Bowling for Columbine SPOILERS! (or..Not a Ring Thread!) [Archive]

Tars Tarkas

10-19-2002, 10:32 PM

Anyone seen Bowling for Columbine yet? i just got back from seeing it (hence the spoilers). There were many funny moments as Micheal Moore pointed out absurd things in American culture. These were interspersed with montages of violent acts set to music. There is actual photage of people being shot (some of which i had seen previously during the one and only time i rented one of those BANNED from TV!!! videos). There were also interviews with Matt Stone (of southpark fame), Dick Clark (or more accurately, his van door), and Charlton Heston. Heston made a comment on the "great dead white men that founded our country."

Overall, the conclusion of the film was that America's culture of fear is a major factor into why Americans kill each other. The film makes a good point in that regard, however, i feel it oversimplified the issue slightly.

Anyone else catch this yet? what are your views?

WSLer

10-19-2002, 10:47 PM

Considering the lies that Moore told (and when caught at them, tried and failed to rationalize them away) in Roger & Me and the lies he told in Stupid White Men and the lies he is spreading on his website, you would think it a safe bet that I would NEVER see Bowling for Columbine.

You'd be wrong, though I would never pay to see it in the hteater or to rent it on video.

So, what does that leave?

Easy, buy a ticket for one movie, see said movie, then see a 2nd movie.

Moore doesn't make documentaries, he makes propaganda. A good comparision would be to Triumph of the Will but Leni Riefenstahl has more talent in one her bony 100+ year old fingertips then Moore will ever have in his ever bloating body.

I thought the attack on Heston was vile, and it was an attack.

Moore is like Rush Limbaugh, in that he's only preaching to the already converted and he isn't gaining many new followers.

RexDart

10-20-2002, 02:40 AM

WSLer, I believe Leni Riefenstahl is deceased now. Sometime recently perhaps.

litost

10-20-2002, 03:13 AM

What lies did Moore spread in Roger and Me? (I am aware of his Rush Limbaugh-ish website)

gex gex

10-20-2002, 08:41 AM

I thought the attack on Heston was vile...

How can an attack on Charlton Heston be vile?

3waygeek

10-20-2002, 08:52 AM

Originally posted by RexDart
WSLer, I believe Leni Riefenstahl is deceased now. Sometime recently perhaps. Nope -- she just celebrated her 100th birthday. (http://archive.salon.com/ent/movies/feature/2002/10/01/leni_riefenstahl/)

Caprese

10-20-2002, 10:30 AM

Saw it last night in Denver, very poignant, survivors of Columbine were there with Moore.
Yes, a few over-simplifications and set-up situations, but to Moore's credit, the film offers no easy answers.
If nothing else, Moore has taken America's thousands of gun deaths and questioned our collective tolerance of them.

Baldwin

10-20-2002, 10:42 AM

Easy, buy a ticket for one movie, see said movie, then see a 2nd movie.

That's theft. Doesn't exactly make me want to listen to your opinions.

JavaMaven1

10-20-2002, 11:03 AM

Originally posted by WSLer
I thought the attack on Heston was vile, and it was an attack.

An attack? It was hardly an attack. Moore asked some hard questions to Heston and asked him if it was insensitive of the NRA to hold gun rallies 2 days after Columbine and 2 weeks after a shooting in Flint, Michigan. Heston dug his own hole (IMHO) when he blamed our level of gun violence our bloody history and our country's 'mixed ethnicity'.:rolleyes: Honestly, I would like to believe that the leader of such an influential organization such as the NRA would be prepared for such questions and would have much better answers than what he gave.

And I say this as someone raised in an NRA family and someone who does support our constitutional rights to own arms (although I do not personally own them for my own reasons).

In regards to the movie, although he does make some good points, there are some things to be taken with a big grain of salt. The part that didn't settle well with me is the animation in the middle of the movie, that in the end linked the KKK and the NRA together. Some people may see it that way, but I know I don't.

JavaMaven1

10-20-2002, 11:10 AM

Sorry--I meant 2 weeks after Columbine, 2 days in Flint.

Exapno Mapcase

10-20-2002, 11:50 AM

I was intrigued and disappointed by the movie. It's not exactly a secret that the US has long had a gun culture, but it was interesting to see all the ways it gets all the way down to the level of schools and children.

But BfC is also a poster child for why ambush journalism is sheer dispicable bottom-feeding. Those segments were prolonged and painful; they added nothing to the discussion.

The Heston segment was different, however. Moore made an appointment with Heston. Heston was evidently expecting another adulation ceremony after Moore announced he was a lifetime member of the NRA, and then froze when the questions had a hard edge. But the exchange should have ended when Heston cut it off. Leaving the dead girl's picture behind was playing to the cameras.

Though Moore has a flair for documentary making, he is not a reporter but a polemicist. You have to take him on those terms. If you go in knowing this, BfC is worth seeing.

Sampiro

10-20-2002, 12:36 PM

I used to be a fan of Michael Moore, but I got sickened by his hypocrisy and his complete ineffectiveness. For all his ranting against capitalism he certainly doesn't mind shying away from reaping its rewards (you know Michael, you could self-publish and distribute your books and not have to worry about what evil corporations say- hell, make them available for free on your web-site like Peter McWilliams did if you're not really in it for the money), and for all his railing about the situation in Flint it's gotten progressively worse, not better, since ROGER & ME. In logic he's neck-in-neck with Ann Coulter and in style & class he's neck-in-neck with Howard Stern.

That said, I do intend to see BfC because I agree: grilling Charlton Heston is never a bad thing.

WSLer

10-20-2002, 04:41 PM

Originally posted by Baldwin

That's theft. Doesn't exactly make me want to listen to your opinions.

Theft of what exactly?

What am I stealing?

WSLer

10-20-2002, 04:43 PM

Originally posted by Baldwin

That's theft. Doesn't exactly make me want to listen to your opinions.

How is that any different then using a free pass to the movies to see it?

minty green

10-20-2002, 05:24 PM

Did someone give you a free pass? No?

I look forward to this movie opening in Dallas. Moore is certainly a propagandist, but he's also got a great eye for the absurd, and there is much that is absurd about American culture when it comes to guns.

Celyn

10-20-2002, 05:54 PM

Do any U.K. Dopers happen to know if the film will be shown here too?

ElwoodCuse

10-20-2002, 06:49 PM

Am I allowed to ask for cites in CS? Not that I would be surprised/doubtful that a political entertainer would slant facts to support his or her position, but I would like to see what exactly is being misrepresenting by Moore out of sheer curiosity.

I do enjoy Moore's stuff, but he's even too leftist for a left-center guy like me sometimes. He reminds me of Rage Against the Machine on occaission--yeah, they have their message and all, but they aren't exactly work-a-day joes either.

Tars Tarkas

10-20-2002, 07:28 PM

Originally posted by WSLer

How is that any different then using a free pass to the movies to see it?

That is the dumbest thing i have ever read. BECAUSE THE FREE PASSES ARE GIVEN OUT BY THE THEATER!!! YOU weren't given crap. You are a THEIF. So lying is evil, but theft is okay? WSL must mean Wacky Stupid Logic.

Daniel

10-20-2002, 08:50 PM

The movie was good. If you don't mind being beaten over the head with the message he wants to send, and just enjoy the funny parts, then it's great and I'd see it again.

The stuff with Dick Clark, Charlton Heston and K-Mart was, I thought, beneath Moore. Any grass-roots/activist mission must have two things: a target who can be named, and a winnable goal. All he had there were targets, and it seemed his only goal was to be annoying, which actually frustrates his cause. The K-Mart victory looked like dumb luck.

That stuff aside, the rest of it was just great for the entertainment value. He clearly knows how to take a serious issue and make it entertaining. I was impressed.

Muad'Dib

10-20-2002, 08:53 PM

What was this "k-mart" victory?

Tars Tarkas

10-20-2002, 09:52 PM

the getting the pistol ammo off the shelf at K-Marts. I was expecting him to show up at a K-Mart on day 91 and their still being ammo everywhere.

The Dick Clark ambush seemed a little pointless.

WSLer

10-20-2002, 09:57 PM

Originally posted by Tars Tarkas

That is the dumbest thing i have ever read. BECAUSE THE FREE PASSES ARE GIVEN OUT BY THE THEATER!!! YOU weren't given crap. You are a THEIF. WSL must mean Wacky Stupid Logic.

It helps to hit the preview button, so you can catch those embarrassing misspellings.:p

And the free pass wasn't given out by the theater, so :p again.

And what exactly did I steal? A seat from someone who did pay? Hardly, as the theater was more then 1/2 empty.

Oh, and WSL stands for While Supplies Last which is the name of my band.

And is it really the dumbest thing you have ever read?

I doubt it.

Tars Tarkas

10-20-2002, 10:05 PM

And the free pass wasn't given out by the theater, so again.

So did you get a free pass or not? Straight answers from you are as impossible to get as gold from a emu's beak.

minty green

10-20-2002, 10:11 PM

For your next trick, please explain why stealing cable isn't really stealing.

Philosophocles

10-20-2002, 11:44 PM

I'm not familiar with the Dick Clark incident (haven't seen the movie yet)...though I know Moore had a Bob Eubanks incident from his earlier work.

Who will be the next game show host in a Michael Moore film? Wink Martindale? Richard Dawson?

