If you hated Michael Moore before ...

[Durandal]

That's REALLY strange. Can someone please explain to me why seemingly every anti-gun organization in existence points to "Bowling for Columbine" as an important work in spreading their message, even though it explicitly supports the NRA's stance regarding firearm ownership?

What do you want me to tell you? Anyone with a grain of common sense could figure this out. Moore explicitly states that America and Canada have similar gun ownership rates per capita, but Canada has less violent crime, and then he goes off and looks for causes of that violent crime other than the number of guns out there.

Furthermore, while Moore looks for other causes for America's violent crime rate, that doesn't mean that having more guns in helping the situation any. BFC is not necessarily an indictment of anti-gun activists, either.

I have never had my scrotum pierced with a rusty nail before, either; now if I were to say having your scrotum pierced with a rusty nail is unbelievably painful, would you not be able to take seriously that assertion on the same basis that you refuse to take seriously my posts on Bowling for Bullshit?

Joe, most of the time, you're an intelligent poster who can articulate a reasonable argument. Right now, you're acting like a fucking idiot. Do you really want me to explain the difference between watching a film and getting your a bolt through your scrotum? It's an invalid analogy to say the least. Fun for humorous comparisons, but this isn't a stand-up comedy club.

If Michael Moore had included other potential causes in his movie (specifically, the real cause), I would have less of a problem with this whole "culture of fear" business, at least then it would not have been so blatantly one-sided.

Oh give me a fucking break, Joe. Are you saying that gun owners aren't afraid of anything? That the NRA doesn't keep preaching about the government growing too large? That they don't believe that the Second Amendment gives the people a check on the government?

[Lord Poe]

Mr. Moore and Mr. Bush have something in common. I'd like to say that George Bush did NOT lie about WMDs. And if someone can absolutely prove that he did, please let me know.

[Crown]

Mr. Moore and Mr. Bush have something in common. I'd like to say that George Bush did NOT lie about WMDs. And if someone can absolutely prove that he did, please let me know.

'

No one elected Moore to 'subjectively mislead by telling half of the truth in such a manner as to lead to a pre-ordained conclusion' though, now did they.

Unlike Dubya, who won a popularity contest (or maybe he didn't), which makes it all okay!

[Plekhanov]

Mr. Moore and Mr. Bush have something in common. I'd like to say that George Bush did NOT lie about WMDs. And if someone can absolutely prove that he did, please let me know.

Call me crazy but I expect a slightly higher standard of behaviour from elected representatives, especially upon matters that may lead to war, than self confessedly political film makers.

[Durandal]

Mr. Moore and Mr. Bush have something in common. I'd like to say that George Bush did NOT lie about WMDs. And if someone can absolutely prove that he did, please let me know.

Then again, Moore doesn't have the power to order hundreds of thousands of troops to invade a god-forsaken sand pit full of people who hate us, does he?

[Lord Poe]

Then again, Moore doesn't have the power to order hundreds of thousands of troops to invade a god-forsaken sand pit full of people who hate us, does he?

Non sequitur. They both should enjoy the get out of jail free card. Just to be fair.

[SirNitram]

Then again, Moore doesn't have the power to order hundreds of thousands of troops to invade a god-forsaken sand pit full of people who hate us, does he?

Non sequitur. They both should enjoy the get out of jail free card. Just to be fair.

If both did the same amount of damage, this would be viable. However, a man who you have to pay to her his rantings, and a man who can start a war, are two quite different animals and it's quite a red herring to claim otherwise.

[Plekhanov]

Just going along with Lord Poes ridiculous assertion that the President and a film maker should have the same levels integrity for a second, didn’t Bush make some of his dubious claims before congress in his state of the union speech? Isn’t misrepresenting stuff to congress more serious than doing the same to a cinema audience?

[Durandal]

Then again, Moore doesn't have the power to order hundreds of thousands of troops to invade a god-forsaken sand pit full of people who hate us, does he?

Non sequitur. They both should enjoy the get out of jail free card. Just to be fair.

