Lebell

Thanks for doing that search.

I guess it shows (a) that we really must keep questioning everything we read, and (b) that peer reviewed journals do work by encouraging critical responses to articles.

This is exactly the sort of research that I would expect anyone writing a book or newspaper article (i.e. Michael Moore) to do before they quoted without qualification. And I certainly wouldn't want them to find a "fact", not check it and then completely reshape, strecth and massage that "fact" into something different.

NB: If we were discussing Kellermann and not Moore think I would want to take issue with those criticisms of his article. They too seem to be playing on the "kill" v. "shoot" distinction and are twisting the facts t get from 43 to 2.7.

But let us not get completely disillusioned. Whether it is 43 times or 22 times or 2.7 times or even 0.2 times, there is a truth of the matter. Guns either are or are not more likely to harm their owner than a burglar. And the truth of the matter is important.

Distortion or outright fabrication of statistics is nothing new in politics, but that doesn't mean that it should ever be considered acceptable behavior.

I think what the various [flawed/biased] studies show, is that if you want to own a gun you should be trained to use it. A simple mandatory firearm safety course would drop those numbers dramatically. I would be in support of a bill that would require completion of an authorized firearm safety course to purchase a gun, as long as it didn't in any way lead to national gun registration. Educating the populace, along with something similar to the NRA's "Eddie Eagle" program, would help a lot imho.

Kind of says it all in a nutshell, thanks seretogis. I usually think a person who fires (no pun intended) off statistics to support their argument and and expects me to accept them without question is a person who isn't really sure enough of their own beliefs to go without them. Mr. Moore is no exception. Maybe that's just a character flaw on my part.

And thank you, 4thTimeLucky, for your diligence in searching for the truth.

If we are ever to come to consensus solutions to the problems in this world, we have to be willing to sacrifice our pet positions (left and right) when the facts do not support them.

And we must also shun any and all who would bend and twist the facts to fit their own agenda rather than letting us make up our minds ourselves.

Hey, 4TheTimeLucky, I went to the library but they were out of the journal and Moore's book.

So I picked up Michael Lind's Up From Conservatism; have you read that?

After completion of the firearm safety course, maybe a firearm license, instead of gun registration. It works for planes, boats and autos.

I totally agree with this. I learned a lot more about gun safety than I previously knew after taking hunter's education to get my deer hunting license. The same idea would work great for all firearms. You guys might shit your pants at the notion of it, but I fully agree with the whole "enforce the current laws rather than make new ones theory" but I think adding an educational requirement couldn't hurt anyone.

smooth
No I haven't read that.
My most recent reads were:

Michael Moore - Stupid White Men (grrr)
Haruki Murakami - South of the Border, West of the Sun
Christopher Hitchens - The Trial of Henry Kissinger [currently reading]

Next books to read (cut and paste from my Amazon Wish List):

1. Kosovo : Contending Voices on Balkan Interventions by William J. Buckley (Editor)

2. The Complete Idiot's Guide to Motorcycles (2nd Edition) by Darwin Holmstrom, et al

3. Proficient Motorcycling : The Ultimate Guide to Riding Well by David L. Hough

4. Anthem for Doomed Youth: Soldier Poets of the First World War by Jon Stallworthy

5. The Essential Galbraith by John Kenneth Galbraith (Author)

6. Present Dangers: Crisis and Opportunity in American Foreign and Defense Policy by Robert Kagan (Editor), William Kristol (Editor)

7. Diplomacy by Henry Kissinger (Author)

8. How We Die: Reflections on Life's Final Chapter by Sherwin B. Nuland

9. Diplomacy: Theory and Practice, Second Edition by G. Berridge (Author)

10. The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: Crisis in the Middle East by Journalists of Reuters

11. Panic Rules!: Everything You Need to Know About the Global Economy by Robin Hahnel

12. Headhunters ~ Herbie Hancock, et al

13. Funkify Your Life: The Meters Anthology ~ The Meters

14. The Best Democracy Money Can Buy: The Truth About Corporate Cons, Globalization and High-Finance Fraudsters by Greg Palast

15. Party of One: The Loners' Manifesto by Anneli S. Rufus

16. How I Quit Smoking ~ Lambchop

17. Calvin and Hobbes: Sunday Pages 1985-1995

18. Versus ~ The Kings of Convenience

19. Lamb ~ Lamb

20. Stencil Graffiti by Tristan Manco

21. Globalization and Its Discontents by Joseph E. Stiglitz

22. Anarchy, State and Utopia by Robert Nozick

23. Jay's Journal of Anomalies : Conjurers, Cheats, Hustlers, Hoaxsters, Pranksters, Jokesters, Imposters, Pretenders, Side-Show Showmen, Armless Calligraphers, Mechanical Marvels, Popular Entertainments by Ricky Jay

24. Notes from Underground (Vintage Classics) by Fyodor Dostoyevsky, et al

I ordered #14 and have #21 (from a soc conference last term).

Maybe you'll move it (#21) up on the list cuz it's relevant to almost all of the issues you and I write about in this section...

Anyway, I also picked up Wrongly Convicted: Perspectives of Failed Justice (if you get this one let me know and I'll point out who my professor is--I still thinks it's cool when someone you drank beers with is cited as "one of the leading experts in the world on American police interrogation pratices, coercive influence techniques, false confessions, and miscarriages of justice.) and In The Shadow of The Prophet.

Anyway, sorry to jack your thread, just wondered about what else you were reading and wanted to recommend those three I just picked up.

To answer you main question: Everytime I've heard Moore speak he states that he's an entertainer with an agenda--to encourage people to search for answers to the issues he is raising.

I don't know anyone who would cite Moore's "data" although many of us (professers, students, etc.) have read and watched his material. Instead, we might use his bib to find primary sources and work from there.

I don't think his intent is to change the "other" side's pov, that doesn't happen even with "solid" facts, AFAIK. My impression is his material is for the average bloke who walks away thinking, "A lot more injuries occur from accidents due to guns in the house than I realized" or "Maybe our economy is based on fear and consumption."

No harm in either of those ideas and I don't see the need in telling Moore to shut it--those of us with carefully researched and presented data still get told to shut it so it's not like his actions are damaging my points or making people who would otherwise listen to me now ignore me.

I think that the major issue that people have is the idea of individual gun registration -- not licensing. I think that mandatory licensing would get some flak from the gov't if it was retroactive but for the purchase of new firearms I think it would fly.

My concern is that the "average bloke" walks away from one of his books or shows and thinks "wow that stuff is really powerful, maybe I haven't been giving that critical-left point of view enough attention/respect" - great! - and then reads an article like the one I started with in the Times or talks to a friend who has read one, and then he thinks "asshole. there he was saying that he was standing for truth against the lies that the government and businesses throw at us and what do you know? the guy was making it up, just like the politicians. jerk. next time i'll know better then to belive that lefty crap." - not great!

PS The numbers are not the order I plan to read them in. They are the reverse date order of addittion - the way amazon.com sorts Wish Lists. Thanks for the suggestions.

Everytime I hear this argument I start getting red in the face. WTF do you think cops are doing, eating donuts and drinking coffee 24/7? The way it's phrased makes it sound like cops aren't anything but lobbyists screwing around, wasting taxpayers money. *ARRRGGGGHHHH*

Well, I often bump into at least four uniformed officers at Whataburger, and not just in my city. However, I don't really think it's aimed at cops, just general legislation, since they already have laws to work with, but sit around and try to think up new ones.