Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Rachel Maddow: Michael Moore on Tucson Shooting 'What Is Cost of Life of Federal Judge? 17 Cents'

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Political Videos Donate to DU
 
Hissyspit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-17-11 10:17 PM
Original message
Rachel Maddow: Michael Moore on Tucson Shooting 'What Is Cost of Life of Federal Judge? 17 Cents'
 
Run time: 12:56
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qQTNWYwLHy0
 
Posted on YouTube: January 18, 2011
By YouTube Member: mmflint
Views on YouTube: 63
 
Posted on DU: January 17, 2011
By DU Member: Hissyspit
Views on DU: 3219
 
MSNBC The Rachel Maddow Show - 17 January 2011: "Gun Fix" - Rachel speaks to 'Bowling For Columbine' director Michael Moore on impact of Tucson killings.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
sharesunited Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-17-11 10:21 PM
Response to Original message
1. She prefaced that MM interview with the segment from Bowling For Columbine
Edited on Mon Jan-17-11 10:23 PM by sharesunited
where MM takes shooting victims of Columbine to Wal-Mart headquarters to try to return the bullets sold by WM which are still in the victims' hides.

Life threateningly STILL in their hides.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Atypical Liberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-18-11 11:50 AM
Response to Reply #1
6. Why eliminating ammo from Kmart made no difference.
First of all, the 9mm ammunition is not only handgun ammunition. There are carbine rifles that also use them. It is a fool's errand to try and ban the sale of "handgun ammunition" when many rifles utilize the same ammunition. For example, the Beretta CX4 rifle utilizes 9mm, .40, or .45 ammunition, often associated with handguns. My father owns a deer rifle in .44 magnum, often associated with handguns. The Thompson sub-machine gun, and civilian semi-automatic variants made by Auto Ordinance, also utilize the .45 ACP cartridge. I'm sure there are countless examples.

Secondly, the only reason why there was not much outcry over Kmart stopping carrying ammunition is because it made no real impact on availability. I used to buy all my ammunition at Walmart.

But recently I've started reloading, because of price. A box of 50 .45 ACP cartridges costs about $25, or $.50 a round. But I can reload my own for about $4, or about $.08 a round. I salvage my brass, and use recycled wheel weights to make the bullets.

Michael Moore says there about 7 million firearms in Canada killing 200 people a year. But in the United States we have 200-300 million firearms! That is about 30 times more firearms than are in Canada. From Wikipedia:

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Gun_viol...

The firearm homicide rate in Canada is .54 per 100,000 people. In the United States it is 3.97. Thus the US firearm homicide rate is just over 7 times as high as it is in Canada. But we have 30 times more firearms than they do.

Micheal Moore opines on how great Canada's 28 day waiting period is. But most firearm homicides are not committed by people who just "snap". Most firearm homicides are committed by people with extensive prior criminal history, including, on average 4 felonies:

http://www.cardozolawreview.com/index.php?option=com_co...

Once you have confirmed that someone does not have a criminal background, you can be fairly certain that this person is not going to commit a firearm homicide, and probably any crime, with it. And since that background check can be done in minutes, what purpose is served by making someone wait 28 days?

He also tells us how great it is that in Canada you have to get a permission note from your spouse or ex-spouse to buy a gun. Wow. Do you really want your ex having a say over what you can spend your money on? How many people out there have vindictive exes who would say no just out of spite?

Michael Moore goes on about hunting in Canada, without noting that in the United States only 1 in 5 firearm owners hunt. Most firearm owners in this country are not hunters.

He also goes on about how fear is what drives people to want to be armed to defend themselves or their homes. I think this is a mis-characterization. Yes, it is fear that drives people to buy firearms, but no more so than how fear drives me to buy homeowner insurance, or keep a spare tire in my car, or fire extinguishers, or smoke detectors, or carbon monoxide detectors. Yes, I own all of those things out of the fear that my house might burn down, or I might have a flat tire, or my furnace might malfunction and poison my family in the night. But it's not chair-arm, hand-wringing fear like Michael Moore would have you believe. It is rather a rational assessment of risk. The fact of the matter is, I'm not likely to need my homeowner's insurance, or my spare tire, or smoke detector, or a firearm. But I am a modern human being living in modern times where we have easy, inexpensive access to tools that can help us in times of need, no matter how unlikely those times are to occur. And since the cost of the tools are so cheap compared to the cost of finding ourselves in a situation where we need them and don't have them, it's simple prudence to avail ourselves to the tools.

