OK. Fuck it. Forget that I wanted to stop this bickering.
The correct way to have approached that would have been to say, "Fuck it. I want to stop this bickering," not "LOL LOOK AT LINK ISNIT TEH FUNNEY!?"
I'm not avoiding anything, Corey. I'm very much against guns while you, obviously, are not. I very much doubt that even if I shoved every relevant piece of statistics down your throat, I could make you change your mind. But since this is what you want, I feel obliged to do it.
And yet, you don't give me any figures. I can stand here all day and claim things, but without relevant quantitative data I'd be a dick. So far, I've posted two statistics: those which support that
legal handgun ownership is by far not the most prominent source of firearms used in violent crimes, and one stating a (admittedly, rather large) range of how many defensive uses occur annually.
You, on the other hand, state that you could give me all these statistics and not change my mind. That's a cop out. Give me figures, I'll give you figures, and we'll see who the data supports. I've got mine, where are yours (from credible sources mind you)?
Regarding your last link, about how Michael Moore went about filming that interview. There's no definitive evidence to either version on that page. There probably was more than one camera, though, because that's actually pretty much standard operating procedure when you're shooting a documentary. I don't know if you have experience shooting documentaries, but I do, and I can tell you here and now, that whenever I had the money, I always used two or more cameras, simply because often, there are no second chances, be it interviews, bird photography, or live concerts.
No, there's no definite account because Moore's crew hasn't come out and confirmed what method was used, but as someone who
has worked on filming a few projects I can tell you that the acessment provided on that page is correct. Furthermore, Moore is called into question in terms of his legitimacy for not only those 3 seperate accounts of events on that latter page (including one where he claims he broke federal law, technically), but also for other 'documentaries' such as 9/11 Farenheit where many of his claims were factually disproven and his footage was shown to be misleading in terms of how it was presented.
Standard operating procedure when you're shooting a documentary is also to hide the other cameras whenever you can, simply because they remove focus from where you, as a director, want it to be.
You hide the cameras from the view of eachother so they don't disrupt the shot, yes, but we're talking about physicially impossible positioning of cameras. Unless the cameraman was hidden in a pocket universe and popped out at just the right moment, it wasn't present during the initial shot, making the scene a doctored event that was "playing it out to the cheap seats," so to speak.
That Moore has more than one version of how that shoot was done is not relevant, however.
It only goes to prove that Moore is a liar, or at the least not forthcoming with the full truth.
We are talking about gun control and Heston's inability to produce a credible reply. What you are trying to do here is to discredit Moore so you don't have to face that bigger issue, the one this thread is about.
I'm not buying a film of Moore's, so can you give me the transcript or a YouTube video? My whole point of posting those links was to show that Moore did doctor things in that film, making it a poor choice for basing an argument upon.
Every documentary is an opinion piece, never an objective report on factual events. Of course Moore had a reason to include Heston and his failed excuses. It wasn't as much to bring the gun freaks down--he pwned them with that film, though--as it was to win over the folks who weren't sure. I repeat: it's an opinion piece. A strong one, based on facts, but still opinion.
Did you even read what I posted? The part about Moore rearranging things where they didn't even resemble the truth? If that's the case, I can say damn near anything about someone, with some cut and paste work, and have it be 'based on facts' per your representation. Furthermore, by possibly taping the "Look at this photograph" sequence afterwards and splicing it together with the former frames, it calls the authenticity of the whole interview into question and renders it void, in my opinion. I'm sure you can find other interviews where Heston said the same thing to a credible press outlet, so snag one of those for me.
And actually, he didn't 'pwn' anyone, he simply showed that he was unable to formulate a competant arugment against firearms without doctoring footage and deceiving people. If you can't prove your point without twisting the truth, then your point isn't worth hearing. And if people are too damn dumb to actually believe everything they hear, then things are worse than I thought.
By the way, I find it worrying that a person with Alzheimer's can legally own a firearm, and even more worrying that the person was the chair of the NRA at the time of the interview, when his Alzheimer was already in evidence (according to you).
I agree, actually. Though, to be fair, chairing an organization is a business matter, which has little to do with firearms (even if it is the NRA). I do agree however that it's potentially worrying that he would own firearms.
-Corey
