Could the Tulsa shooters claim immunity under Oklahoma's Castle Law?

[Simo 1939_1940]

122. Spot-on. And why (in this instance) Rachel is even sleazier than a liar.

At least in the case of the liar, the guilty party faces the possibility of suffering consequences upon called out on their lie. Rachel and her equally deceitful apologists can always play the "Show me where I/she lied" card -- knowing full well that her loyal viewers will assume that plastic guns were/are an actual threat. It's a tactic pulled directly from the Michael Moore playbook: (emphasis added - from Dave Kopel's disection of "Bowling for Columbine&quot

"After the April 20 lead-in, Bowling begins an examination of middle-American gun culture, and indulges the bicoastal elite's snobbery toward American gun owners.

We are taken to the North County Bank in Michigan, which — like several other banks in the United States — allows people who buy a Certificate of Deposit to receive their interest in the form of a rifle or shotgun. (The depositor thereby receives the full value of the interest immediately, rather than over a term of years.)

Moore goes through the process of buying the CD and answering questions for the federal Form 4473 registration sheet. Although a bank employee makes a brief reference to a "background check," the audience never sees the process whereby the bank requires Moore to produce photo identification, then contacts the FBI for a criminal records check on Moore, before he is allowed to take possession of the rifle.

Moore asks: "Do you think it's a little bit dangerous handing out guns at a bank?" The banker's answer isn't shown.

So the audience is left with a smug sense of the pro-gun bank's folly. Yet just a moment's reflection shows that there is not the slightest danger. To take possession of the gun, the depositor must give the bank thousands of dollars (an unlikely way to start a robbery). He must then produce photo identification (thus making it all but certain that the robber would be identified and caught), spend at least a half hour at the bank (thereby allowing many people to see and identify him), and undergo an FBI background check (which would reveal criminal convictions disqualifying most of the people inclined to bank robbery). A would-be robber could far more easily buy a handgun for a few hundred dollars on the black market, with no identification required.

The genius of Bowling for Columbine is that the movie does not explicitly make these obvious points about the safety of the North County Bank's program. Rather, the audience is simply encouraged to laugh along with Moore's apparent mockery of the bank, without realizing that the joke is on them for seeing danger where none exists. This theme is developed throughout the film."

Full destruction of Moore's "work" here:

http://www.davekopel.com/NRO/2003/Bowling-Truths.htm

(Waiting for the genetic fallacy to be used to dismiss Kopel's accurate expose: 3......2......1......)

Did Michael Moore lie.....and tell his viewers that it was easy for criminals to get their hands on some of the promotional guns? No - he carefully crafted his film footage and narrative to deceitfully lead his pliable audience to that conclusion. Just as Rachel knew damn well that her audience would assume that "plastic guns" were/are an actual threat. Stephen Colbert applied the same tactic just last week on his program --- leading viewers to the conclusion that national gun violence was on the rise without explicitly stating such.