all before filming a scene designed to show how easy and quick it was for him to get a rifle...."
Moore has responded to that criticism on his website (MichaelMoore.com):
"The Truth: In the spring of 2001, I saw a real ad in a real newspaper in Michigan announcing a real promotion that this real bank had where they would give you a gun (as your up-front interest) for opening up a Certificate of Deposit account. They promoted this in publications all over the country "More Bang for Your Buck!". . . .
When you see me going in to the bank and walking out with my new gun in "Bowling for Columbine" that is exactly as it happened. Nothing was done out of the ordinary other than to phone ahead and ask permission to let me bring a camera in to film me opening up my account. I walked into that bank in northern Michigan for the first time ever on that day in June 2001, and, with cameras rolling, gave the bank teller $1,000 and opened up a 20-year CD account. After you see me filling out the required federal forms ("How do you spell Caucasian?") which I am filling out here for the first time the bank manager faxed it to the bank's main office for them to do the background check. The bank is a licensed federal arms dealer and thus can have guns on the premises and do the instant background checks (the ATF's Federal Firearms database-which includes all federally approved gun dealers-lists North Country Bank with Federal Firearms License #4-38-153-01-5C-39922).
Within 10 minutes, the "OK" came through from the firearms background check agency and, 5 minutes later, just as you see it in the film, they handed me a Weatherby Mark V Magnum rifle ."
To which Moorexposed replies, (relevant to point (2) above:
"...I thought the point in the movie was to illustrate how Mike just saunters into the bank, deposits money, and is handed a gun. Now it develops that the bank holds a Federal Firearms License, Moore had to take out a twenty year CD, had to fill out the federally-required paperwork, the bank had to run a criminal records background check on him through FBI. . . . you know, that casual attitude towards a gun transfer doesn't sound quite so casual any more. Update: the producers of Fahrenhype 9/11 got the bank personnel to appear on-camera. As I'd suspected, the bank doesn't keep a stock of Weatherby firearms (cost $600-15,000 each) in every branch. When the lady says that they have the guns in the vault, she isn't referring to the branch bank's vault, but to a central storage area the bank has. Normal procedure is the customer makes a pick from the catalog or samples on the wall, the bank puts in an order, it arrives several days later, and then the customer fills out paperwork and receives it. Moore had made arrangements in advance for the firearm to be shipped in for filming. So his denial avoids the real issue. Yes, he walked out with the gun that day, but no, this was not normal, but a special arrangement made for his filming..."
Now nobody has addressed point (3), because they haven't read up or researched this. A Weatherby Mark V Magnum rifle is a bolt-action rifle:
http://www.kitsune.addr.com/Firearms/Bolt-Rifles/Weatherby_Mark_V_Rifle.htmNote the price of that rifle. The number of firearms crimes committed by means of a bolt-action rifle in any country world-wide is EXTREMELY low, and is negligible in terms of the overall number of firearms crimes. By firearms crimes I mean robbery, murder, any firearms offence, even pointing a firearm. If Moore had researched the use of firearms in crime, he would have found this out, and maybe he would have thought twice about having that segment.
Unfortunately there is a grave misconception amongst the general public about the use of firearms in crime, particularly in the erroneous belief that for all intents and purposes 'a gun is a gun.' Look at Wilse's response to my question about why Michael Moore had that rifle segment if he wasn't trying to slam gun ownership:
"Why not? Obviously encouraging people to own guns is not going to help the situation, since if you don't have a gun, you can't shoot anyone. Doesn't mean he blames that alone for it."
And that is the problem. People who aren't in the field don't have a clue about firearms crime. The only reason that I know about firearms crime is because I have researched it. I have to research it, because I am writing a book on it, and it relates to a qualification that I already hold. This research involves medical, police and forensic investigators in USA, SA, and the UK. Most firearms offences in the USA are committed with handguns. The same is true in South Africa even if you take into account the use of assault rifles and machine carbines in cash-in-transit heists (in other words even if you call an AK-47 or an FAL) a plain rifle, though both are fully automatic and fire intermediate cartridges, not magnum hunting cartridges like Moore's rifle. His rifle is for hunting and you'll rarely find bolt-action rifles like that being used in crime, because even criminals know that those rifles are not easily concealed and suffer from a decreased rate of fire which they understandably don't find appealing. I myself processed 150 gunshot victims in JHB in 2002, and collected statistics for 542 victims. There was ONE rifle injury, from a .303 bolt action rifle, and that was an attempted suicide. Now Wilse, you said in a previous post that you were not aware of a documentary needing to be researched. well, here is an example of exactly when it does need to be researched: when the film-maker includes a clip which has the purpose of outlining a particular point that only has relevance if proper statistics are supplied. And I don't mean fabricated statistics, I mean statistics that are scientifically-referenced.
Evidence of the need for research is further found in your erroneous quote to me of information you got from the film, concerning firearms ownership in the US and Canada. Moore deceived you and you tried to quote that false comparison to me. I've given you the proper figures from the Canada Department of Justice.
And then you asked me if I had seen the film, particularly the Canada segment. I regret to tell you that the Canadian authorities took a dim view of his segment. The worst part of it was the apparent purchase of ammunition in Ontario:
(from Moorexposed.com) "...Even the Canadian government is jumping in. Bowling shows Moore casually buying ammunition at an Ontario Walmart. He asks us to "look at what I, a foreign citizen, was able to do at a local Canadian Wal-Mart." He buys several boxes of ammunition without a question being raised. "That's right. I could buy as much ammunition as I wanted, in Canada."
Canadian officials have pointed out that the buy is faked or illegal: Canadian law has since, 1998, required ammunition buyers to present proper identification. Since Jan. 1, 2001, it has required non-Canadians to present a firearms borrowing or importation license, too. (Bowling appears to have been filmed in mid and late 2001).
-----------------------------------------------------------
Now Wilse, let me just add something very frank here: it is a source of extreme irritation and disappointment when we in the field (be it forensic, medical or supplementary) are not given due credit for the hard work and knowledge we have on our particular field of expertise. For somebody to quote crap from Bowling For Columbine to me is not only insulting but is an extension of Moore's agenda of deception and disregard for the real research that is being done by respected professionals around the world.
You might have got a few giggles out of his political satire (and that's fine), but don't think I'm going to sit back idley and let somebody repeat Moore's bullsh1t here, especially when he presents it as fact.