How is that a non sequitur? You've been on ASVS long enough that I'd expect you to actually know what it means. The consequences of Bush giving a false/misleading impression of things are far graver than if Moore does, so we hold Bush to a higher standard of integrity. What exactly about that does not follow?

Aside from that, I've yet to see any evidence that Moore did anything of the sort. It's all been covered in the thread I linked to before.

[Master of Ossus]

What do you want me to tell you? Anyone with a grain of common sense could figure this out. Moore explicitly states that America and Canada have similar gun ownership rates per capita, but Canada has less violent crime, and then he goes off and looks for causes of that violent crime other than the number of guns out there.

Right. That directly supports the NRA's position in terms of the promotion of responsible firearms ownership in America.

Furthermore, while Moore looks for other causes for America's violent crime rate, that doesn't mean that having more guns in helping the situation any.

Of course not, but it concludes that firearms are not the problem, and that instead a mysterious and undefined "culture of violence" is the problem. Since no evidence is given suggesting that guns themselves are the cause of the "culture of violence" (and, in fact, evidence is presented directly contradicting that hypothesis), one must conclude from watching the film that eliminating or limiting firearms is not a potential solution.

BFC is not necessarily an indictment of anti-gun activists, either.

Of course not, but it does nothing to support their case against gun ownership and in favor of stricter (or, at least, as strict) gun control laws in America. My question is why they quote it as if it does.

[The Kernel]

Of course not, but it does nothing to support their case against gun ownership and in favor of stricter (or, at least, as strict) gun control laws in America. My question is why they quote it as if it does.

I think because BFC's natural conclusion is to condemn the culture of gun ownership in the United States, not the act of gun ownership itself. This to me was the point Moore was trying to make by pointing out that he was an NRA member and that he came from a culture where gun ownership was the norm, yet what he really focused on was the feelings about why people owned their guns.

You remember when he walked into that house uninvited in Canada? Granted it may have been staged, but it makes a valid point. In the United States, gun owners look forward to trespassers just so they can shoot them.

[His Divine Shadow]

I have never had my scrotum pierced with a rusty nail before, either; now if I were to say having your scrotum pierced with a rusty nail is unbelievably painful, would you not be able to take seriously that assertion on the same basis that you refuse to take seriously my posts on Bowling for Bullshit?

Yeah I think we can, mainly because you're analogy is fucking moronic.
Watch the movie or piss off.

[Crown]

Of course not, but it concludes that firearms are not the problem, and that instead a mysterious and undefined "culture of violence" is the problem. Since no evidence is given suggesting that guns themselves are the cause of the "culture of violence" (and, in fact, evidence is presented directly contradicting that hypothesis), one must conclude from watching the film that eliminating or limiting firearms is not a potential solution.

Present them please.

[Keevan_Colton]

Of course not, but it concludes that firearms are not the problem, and that instead a mysterious and undefined "culture of violence" is the problem. Since no evidence is given suggesting that guns themselves are the cause of the "culture of violence" (and, in fact, evidence is presented directly contradicting that hypothesis), one must conclude from watching the film that eliminating or limiting firearms is not a potential solution.

Present them please.

"There is absolutely no connection between possessing a firearm and shooting someone with it, you'd have to be a fool and a communist to think otherwise." [/Hicks]

[BoredShirtless]

Of course not, but it concludes that firearms are not the problem, and that instead a mysterious and undefined "culture of violence" is the problem. Since no evidence is given suggesting that guns themselves are the cause of the "culture of violence" (and, in fact, evidence is presented directly contradicting that hypothesis), one must conclude from watching the film that eliminating or limiting firearms is not a potential solution.

Present them please.

"There is absolutely no connection between possessing a firearm and shooting someone with it, you'd have to be a fool and a communist to think otherwise." [/Hicks]

"Guns don't kill people, people kill people. Now excuse me while I go throw bullets at supersonic speeds at the people protecting my next score"

[Crown]

For the record; I am being serious -- not facetious here guys.

[Col. Crackpot]

"Guns don't kill people, people kill people. Now excuse me while I go throw bullets at supersonic speeds at the people protecting my next score"

*cuts off BS's head with a chainsaw

hey don't blame me, the chainsaw killed him.