Sublight

10-20-2002, 11:46 PM

Originally posted by Baldwin

That's theft. Doesn't exactly make me want to listen to your opinions.

Depends on the theater. Don't any American theaters do double-features any more?

grendel72

10-20-2002, 11:53 PM

Originally posted by Sublight

Depends on the theater. Don't any American theaters do double-features any more? Sometimes. If you went to a double feature, would you brag about not paying for one of the movies?

grendel72

10-21-2002, 12:12 AM

...When you buy a ticket to a double feature, you are paying for both movies.

BTW, double features are exceedingly rare in the US.

minty green

10-21-2002, 07:19 AM

As I understand it, the standard practice for film distributors these days is to take a (very, very large) percentage of the film's ticket sales as their compensation for letting the theater display it. The distributors would be quite upset if the theater were allowing patrons to see extra movies without additional compensation.

Sublight

10-21-2002, 10:24 AM

I see. We have a couple of small theaters in our neighborhood that both alternate two films on the same screen. You just buy a ticket to go in and can stay as long as you want. Not very comfortable, but fairly cheap.

I don't know that I'd brag that I saw one feature for free, but I suppose if one film sucked, hopefully I could shrug it off by saying "at least I got my money's worth on the second movie".

The Tim

10-21-2002, 06:12 PM

Usually if you complain about a film, quality of presentation or just it itself, the management will let you go see another one. This is especially true when theaters are near enough to be in compitition with one another. In a case where one did that it wouldn't be bad at all to talk about it.

Theater hoping is theft of service. Theaters don't really protect themselves against it except for movies that are going to be packed because then the seat is stolen from a paying customer. I'm not saying this is a justification for doing a theater hop it is clear that the management of most places don't care if people sneak into shows like BfC because they aren't going to fill all the seats and if they encountered resistance they aren't going to go buy a ticket they are just going to leave. All you do in protecting against theater hops for unpopular movies and show times is waste money.

WSLer

10-21-2002, 08:19 PM

Originally posted by ElwoodCuse
Am I allowed to ask for cites in CS? Not that I would be surprised/doubtful that a political entertainer would slant facts to support his or her position, but I would like to see what exactly is being misrepresenting by Moore out of sheer curiosity.

Among others:

1) Moore's claim that GM laid off 30,000 workers in one year. It was 10,000.

2) Moore's showing people getting evicted from their homes and saying that they had lost their jobs at GM. Trouble was, the people he showed had never worked for GM.

minty green

10-21-2002, 09:19 PM

Am I correct in guessing that they worked for parts suppliers for GM, and lost their jobs as a result of GM's own production shutdowns? And that the 30,000 figure is also related to that?

Not that there was anything in the remotest bit wrong about GM's layaoffs. Such is and should be the nature of the labor market in America.

Freudian Slit

10-21-2002, 09:31 PM

Well, you know Michael Moore, he WOULD be upset about a gun rally being held in Flint.

Anyway, I thought Roger and Me was blatant propoganda. Is it really the CEO of GM's problem if the workers took their jobs for granted instead of looking into the future? And why is Roger Smith portrayed as such a bastard for not wanting to talk to a sketchy guy off the street with a camera crew who don't even have appointments?

Entertaining movie, though, it was funny, especially with all the pop culture references and certain bits (selling Amway and Pets and Meat pop up :)), but he didn't convince me that GM or corporate America was evil. He did however convince me that he's really annoying...perhaps, ironically, even...a Stupid White Man himself? (Okay maybe he's not that stupid but that was too good not to put in.)

Sam Stone

10-21-2002, 10:03 PM

The film hasn't played here yet, but here's what I don't get about Bowling For Columbine based on what I heard Moore say on the Tim Russert show yesterday:

He originally figured it would be cool to go to Canada and show how safe the country is, and how few guns there are. This was going to be a major thesis of his support for extensive gun control legislation.

So he goes to Canada, and discovers that we are awash in guns. Handguns, rifles, you name it. I own a handgun and two rifles. I'm not unusual in that regard. Here in Alberta, I'm guessing our gun ownership rates are much the same as the U.S. average.

So Moore discovers that we have lots of guns, but way fewer gun deaths.

And yet from this, he STILL concludes that the proper solution in the U.S. is more gun control?

In the interview with Russert, he even conceded that there are other countries that have as many or more guns than the U.S., yet with much lower incidence of gun crime.

How can you be presented with so much evidence contradicting your own thesis and yet still stick to it? Can't he reason?

Sam Stone

10-21-2002, 11:02 PM

litost

10-21-2002, 11:17 PM

Originally posted by Sam Stone

He originally figured it would be cool to go to Canada and show how safe the country is, and how few guns there are. This was going to be a major thesis of his support for extensive gun control legislation.

