"I would like to see a "profiler" draw up the true profile of the dominant, caricatured, gun killer. Moore didn't try that."

I agree it would be wonderful if we could draw up a true profile of the dominant, caricatured, gun killer. But I'm confused as to who YOU think that might be.

Moore didn't try that because it is an impossible task. Statistics in that area are no better for gun killers than they are on the police engaging in racial profiling, ie it has been done so rarely, there are no reliable statistics.

So when it is impossible to prove statistically, we Americans tend to rely upon our emotional and intellectual reactions to the anecdotal evidence presented to us by the mass media. For instance, I wouldn't deny that there have been some black male school shooters. But anecdotally, it appears, according to reports in the mainstream media, that school shooters are predominantly white males.

On the other hand, gang related killings, anecdotally, are most often presented to us by the mainstream media as having been predominantly carried out by black males. So, do I believe that most school shooter murders are perpetrated by white males, and most gang related murders are perpetrated by black males because it is true, or because this is the way that the media has reported on the issue of male gun violence, and framed the debate for us, as Fred Miller suggests above? And if that is the case, ie that the media is guilty of presenting anecdotal evidence as if it were statistical evidence, which they do all the time, in order to perpetuate myths about male gun violence in our society, then why are we holding Michael Moore accountable for pointing out those very sorts of discrepancies (though not "proving" them or providing easy, simplistic answers) that the mainstream media uses every single day in their so-called "objective" reporting of "facts"?