[BoredShirtless]

"Guns don't kill people, people kill people. Now excuse me while I go throw bullets at supersonic speeds at the people protecting my next score"

*cuts off BS's head with a chainsaw

hey don't blame me, the chainsaw killed him.

*Woooossssh* another point goes flying thousands of metres above your head. The point you just missed is this: guns make it easier to kill people. Due to the nature of the weapon they make murder and other crimes more feasible. Coupled with the undenyable fact that guns have no use for most people [excluding farmers, cops, etc etc], I'm all for placing tighter restrictions on the production and more importantly sale of guns.

And yes, the chainsaw DID kill me.

[Durandal]

Of course not, but it concludes that firearms are not the problem, and that instead a mysterious and undefined "culture of violence" is the problem. Since no evidence is given suggesting that guns themselves are the cause of the "culture of violence" (and, in fact, evidence is presented directly contradicting that hypothesis), one must conclude from watching the film that eliminating or limiting firearms is not a potential solution.

Non sequitur. Just because the number of firearms per capita and the violent crime rate don't seem to correlate doesn't mean that the laxness of gun laws and violent crime are similarly unrelated.

[Glocksman]

It doesn't mean that they are related either.

Up until the advent of GCA 1968, one could purchase firearms through the mail and the spectacular climb in homicide rates didn't occur until after the law had been passed and didn't ease off until 1996 or so.


IMHO, it has much more to do with regional differences (the South is more violent on average than the rest of the nation), population density (MA's murder rate is higher than NH's despite New Hampshire's 'lax' gun laws), and culture (as pointed out, blacks are by far the most likely to both be murdered and commit murder of any racial group in the US thanks to the 'gangsta' culture), than it does to gun laws.

[Glocksman]

Forgot to add.

Black homicide rate for the year 2000: 22.64
White homicide rate for the year 2000: 4.00

From the CDC's WISQARS database.

The US's White homicide rate isn't quite that of Canada's (as was claimed earlier), but the numbers do show that murder is a disproportionately Black problem.

If Moore wanted to address the reasons behind why the US has such a high homicide rate, he would have done better to look at the above stats.

[Durandal]

It doesn't mean that they are related either.

No one ever said they were. MoO was just asking how gun control advocates could use Moore's film to bolster their cause if it says that the number of guns per capita and violent crime rates are unrelated.

By the way, just out of curiosity, how many violent crimes are committed with legally purchased firearms as opposed to illegally purchased ones?

[Darth Wong]

Michael Moore's problem is that he doesn't always stay on-message. The underlying message of "Bowling for Columbine" is that there is a problem with the American "culture of fear" in which things are relentlessly marketed to you with scare tactics. He discusses media sensationalism and other phenomena, as well as racial paranoia.

However, he undercuts the integrity and focus of his own argument with his unnecessary attacks on Charlton Heston and that utterly ridiculous stunt at K-Mart, trying to return the bullets. That's why anti-gun people think that BFC supports their cause; it contains certain portions that are clearly motivated by antagonism toward gun ownership.

That's not to say that gun ownership isn't part of Moore's argument at all, but it's tangential; he criticizes the cultural mentality that people feel the need to have a gun by their side for fear of their fellow man, not the desire to have one in order to hunt deer. But this distinction is lost in his own grandstanding.

[Admiral Valdemar]

So in other words, Joe, watch the film and find out for yourself. There are some very good points, but for the reasons above, Moore falls flat on his face with getting the point he intended across. It's most certainly not an anti-gun propaganda video as some suggest.

[Master of Ossus]

Of course not, but it concludes that firearms are not the problem, and that instead a mysterious and undefined "culture of violence" is the problem. Since no evidence is given suggesting that guns themselves are the cause of the "culture of violence" (and, in fact, evidence is presented directly contradicting that hypothesis), one must conclude from watching the film that eliminating or limiting firearms is not a potential solution.

Present them please.

ie. The statement that Canadians have about the same density of firearms than Americans, yet much lower rates of violent crime. If guns were the cause of this "culture of violence," one would expect Canada to share a similar culture in that respect because they have about the same number of firearms.