So he goes to Canada, and discovers that we are awash in guns. Handguns, rifles, you name it. I own a handgun and two rifles. I'm not unusual in that regard. Here in Alberta, I'm guessing our gun ownership rates are much the same as the U.S. average.

So Moore discovers that we have lots of guns, but way fewer gun deaths.

And yet from this, he STILL concludes that the proper solution in the U.S. is more gun control?

In the interview with Russert, he even conceded that there are other countries that have as many or more guns than the U.S., yet with much lower incidence of gun crime.

How can you be presented with so much evidence contradicting your own thesis and yet still stick to it? Can't he reason?

I was puzzled by that initially but as the interview went on what he was trying to say became clearer (though I am not sure how much he has thought through his own ideas). His contention is that there is a culture of violence in the US which is a result of a number of things including poverty, racial disparities and just plain psyche which makes folks take to the gun to settle problems (put simplistically). He mentioned that ~70% of gun-related murders happen between people who know each other (I haven't verified the statistic). So, basically he was saying that unless this country learns to take care of its people (i.e., minimize poverty) and mitigates its psyche of revenge and taking to the gun to settle problems, gun control should be considered as one of the options to bring down violence. And, when we learn to live with guns like Canada, for example, then regulations would cease to matter. The other angle he provided for gun control was the needlessness of a gamut of guns, including a number of semi-automatics, in a single house.

Sam Stone

10-22-2002, 12:21 AM

The difference between the U.S. and Canada is that you have a lot of urban violence. Gangs, drug dealers, etc.

If you ask me, the major factor dividing the U.S. from Canada is the existence of a lot of very silly laws that create a huge criminal underclass. That, coupled with inner city violence and a gang culture that really doesn't exist in Canada.

I wonder what the gun violence rate is in suburban Vermont or Maine, and how that compares to suburban Toronto or Halifax? I'll bet it's pretty close.

ElwoodCuse

10-22-2002, 01:14 AM

Sam--I thought you weren't allowed to have handguns in Canada. Or are you just not allowed to bring them in from the U.S.? It's on all the customs forms I've seen.

Sam Stone

10-22-2002, 01:42 AM

To buy a handgun in Canada, you just have to go to the police station and get a permit.

The major difference is that once you own the handgun, you can only legally transport it to a sanctioned gun range and your home, or to a gun smith and your home. You cannot carry a handgun around with you at all for any other reason.

Rifles are barely regulated at all. We only started registration last year. Before that, all you needed was a Firearms Acquisition Certificate and you could walk into any K-Mart and buy a rifle. Now you can still do that, but it has to be registered with the government.

tclouie

10-22-2002, 02:11 AM

Saw the film, and enjoyed it enormously. Will probably see it again, and yes, PAY to see it. Loved the little KKK/NRA cartoon bit. (By the way, Moore himself is an NRA member.)

Moore doesn't give us any freebies. He leaves it up to us to decide whether the high rate of U.S. gun murders is due to gun availability, or social policy, or the example set by violence-prone foreign policy, or a news media that plays on our fears. The main point seems to be that Moore keeps asking, "Why us? Why our country?" and no one seems to be able to provide a good answer.

WSLer, I really wish you would cite your sources for saying that Moore "lied" in Roger and Me and Stupid White Men. IIRC, the point with the "forcible evictions" scenes seemed to be that the GM plant closures were affecting the entire economy, whether the evictees were GM workers or not.

Correct me if I'm wrong, WSLer, but I heard as recently as last week that SWM was still on the New York Times bestseller list; so it seems a lot of people like Michael Moore, even if you don't. Boo hoo hoo.

Moore does not unfairly portray his interview subjects; he merely lets them talk on and on, cameras rolling, until they hang themselves. Did you notice that there were no cutaways and no editing of that whole Charlton Heston interview? Nothing was out of context. Personally, I find those "ambushes" hilarious. Reality is already absurd, Moore just gives it a little nudge.

ITR champion

10-22-2002, 02:40 AM

Originally posted by Zoggie
Anyway, I thought Roger and Me was blatant propoganda. Is it really the CEO of GM's problem if the workers took their jobs for granted instead of looking into the future? And why is Roger Smith portrayed as such a bastard for not wanting to talk to a sketchy guy off the street with a camera crew who don't even have appointments?

The point of Roger and Me was to show the corporate attitudes towards the people whose lives were ruined by the shutdown. These people had worked for the GM plant their whole lives, in fact some of them came from families that had worked their for several generations, and they suddenly had their legs cut out from under them. The idea that factory workers should have been "looking into the future" is absurd, in a place like there isn't much opportunity for pursuing other career options. Concerning the number of employees layed off, it was 30,000 over the course of 5 years by GM itself.

