about Glassner’s book The Culture of Fear: Why Americans Are Afraid of the Wrong Things
by Barry Glassner
Basic Books,1999, $25
QUOTE:
School violence is another unwarranted fear: “More than three times as many people are killed by lightning as by violence at schools,” Glassner says.
How interesting that Moore’s own expert appears to invalidate a major point in the film. Funny how Moore didn’t include this anywhere, huh?
Oh, I definitely think that the statistics would be interesting, but this film was not chock-full of statistics. Unless you count “nobody was killed by Killer Bees” as a statistic. As I mentioned earlier, I think the film just wanted to raise a few points, not make quantitative arguments.
I don’t think that Bowling for Columbine is the be-all and end-all of the gun debate. The statistics are beyond the scope of the film, but not the scope of the issue.
Nice try, but Moore obviously had the time to dig up crime-by-gun statistics for many other countries, Japan, Canada, Germany, etc and compare them unfavorably with US stats. But that’s because THOSE numbers fit in with is narrow-minded view.
One would think it would’ve been no problem to cite a few stats to support his “inner-city crime is an irrational fear perpetuated by media bias and inflated by white racism.”
I strongly suspect that the reason for this glaring omission is that fact that those numbers would simply not support Moore’s thesis.
I find it interesting that Moore (unintentionally, I suspect) validates the biggest argument the NRA promotes: guns don’t kill people, other people do. That Canada has huge gun ownership and (allegedly) dramatically less violence seems to prove the NRA’s point, right? That guns are to blame less than the “culture of fear” Moore identifies should serve as suitable evidence, right? Still, it doesn’t stop him from continuing to demonize the NRA–but by that point (the Heston interview), it’s obvious he’s looking for a handy scapegoat.
I’m not an NRA fan one bit, but his logic is so obviously circular & circumstantial that it’s hard to take him seriously. Another example: he makes a big deal about how gun violence is higher among white suburban kids, but the media perpetuates the “inner-city” stereotype; however, he’s not above resorting to the same stereotype when it suits his purpose, namely the little girl whose mom is a welfare reform “victim.”
Achernar, I liked Bowling for Columbine, but I’ve got to agree with Stephe96, that particular reach really bugs me. (As I mentioned earlier.)
Implying a causal relationship between two apparantly unconnected things is no way to represent yourself. What’s the difference between “School shootings happen because kids are exposed to the Goth subculture” and “America’s murder rate is out of control because there is a constant demonizing of black men in their media?” Not a damned thing.
It bugs me that he makes the point that Canada has far fewer murders, with just as many guns lying around, and then turns around and says “It’s obviously not the guns – they have lots of guns. Maybe it’s our fear-based media.” Like we aren’t saturated with US programming up here. Right.
He was refering to the news broadcasts, IIRC. Glassner also brings this up, and how media here is biased towards profit (which is what it really is biased toward) and how “50 killed in bloodbath orgy” sells better than “Senator probes trade gap” thus the media turns everything into a giant controversy. Glassner is very anti-gun, and it got annoying after a while, which is my main complaint about the book.
And it was written pre-9-11, so i expect a sequal with all that included.
Ditto the ridiculous cartoon history-“lesson” tying the NRA & KKK because of a convenient date overlap (and some glib revisionism). By that logic, the Kent State shootings are closely tied to the breakup of the Beatles. :rolleyes: