Michael Moore Tweet

[ChoppinBroccoli]

[tblue]

1. Perfect! Her legal purchase of guns

made all this possible too. People snap. People entering your household snap. There's no way to guarantee anyone's mental state. You can't control what you can control.

[jimlup]

2. Excellent... I wonder how many die hard righties won't even get it.

Less than if it were a random person I suspect as they already have a significant bias against Michael.

[UndahCovah]

54. I'm not a die-hard rightie, or any kind of rightie

But I'm not a huge fan of Michael Moore. When a person is as overweight as him, with no excuse*, I wonder what else is wrong with him.



*People work and don't have time to exercise, comfort-eating, mental-difficulties, etc. Moore is rich, stable, and has all the time in world to work out if he wanted to.

[pansypoo53219]

55. can you say genetics?

he did lose weight. but obviously he has other things to do.

[senseandsensibility]

57. What a strange reason not to like someone.

I would file this under "it's his business."

[jimlup]

58. So you openly discriminate against fat people?

As a former fat person I find that offensive. I know what that journey involves and I congratulate myself for making but I don't judge those who have not succeeded in that journey and I'm well aware that if things in my life go in certain directions I could return to that state.

Sure live your life discriminating against fat people. It won't help the world be a better place.

[Safetykitten]

3. Wow.

[Tanta]

4. That

That is like...a microphone drop and walk out right there.

[Atypical Liberal]

5. This is a silly tweet.

The implication is that having a gun can't protect you.

Why do the police bother having them then?

Obviously having a gun is no guarantee of safety.

[tiredtoo]

6. here is a video from ABC courtesy daily kos

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/video/defend-gun-7312540

[Atypical Liberal]

8. I've seen this before.

And it has been roundly discussed.

My point still stands. Michael Moore is implying that having guns is useless for self-defense. If guns were useless for self-defense the police would not carry them.

[ptownbro]

12. You miss the point and you have an underlying assumption that is completely wrong

Obviously you are right that there is some aspect of self-defense in the use of a gun and the police (and military) use a gun partially for self-defense (but not entirely). So you are right in that regard. However, where you are wrong and miss the point is Michael Moore is not "implying that having guns is useless for self-defense" as you stated. Instead, what he is implying is that having guns always works for self-defense and will prevent tragedies like this from happening. In other words, he is countering the argument that conservatives always make "if they only had a gun this could have been prevented". Well... no... mr conservative that is not true.

[Atypical Liberal]

15. No one has claimed that.

Instead, what he is implying is that having guns always works for self-defense and will prevent tragedies like this from happening. In other words, he is countering the argument that conservatives always make "if they only had a gun this could have been prevented". Well... no... mr conservative that is not true.

Except no one has claimed that having a gun is magical talisman that will 100% protect the owner from harm.

No one claims that having a gun for self-defense "always works".

Even police officers get killed in the line of duty and they carry a pistol out in the open on their hip. They still carry them because they are effective tools for self-defense.

Michael Moore is trying to insinuate that because the mother had guns and was murdered that keeping firearms for self-defense is a waste of time. Clearly this is not true.

And I am not a conservative on most issues.

[SheilaT]

18. Except that every single time something like this

event in CT happens, the gun apologists are all over the place saying that if only the principal or the teacher or the other theater-goers or mall shopper had had a gun this thing wouldn't have happened.

They're wrong.

Wrong.

Wrong.

[Atypical Liberal]

24. Except that every single time something like this

event in CT happens, it almost universally stops when someone shows up with a gun.

These cowards wilt in the face of force.

[tiredtoo]

33. and have you seen this too ?

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=205630366228609&set=a.148731235251856.14498.146680372123609&type=1&ref=nf

[SheilaT]

34. No, I have not seen that particular

posting.

Interesting, isn't it, that in a place where the majority of people are well trained with firearms that could happen.

Thank you for the link.

[Atypical Liberal]

37. Yes, and it is incorrect.

You may not know this, but soldiers don't walk around on military bases in the US carrying guns. Sure, the police do, just like in any small town. But otherwise, you are issued your ammo when you go to practice, and it is all collected up again when you are done.

Hassan was not surrounded by soldiers with guns.

[RC]

48. Do you mean the police, after it is all over? They have guns.

Except that every single time something like this event in CT happens, it almost universally stops when someone shows up with a gun.

Quite often after "the force" is the bullet the put into their own brains.

These cowards wilt in the face of force.

[Atypical Liberal]

52. And what compells them to put that bullet into their own brains?

Quite often after "the force" is the bullet the put into their own brains.

Yeah, again, AFTER THE POLICE SHOW UP WITH GUNS.

Yes, these shooters very often commit suicide. After the police show up with guns and they know they cannot proceed any further!

These shootings are almost universally stopped when people with guns show up.

[John2]

20. There is

no evidence, she ever been attacked, except by her son. There are reports, that she took it up as a hobby and went shooting with her boys. It appears, that she didn't start collecting those guns, until after her marriage fell apart. There was no need for her to have all that fire power just for protection.

As far as police having guns, that goes with their job and isn't equivalent to being a civilian. Police are often called to respond to dangerous events.

[Atypical Liberal]

23. So?

There is no evidence, she ever been attacked, except by her son.

So?

As far as police having guns, that goes with their job and isn't equivalent to being a civilian. Police are often called to respond to dangerous events.

If police are entitled to the tools to good self-defense, why shouldn't civilians be afforded the same opportunity?

[Skittles]

41. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz NRA talking points zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz NRA talking points zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[Atypical Liberal]

43. Wake up!

You'll give more coherent answers when you are awake.

[Skittles]

44. no

zzzzzzzzzzzzz because we are SICK AND TIRED OF YOUR LAME TALKING POINTS. Time for fucking gun nuts to take the hits from now on!!!!!!!!!!!! HASTA LA VISTA BABY.

[RC]

49. Because the law need their guns to defend themselves against the civilians who think they need guns.

Why do you think having guns is the answer to anything, let alone anything sane?
Guns are designed for killing. That is what they were invented for in the first place and have never really evolved past that one point.

[Atypical Liberal]

51. There will always be violence in the world.

Man is an innately violent creature. He has been for all of recorded history.

>Why do you think having guns is the answer to anything, let alone anything sane?

So when police show up with guns to stop a violent crime, is this bad?

[RC]

56. And most of the violence in this country is cause by people with guns.

There are 311.6 million people in this country.
There are 300 million guns in this country.
There are 600 million guns in the world.
There are over 7 billion people in the world
That works out for the Unites States having less than 4.5% of the worlds population.
Yet, we have one half of the worlds guns.
That fact is an obscenity. Why do we need so many guns?

[mattclearing]

16. Well put, and welcome to DU!

[JimDandy]

27. Welcome to DU!

That poster is being deliberately obtuse. He is a vociferous and frequent defender of gun rights on this forum and is aware of the NRA talking point that "if a ____________ (fill in occupation: teacher, mall walker, movie goer etc.) had only had a gun at this mass shooting this might _________ (fill in severity: not have happened, had less victims, etc).

I am not new to DU-just to the "stop the gun violence" issue, so it's great to see someone who is new to DU, knowledgeable about the issue, and wading right in!

[Sekhmets Daughter]

30. I question your assertion that police

have guns for self defense. Police have guns for offensive purposes, in the same way soldiers have them for offense and not defense.

[Atypical Liberal]

31. I don't think so.

Police are supposed to draw their guns only in response to danger, for their own protection.

The absolutely are not supposed to use deadly force for coercive purposes in non-violent situations.

Soldiers are sent out specifically to commit violence. Police are not. Police respond to violence.

[Sekhmets Daughter]

40. And Santa will leave

a new car under the tree for you next week.

[_ed_]

9. Your gun is making you less safe if you actually care about the facts

"Those persons with guns in the home were at greater risk than those without guns in the home of dying from a homicide in the home. They were also at greater risk of dying from a firearm homicide, but risk varied by age and whether the person was living with others at the time of death. The risk of dying from a suicide in the home was greater for males in homes with guns than for males without guns in the home."

http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/160/10/929.full

[Atypical Liberal]

11. No doubt.

There are risks in owning firearms.

This does not negate the fact that firearms are useful for self-defense, which is why the police carry them.

[xtraxritical]

22. Yeah, ok quickdraw, go back to the gungeon and lube your piece.

[mikeysnot]

29. which is why the police carry them

"Well regulated Militia", not the same as a gun nut with delusions of Rambo, Dirty Harry, DukeNukem, etc...

[Atypical Liberal]

32. I'm not sure what the militia has to do with this discussion.

The implication of the tweet is that having a gun is not effective for self-defense.

We know this is false because if they were not effective the police would not carry them.

Not sure what this has to do with military forces.

[mikeysnot]

45. 2nd ammendment

Don't you know....

[Atypical Liberal]

46. I don't understand what you are trying to say.

_ed_ posted that having a gun makes you less safe.

My response was that yes, there are risks to having a gun. But in spite of the risks, police still carry them because they are effective self-defense tools.

None of this has anything to do with militias or the second amendment.

[mikeysnot]

53. Merry Christmas.

[Beartracks]

7. Succinct, and a true send-up of a RW myth.

If RW folks talk smack about Mr. Moore or generally just get angry regarding his post, it's because deep down they know their own arguments about guns in homes are actually baseless. In other words, this will tick them off because they know it's right.

--------

[alwaysdemocratic]

10. Guns should have been locked up

Actually the guns should have been LOCKED in a safe without access to anyone but herself.

[Cleita]

14. She shouldn't have been allowed to purchase high powered rifles to begin with.

You don't need them for self-defense and they will be useless against our military if that is what you feel you need to defend yourself from.

[99Forever]

25. Shoulda... coulda... woulda...

The fact is that like so many other times, the death machines were in the hands of a murdering scum and NOTHING you gun freaks say will change that. There were 20 babies and 6 of those that only sought teach them, trapped and slaughtered because of what shoulda happened didn't. No more excuses.

[RagAss]

42. How do you know they weren't?....

Maybe he put a knife to her throat and made her open the safe. Unless you were there, you don't know.

[RC]

50. Mama was in her pajamas, in her bed, when she was shot several time in the head.

Nice try, but, FAIL.

[gollygee]

47. Maybe he waited till she was asleep and got the key

Having guns locked up in your home means you have guns in your home and a key in your home that accesses them.

[Cleita]

13. I've been saying the same thing.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2020345

But MM and I are pretty much on the same page on a multitude of issues.

[WastedSaint]

17. That's as dumb as the gunners saying "Why don't we just make murder illegal". MM is an idiot. nt

[Cleita]

19. Are hard unvarnished truths a little difficult for you?

Why don't all you gun enthusiasts just admit you are wrong?

[WastedSaint]

39. LOL, I support strict gun control. I'm the farthest from. nt

[Ecumenist]

36. REALLY? If what your side says is true about being armed WOULD PREVENT massacres

like Newtown, shouldn't she have been talking to the authorities about either shooting her son, or holding him at bay until she got them involved instead of be "CASKET READY"? Because this is EXACTLY what these fucking idiots say. I have lost friends to gun violence and no, they weren't gangsters, criminals or armed. they were INNOCENTS caught in crossfire. IT'S TIME TO STOP THIS MANIACAL SHIT!! PERIOD. We are a COUNTRY, NOT a continent sized ARMORY!

[Berlum]

21. Wow

Gut boink of truth to the gunny wankers.

[99Forever]

26. K&R

[JimDandy]

28. K & R

[Ecumenist]

35. EXACTLY, I have been saying this for the last 5 days....

The right saying that if these heroic women had guns, somehow this massacre could have been prevented, then what explains police officer murders ON DUTY, Soldiers in the field who EXPECT SNIPER FIRE, ENEMY FIRE ns yet, get killed or mained EVERY DAY. This is a BULLSHIT argument.

[Wind Dancer]

38. K & R!

It's a shame the gun nut crowd won't get it.