While Michael Moore may not be 100 percent accurate all the time, I've never seen a pundit who was. The reason that I like his work is that he has the courage to talk about issues that the mainstream media always maintains strict silence about. For example, in 1998 he did an Awful truth segment about the suffering of the Afghan people under the Taliban at a time when Washington and the news media were still trying to look the other direction on that issue (and he managed to make it funny, too).

John Harrison

10-22-2002, 08:30 AM

He mentioned that ~70% of gun-related murders happen between people who know each other

IIRC the standard for knowing each other is applied to members of different gangs which raises the number quite a bit. I'll check this to be sure.

The other angle he provided for gun control was the needlessness of a gamut of guns, including a number of semi-automatics, in a single house.

I haven't seen any studies that prove that your chance of killing someone rises with the number of guns you own. It's not up to MM to decide what we "need".

So, basically he was saying that unless this country learns to take care of its people (i.e., minimize poverty) and mitigates its psyche of revenge and taking to the gun to settle problems, gun control should be considered as one of the options to bring down violence.

I don't believe that guns are used to "settle problems", unless you count robbery or homicide as a solution to a problem. Referring to it as settling problems makes me think that people in other nations believe that if a regular joe has an argument with his buddy he grabs a gun to settle the argument. No proof.

Reducing poverty would help reduce violence. So would ending the war on (some) drugs.

Sam Stone

10-22-2002, 09:16 AM

Moore, by the way, is an NRA member

I see this quoted a lot by people, presumably as a way of saying, "Hey, Moore isn't biased - he's actually a member of the NRA!", or "Even a member of the NRA can decide that gun control is necessary!"

The thing is, the only reason Moore joined the NRA was to try and take it down from within. He originally planned to run for the presidency of the NRA and then if he won, dismantle it. I just watched him say so on the Tim Russert show, in no uncertain terms.

So his membership in the NRA is meaningless.

Mojo

10-22-2002, 10:47 AM

[b]litost[/b} said:
And, when we learn to live with guns like Canada, for example, then regulations would cease to matter.

I haven't seen BfC, but from what I understand there's a scene in a bank that gives away a rifle when you open a new account. Moore has a problem with this (I think he says "don't you see anything wrong with that?"), even though the bank has never had a robery and the surrounding community is fairly crime-free. If he was using this as support for his thesis, he had a funny way of showing it.

Tars Tarkas

10-22-2002, 01:16 PM

The thing is, the only reason Moore joined the NRA was to try and take it down from within. He originally planned to run for the presidency of the NRA and then if he won, dismantle it. I just watched him say so on the Tim Russert show, in no uncertain terms.

Moore showed off his NRA marksmen award he got when he was a teenager in the movie. I doubt back then he had plans to become president of the NRA to dismantle it. He DID become a school board member at age 18 running under the slogan he would fire his principal if elected, and he did, so maybe he had grand dreams at age 16, but i doubt it. That could be why he is a lifetime member of the NRA.

And yet from this, he STILL concludes that the proper solution in the U.S. is more gun control?

He doesn't parad around the movie saying "Gun control now!!" The only time gun control is mentioned is when they confront K-mart for selling handgun bullets on the shelf that teenagers can go in and buy (like the Columbine killers did). If he said something at any other time feel free to correct me, but i don't recall anything else on that matter.

I haven't seen BfC, but from what I understand there's a scene in a bank that gives away a rifle when you open a new account. Moore has a problem with this (I think he says "don't you see anything wrong with that?"), even though the bank has never had a robery and the surrounding community is fairly crime-free. If he was using this as support for his thesis, he had a funny way of showing it.
I think Moore was just pointing out that a bank giving out a free gun when you open an account is hilarious when you stop and think about it.

And WSLer, still waiting for a real cite, not just your typing...

litost

10-22-2002, 02:54 PM

Originally posted by John Harrison

IIRC the standard for knowing each other is applied to members of different gangs which raises the number quite a bit. I'll check this to be sure.
I haven't seen any studies that prove that your chance of killing someone rises with the number of guns you own. It's not up to MM to decide what we "need".
I don't believe that guns are used to "settle problems", unless you count robbery or homicide as a solution to a problem. Referring to it as settling problems makes me think that people in other nations believe that if a regular joe has an argument with his buddy he grabs a gun to settle the argument. No proof.

Reducing poverty would help reduce violence. So would ending the war on (some) drugs.