It makes a good sound bite to say that a Federal Judge's life is worth only $.17. Of course this ignores the fact that the pistol the shooter used costs $550, but this is really beside the point. On this point Mr. Moore is essentially right - in our society we have relatively free access to firearms. This is as our founders intended. It is our Constitutional right. It is, ultimately, the right of revolution. Hopefully, we will ever need it. But our founders were not so optimistic as to think that they had created the pinnacle of representative government, and consequently they built into our Constitution a reset button. Whether you agree with it or not, whether you think it can realistically be exercised or not, the fact is, this is a right that most other nations on this planet do not have. As the father of the 9-year-old girl shot in Arizona, Christina, said, this is the price we pay for that freedom.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JDPriestly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-18-11 12:33 PM
Response to Reply #6
9. The point with the 28-day wait in Canada is that the spouse
or former spouse has to agree with giving a gun permit to the applicant. That is an excellent idea, and would be especially useful here where there is so much horrible domestic violence. A spouse or former spouse should at least know if their spouse or former spouse is getting a gun.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Atypical Liberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-18-11 12:57 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. Asking your ex-spouse for permission.
That just rubs me the wrong way. So many divorces end badly; I could easily see spouses refusing just out of spite.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JDPriestly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-18-11 01:59 PM
Response to Reply #10
12. That is as it should be.
If a divorce is that angry, then neither partner should have a gun.

I know a lot about this. Domestic violence is a national scourge. Guns make killing easier. That is the whole point in guns.

Ineligibility to own a gun could be an important incentive for former husbands and wives to make efforts to get along with each other better. Counseling, anger management courses, mediation, parenting classes and alcoholics or narcotics anonymous, even overeaters anonymous are resources people can use to improve their relationship with an ex-spouse.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Atypical Liberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-18-11 02:15 PM
Response to Reply #12
13. Not anger - spite.
Ineligibility to own a gun could be an important incentive for former husbands and wives to make efforts to get along with each other better.

Assuming it even occurs to them at the time of marriage and divorce. I can see, years later, that the spouse wants to own a gun, tries to get a letter from their spouse, who then just gives them a big "fuck you" to their new interest.

I'm sure it's safer, but I'm glad we don't have that restriction here. I'd rather have the freedom than the safety.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JDPriestly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-19-11 12:33 AM
Response to Reply #13
14. Based on my experience, I would strongly support the Canadian
law on that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
X_Digger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-18-11 01:57 PM
Response to Reply #9
11. And if your ex-spouse is who you're concerned about? n/t
Edited on Tue Jan-18-11 01:58 PM by X_Digger
Perhaps a wife's ex-husband has threatened to kill her?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rhiannon12866 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-17-11 10:29 PM
Response to Original message
2. That was quick! K&R...
Thanks! :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DrDan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-18-11 05:06 AM
Response to Original message
3. K&R!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RoccoR5955 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-18-11 07:53 AM
Response to Original message
4. K & R n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
swilton Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-18-11 09:13 AM
Response to Original message
5. The last question(s) he raised
'why are we such a violent nation? why do we invade other countries - why do we think that violence is the solution' deserves an entire segment by Rachel.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Atypical Liberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-18-11 12:05 PM
Response to Reply #5
7. Several reasons.
There are several reasons, but I can think of two major ones, that are totally separate sides of the coin.

In terms of why we invade other countries, I think it's pretty clear that Eisenhower was right. First of off, there is a beast in the United States known as the Military Industrial Complex. This beast is also a huge employer. So there are a lot of voting constituents that politicians have to keep in mind when they try to stop feeding the beast. Of course this beast is made up also of massive defense-contractor corporations who spend millions upon millions pushing their interests in Congress.

On top of this America's leadership has, for good or ill, tried to protect "American Interests" over the years, and a large part of that has been securing access to cheap energy. I say "for good or ill" because looking out for American interests is precisely what our leadership is supposed to do. But "for ill" because it seems to

The other side of that coin is crime. Mostly, drug-related crime. In our lust for pushing puritan values on people we have engaged in a massive, yet futile "war on drugs" for decades. Just like with Prohibition, this has created a massive, multi-national, multi-billion dollar industry that operates outside the law. Because they have no recourse to the law for setting business disputes, they thus work outside the law to resolve them. This usually escalates to violence.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gejohnston Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-18-11 12:07 PM
Response to Original message
8. I realized that Michael and Rachel had limited time
But he missed many points about the current Canadian federal gun law. The law as he described has only been in existence in the past 15 years,and their low crime rate has nothing to do with it. For example, while handgun required registration and licensing since the 1930s, machine guns were unregulated until the 1960s. The lower crime rate has everything to do with history, culture, and inequality of wealth. Same with Japan and Europe.
If we were to adopt the Canadian law here, it would be unworkable (if we were to adopt it word for word) in the US for a couple of reasons. 1) there are a number of due process fourth amendment would prevent some parts of it from being enforce. 2)cultural differences such as their higher respect for authority. In other words, allowing 12 year olds to buy ammunition seems to be appropriate there but would be an awful idea here.
What we need to do is have logical, nuanced adult discussions with everyone at the table to reform our laws that put in place sensible regulation while weeding out security theater.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat Jul 12th 2014, 02:06 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Political Videos Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC