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

[tclouie]

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]

*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]

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]

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]

**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]

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]

*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]

*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]

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]

*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]

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]

*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]

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]

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

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]

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]

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.

[Horatio_Hellpop]

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]

*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]

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]

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?