Well, a large percentage of the 70% statistic (according to him) are familial disputes etc. As for the issue of needless guns, he did mention that there are a number of cases of accidental deaths or unintentioned killing by kids who don't know what they are doing as a result of guns lying around. But, I agree this is rather vague and not a hot-button issue. As for "taking to the gun", he did express it simplistically, but the statistics he quoted prove that there is a culture of resorting to violence to settle issues (when I find the time, I'll verify the data). And, yes, as I wrote in an earlier post summarizing his interview, one of the key points of his thesis seemed to be: there are socio-economic issues that, if addressed, would bring down the violence. Also, I do see the war on drugs linked to poverty. I must add that I felt he was all over the place linking even the aggressive foreign policy with the violence within the country... I guess he was trying to portray some "essential" mindset, but he admitted that he is just raising a number of questions, and he doesn't have any answers. Oh, and as Tars Tarkas said, gun control doesn't seem to be very high on his agenda, but as we are discussing, he did say he favored it until...

cckerberos

10-23-2002, 12:39 AM

Originally posted by Tars Tarkas
Moore showed off his NRA marksmen award he got when he was a teenager in the movie. I doubt back then he had plans to become president of the NRA to dismantle it. He DID become a school board member at age 18 running under the slogan he would fire his principal if elected, and he did, so maybe he had grand dreams at age 16, but i doubt it. That could be why he is a lifetime member of the NRA.

Lifetime membership in the NRA isn't cheap (it's currently $750, was probably something similar back when he was a kid) and I don't think that you can become one until you're an adult.

cckerberos

10-23-2002, 12:43 AM

This was supposed to be part of the previous post.

From http://www.aintitcool.com/display.cgi?id=13553 . A reviewer is discussing comments made by Moore after a showing of the movie.

Moore was then asked why he was a member of the NRA. He explained that as a kid he was a marksman, but that as an adult he had a master plan to run for the NRA presidency, beat Charlton Heston and dismantle the organization. That comment was a crowd pleaser. MM said he only needed 5 million votes, which he thought he could get. But then he discovered you have to have been an NRA member for five years to be qualified to vote. So “it seemed like too much work. I decided to do a movie instead.” He has heard that an NRA branch is trying to have his membership revoked.

HPL

10-23-2002, 02:09 AM

Originally posted by Tars Tarkas

I think Moore was just pointing out that a bank giving out a free gun when you open an account is hilarious when you stop and think about it.

I don't understand it. I don't see how a bank could afford to do something like that. The cheapest good gun is perhaps $100. That's gonna get expensive over the long run.

DKW

10-23-2002, 03:25 AM

The movie probably won't be here for a while, and I make it a point not to criticize things I haven't actually seen yet.

For now, I'll say this. I'm astonished at how so many people are so willing to jump to completely ridiculous conclusions about this guy (like, say, he's completely betraying the Democratic party, which he was never a member of to begin with), and I'm flabbergasted at how seemingly so many of are willing to totally laugh off the kind of issues he brings up.

Thirty thousand carreers destroyed, no remorse, no concessions, no repercussions whatsoever. As someone who's been struggling for the better part of year to get a secure job, this bothers me.

Countless deaths, many of them children, many of them at our public schools (you know, the place that a lot of kids are, um, required to be at?), and we still don't even require registration for deadly weapons. Why the hell not?

Virtually the entire Democratic contingent of the legislature passively nodding along to everything and anything George W. Bush wants, including, possibly, a "regime change" in Iraq (and we know how well THOSE usually turn out). Does anyone with half a brain thinks this is a good thing?

And I don't buy that "ineffectual" argument for a millisecond. Good freakin' lord. So the proper response to gross injustices in our society is to just shrug and move on? Well, the Democrats seem to agree with that. Me, I say when someone is courageous enough to go against "conventional wisdom" and show you the way, it's up to you to support him on that. He's got a voice and a vote and not afraid to use either...neither am I.

Ah, well...I've never liked movies all that much, anyway. It'll be a refreshing change of pace just to see something like this.

Phoenix Dragon

10-23-2002, 06:04 AM

Originally posted by DKW
Countless deaths, many of them children, many of them at our public schools (you know, the place that a lot of kids are, um, required to be at?), and we still don't even require registration for deadly weapons. Why the hell not?

Because it would probably make a negligible difference? I kind of fail to see how registration would have any significant effect on the "many" children killed at our "many" schools. Then again, this sounds like more of an emotional appeal than a rational one, anyway...

Tars Tarkas

10-23-2002, 01:38 PM

I doubt registration would do anything. The only gun laws i would change is require a one time safety training class to be taken, the revenue from which would go toward funding preservation of wildlife areas. This would help reduce the number of accidental shootings.

Reducing the amount of violence in our society would be a massive undertaking, and i cannot begin to fanthom how it would be acheived without violating every right we have.

John Harrison

10-23-2002, 04:08 PM

As for the issue of needless guns, he did mention that there are a number of cases of accidental deaths or unintentioned killing by kids who don't know what they are doing as a result of guns lying around.

Well, if you consider a child to be anyone 14 and under, there were 86 children that were accidentally killed with firearms in the year 2000. source: CDC 2000 Mortality Report

Countless deaths, many of them children, many of them at our public schools (you know, the place that a lot of kids are, um, required to be at?), and we still don't even require registration for deadly weapons. Why the hell not?

There are many, but I'll just hit the high spots.

Less that 1% of all homicides among school-aged children (5-19 years of age) occur in or around school grounds or on the way to and from school. Source: (CDC, Facts About Violence Among Youth and Violence in Schools. May 21, 1998)

That works out to be about 30 in that age group using 2000 homicide rates. So it's no longer "countless".

As far as registration goes: Please let us know how registration is supposed to solve/prevent crime. It hasn't worked in the few US cities that use it, but if you know the secret please let us know.

As far as Canada goes:

MP blasts gun legislation (http://www.canoe.ca/EdmontonNews/es.es-10-23-0042.html)

A Liberal MP called his government's gun-control legislation "a shambles, a joke" and an "expensive, dismal failure" yesterday in a speech to public-sector financial managers.

Sarnia-Lambton MP Roger Gallaway was the keynote speaker at a day-long seminar on government put on by the Ottawa chapter of the non-profit Financial Management Institute of Canada.

"A good example of unchecked policy nonsense becoming the law is the federal gun registry, a piece of legislation I, today, regrettably supported," Gallaway said.

The government consulted "experts" at the federal Firearms Centre and planned to set up a gun registry to trace the flow of guns in Canada, for an estimated $85 million, he said.

"Several years and perhaps a billion dollars later, the bill is a shambles - it is a joke," said Gallaway.

[snip]

gex gex

10-24-2002, 10:07 AM

originally posted by Tars Tarkas
Reducing the amount of violence in our society would be a massive undertaking, and i cannot begin to fanthom how it would be acheived without violating every right we have.

I can think of one direction you could go in to begin solving the problem that would certainly not violate every right I have. And I'm living in a western democracy, not communist China.

Baldwin

10-24-2002, 11:06 AM

I guess you wouldn't call Michael Moore's films "documentaries"; certainly not in the sense of being unbiased reporting. Even though I agree with a lot of what Moore says, it's annoying to be preached at (also why I hate those anti-tobacco "Truth" ads). And how could you resist showing a bank that gives a way guns? But I doubt if K-Mart taking bullets off the shelf will have much effect on whether people get shot. (Does Rosie O'Donnell still do K-Mart ads? Hey, do you think Martha Stewart packs heat?)

Regardless of one's ideas about gun control, it's certainly worth examining the question of why there's so much violence in the US compared to other countries. I wonder how many of the shootings are related to the illegal drug trade? I would guess that the rate of shootings was also up during Prohibition.

If a large proportion of shooting deaths involve people who make their livings illegally anyway, than attempts at cutting off the supply of weapons are likely to be no more effective than the drug laws have been. In fact, of course, there's a large trade in unregistered handguns that goes right along with the drug trade. It seems unlikely to me that the government can really control either drugs or guns, as long as there's a large demand for both.

When it comes to accidental shootings and crimes of passion, safety training would help; but there will always be idiots and people with insufficient self-control.

Krokodil

10-25-2002, 06:34 PM

I just saw the movie, and it looks like Moore started out with one specific intention (Connect the Columbine violence with the dreaded Military Industrial Complex), but mission creep set in and he changed his thesis a few times.

The interview with Heston was, indeed, despicable. There was nothing ambush-y about asking him why the US and Canada, with similar rates of gun ownership, have such differing murder rates, but trotting out the picture of the little girl was beyond the pale. I think it's possible to disagree with Moore without being an amoral bastard.

HPL

10-26-2002, 02:19 AM

Originally posted by Baldwin
Hey, do you think Martha Stewart packs heat?)

If she doesn't, a lot of celebrities have armed bodyguards. I believe Rosie had some for her kids.

I have nothing againest protecting yourself or your loved ones, but it seems a bit hypocritical to talk about guns being evil when you have people that follow you around with loaded guns.

"Today, on martha Stuart living, we are goning to learn how to put down an attacker with a single shot, clean your gun of choice to keep it functioning well for years to come, and decorate it to match your esemble"

gex gex

10-26-2002, 07:49 AM

originally posted by Krokodil
The interview with Heston was, indeed, despicable. There was nothing ambush-y about asking him why the US and Canada, with similar rates of gun ownership, have such differing murder rates, but trotting out the picture of the little girl was beyond the pale. I think it's possible to disagree with Moore without being an amoral bastard.

Those are the consequences of the actions Heston's organisation takes. If he can't cope with it, maybe he should quit his post.

minty green

10-26-2002, 09:40 AM

That, and Heston was again being a jerk by showing up in the middle of a community that had just had a 6-year-old shot and killed by another 6-year-old to hold an NRA rally. Any number of pro-gun posters around here could have dealt with that effectively--Heston turned tail and ran.

Anyway, saw the movie last night and really liked it. As other people have noted, it's much more about exploring the reasons behind America's high gun violence rates, not about gun control in particular. And it's worth noting that he doesn't come close to any definitive answers. Some parts of the movie work better than others--the welfare reform/Dick Clark thing is especially pointless--but it's a very good movie.

I was actually thinking of starting a BfC thread in Great Debates. Of course, it would probably be swamped immediately by pro-gun posters and Moore bashers who haven't seen the movie and have no intention of doing so, but I think it could be fun to explore some of the issues Moore brings up, particularly that media stauration/culture of fear notion. Anyone care to join me?

Tars Tarkas

10-26-2002, 07:55 PM

I was actually thinking of starting a BfC thread in Great Debates. Of course, it would probably be swamped immediately by pro-gun posters and Moore bashers who haven't seen the movie and have no intention of doing so, but I think it could be fun to explore some of the issues Moore brings up, particularly that media stauration/culture of fear notion. Anyone care to join me?

Hey, this is the only thread i've seen that has a chance of jumping from Cafe Society to GD, and you're gonna ruin it!!! ;)

lawoot

10-26-2002, 09:22 PM

I'm on Michael Moore's mailing list - got this in an e-mail the other day. I think it makes a good point

an exerpt
Yesterday, Larry Bennett, a 16-year old, was shot in the head after he was
involved in a minor traffic accident. You probably didn't hear about it
because, well, how could he be dead if he wasn't shot by The Sniper?

Yesterday, an unidentified woman was shot to death in her car in Fenton,
MI. You probably didn't hear about it because she had the misfortune of not
being shot by The Sniper.

Two nights ago, Charles D. Bennett, 48, an apartment security guard, was
shot to death after confronting two teenagers in his parking lot in
Memphis, TN. You probably didn't hear about it because the sniper was too
busy sleeping in his car that night, and thus, poor Charles was not shot by
The Sniper.

Yes, The Sniper has apparently been caught, so we can go back now to NOT
reporting the DOZENS of gun deaths that occur every day, the ones that just
aren't newsworthy because they happen in all those old boring ways --
unlike the ways of The Sniper, who was interesting and creative and
exciting and scary! He played so much better on the news.

Hickory6

10-26-2002, 11:41 PM

Ok, I'm a conservative, tend to be pro-NRA, and just got back from seeing the movie, which I actually enjoyed very much, on the whole.

Moore is a gifted filmmaker and demonstrates a very keen sense of irony and a knack for demonstrating the human costs of violence.

On the other hand, he is an exceptionally poor reporter, and there were a few glaring factual errors reported in the movie.

One that lept out at me was the statement that Eric Harris and Dylan Kliebold's firearms were "legally bought."

Wrong. I specifically remember one of them was under 17 at the time. He had therefore stolen the firearms, or bought them illegally.

I also remember one guy was brought up on weapons charges for making the weapons available.

Second was his assertion that the U.S. military killed 4 million people in Southeast Asia between 1965 and 1975. I would very much like to see a cite for that, because that number is 400% higher than the highest estimate I've ever seen for the number of Vietnamese dead in the Viet Nam war--and many of these would NOT have been killed by the U.S. military.

Third was his inferrence, in the animated segment, that the pilgrims killed off the Indians because of that 'culture of fear.'

Well, OK, but what he left out, and what a modicum of reporting would have caught, was that in colonial America, extermination went both ways--there was a series of extraordinarily brutal wars in and around Massachussetts--culminating in King Philip's War in around 1675, during which time entire settlements were destroyed, and perhaps a quarter of the white population of Massachussetts was killed.

So maybe there's something to that culture that wasn't so absurd.

I also thought the connection Moore made between the NRA and the KKK was gratuitous, insulting, and just plain wrong.

You have to look at the movie as an exploration of some of the absurdities within our culture. As such, the movie is successful.

But if this were your only exposure to the gun debate, would you understand it?

No.

Would you be equipped to think critically about it?

No.

Would you come away with accurate and reliable factual information?

No.

Caffeine.addict

10-27-2002, 12:37 AM

I saw the movie last night and enjoyed it very much. I wish he had left the cartoon out in the middle as the only purpose of it seemed to be to vilify the pro-gun side.

For me, the movie did raise a few interestesting questions. I am wondering why is it that this country has so many gun deaths compared to other countries in the world? The movie didn't really answer any of these questions to my satisfaction. I also found it interesting when he went into the culture of fear that pervades the U.S. and he claims is caused by the nightly news. I hadn't really thought about that. I did find it strange when all those Canadians said they didn't lock their doors.