Originally posted by stevetseitz
>>The premise that arming citizens makes it safer only holds in a context where so many citizens are armed to begin with.<<


Since we all live in REALITY, not some alternate time-line universe where guns were never invented, it's a "context" that is accurate. I think that it is not only preposterous to imagine such a world, it's also counterproductive. Why don't we find a real solution to the problem rather than daydream about something that will never exist. Alfred Nobel, the man the peace prize is named after, invented dynamite in order to create a weapon so devastating that "no one would possible use it". This is the same kind of naive thinking.

***Sorry to be naive and think of a better place. Since I work in the criminal justice system, I am all-too-familiar with reality, thank you very much.

>>Which do you believe would be safer -- a society with no guns, or a society where everyone had a gun?<<

A society that had NO guns would be extremely unsafe for anyone who wasn't a large, aggressive, athletic male. If you think a society with no guns would be a panacea for human suffering you are wrong. Thousands of years of bitter brutal warfare occured prior to the invention of the gun. People fought with swords and crossbows and their bare hands. At least guns are a gender nuetralizer, I have two friends both female, who would have been raped had they not been carrying weapons.

***I like how you continually change the context of your argument. Regardless of the weapons being used, wars are bitter and brutal. The Civil War and World War I were chock full of guns, and dying from gunshot wounds or the disease that infected them probably wasn't more pleasant than dying by a pike or a sword. And soldiers who will die in chemical attacks -- either on the field of battle or years afterwards due to exposure probably aren't going to care too much about the relative amounts of suffering those who died in battle of yore felt.

Moreover, your nattering on about the protective merits of guns, regardless of its validity, does not address many other problems that go to the root of crime -- problems that are alluded to in the movie and are extremely complex. I don't think that you're saying that guns are the ultimate solution, but you need to recognize that the movie is not premised solely on the idea that 'guns are bad'.

>>And as long as I asking questions -- have you seen the movie? To use a quote from a website as proof of Moore's viewpoint as opposed to the actual movie is extremely disingenuous.<<

It's not disingenuous at all. In fact, it's far more disingenuous to proceed with a film that makes a point that you know to be false (as can be seen from his own words.)

***It's at this point that you cease to have any credibility whatsoever. This would be like a judge trying a case without hearing evidence, and solely relying on media accounts. You may be 100% correct in your facts about guns, but your criticism of a movie you have not seen has absolutely no value whatsoever. You see, if you watch the movie, you may find ideas in it that are not contained in a website statement that excerpted.

>> As for political documentaries -- I notice that on your top 10 favorite movies, you have Schindler's List -- that's a telling of a true story with a decided political slant -- what's the difference?<<

Don't forget despite Spielberg's use of black-and-white predominantly hand-held footage, "Schindler's List" is a narrative feature motion picture based on a true story. It's historical fact, which can be backed up by any number of objective sources. You aren't one of those whackos that denies the holocaust are you?

Having read Oscar Schindler's story in Thomas Keneally's book I can tell you that the movie was a fiction that took some liberties with the story. Yet, Spielberg's masterpiece was some of the finest filmmaking I have ever seen. A true work of art.

Micheal Moore's film is opinion masquerading as fact. More like a network news hack job than a thoughtful or considered documentary. His own words (from the website) prove that his agenda and philosophy is on a shaky intellectual foundation at best.
No, I'm not a Holocaust denier. The movie still makes a political statement and has a definitive point of view. I notice that you didn't bother to address Shoah or Triumph Of The Will. Presumably, we'd both agree that the former is based on 'historical fact', while the latter is propaganda. That does not mean that Triumph lacks value -- it still is an intellectual (albeit misguided one) effort that has a certain artistic merit. Or, another example, Birth Of A Nation -- racist spew, yes (though Woodrow Wilson thought it was like 'history written with lightning'), yet still a great example of early American narrative filmmaking.

Moore is not the only voice in the movie -- perhaps you'd agree or disagree with the other voices in the movie, but as long as you don't bother to listen to them, don't bother to indirectly invalidate them with your unsupported criticisms.