If you hated Michael Moore before ...

[Darth Wong]

I love the way people obsess over shit like this. How does it change the point, which is that contrary to popular belief, Canada is not disarmed?

The real distinction between Canada and the US is the reason people buy guns in the first place. Canadian gun owners are almost always farmers or hunters, and they need the guns to either hunt or shoot vermin on their farms. Many American gun owners are hunters or farmers as well, but there is a huge block of people in the US who buy guns out of naked fear of their fellow man.

[His Divine Shadow]

There's also the gun lovers who collect guns and shoot at targets and such.

[Glocksman]

We know that it's one of the three: Illegal, Edited, or Staged.

Your opinion is that is was an illegal sale.

You have no evidence that the sale was illegal other than the sequence of events in the video, and Moore is infamous for editing his footage to tamper with the sequence of events. Hell, it's his trademark that dates back to Roger & Me when he implies that a lot of the bad things that happened in Flint occured after the GM plant closed when in reality they happened before the plant closing.

If the sale was illegal, I have no doubt Moore would have mentioned it as being 'illegal, but easy as even Wal-Mart and the Canadian government look the other way'.

The other two options are more credible.

[The Kernel]

Wrong, the fact that most employees are not dumb enough to break the law in front of a big video camera is definately substantiating evidence.

It does not prove Crackpot's theory, but it is substantiating evidence.

And do you have proof of this assertion? Sure a smart employee would care, but if he's smart then he wouldn't be working at WalMart.

Besides, the fact that he didn't sue Moore for slander (considering how huge BFC was it would have paid off hansomely I'm sure) is also a bit of evidence that this wasn't staged. It isn't very credible evidence, but neither is Glocksman's.

[Glocksman]

I love the way people obsess over shit like this. How does it change the point, which is that contrary to popular belief, Canada is not disarmed?

The real distinction between Canada and the US is the reason people buy guns in the first place. Canadian gun owners are almost always farmers or hunters, and they need the guns to either hunt or shoot vermin on their farms. Many American gun owners are hunters or farmers as well, but there is a huge block of people in the US who buy guns out of naked fear of their fellow man.

I would have phrased it a little differently, but you do have a point.
Canadian weapons ownership is largely concentrated in rifles and shotguns, whereas in the US, handguns make up a large part of the total (70 million or so). Most US states have liberalized their concealed weapons permit policies over the last decade or so as well.

On the other hand, the US murder rate among blacks of over 22 per 100,000 compared to 4 per 100k for whites indicates that social pathologies other than guns are at work as whites tend to have higher gun ownership levels than blacks.

[The Kernel]

We know that it's one of the three: Illegal, Edited, or Staged.

Your opinion is that is was an illegal sale.

Considering the chain of events in the video, this is the logical conlusion that is drawn.

You have no evidence that the sale was illegal other than the sequence of events in the video, and Moore is infamous for editing his footage to tamper with the sequence of events. Hell, it's his trademark that dates back to Roger & Me when he implies that a lot of the bad things that happened in Flint occured after the GM plant closed when in reality they happened before the plant closing.

I'm not saying its impossible for it to be faked, I'm saying that you have no evidence that it actually was faked and thus you are simply engaged in meaningless hypothesis about this particular incident based on your opinion of the average reactions of store clerks to being filmed.

If the sale was illegal, I have no doubt Moore would have mentioned it as being 'illegal, but easy as even Wal-Mart and the Canadian government look the other way'.

The other two options are more credible.

You think that your conjecture about store clerk psychology means jack shit? You have no evidence that the incident was faked, only your gut instinct and a feeling that it is more likely that the clerk wouldn't have sold him the ammo (without considering the other options such as Moore visiting multiple WalMarts until he found a clerk too lazy to check his ID). Like I said, sure it could have been faked, but without direct evidence the only thing you have proved is that you know how to hypothesize.

[Howedar]

And do you have proof of this assertion? Sure a smart employee would care, but if he's smart then he wouldn't be working at WalMart.

When all else fails, start insulting people. We all like to poke fun at people, but people in general are not that fucking stupid.

Besides, the fact that he didn't sue Moore for slander (considering how huge BFC was it would have paid off hansomely I'm sure) is also a bit of evidence that this wasn't staged. It isn't very credible evidence, but neither is Glocksman's.

Frankly I think the staging idea is laughable.

[The Kernel]

When all else fails, start insulting people. We all like to poke fun at people, but people in general are not that fucking stupid.

Although it isn't the law, employees are told to card anyone who tries to buy tobacco that looks under 27 and under 31 for alcohol. I have to say that I haven't been carded for liquor or tobacco since I turned 18, so like I said, how smart can they be?

Frankly I think the staging idea is laughable.

I would quite agree.

[Phil Skayhan]

A couple questions since I have not seen the film.

Was the clerk the only person in the store at the time? There was no mananger or even supervisor present? In a corporation the size of Wal-Mart, I would assume that any encounter with the media would have to be reported to the corporate office immediately. Wouldn't they want to ensure that they were covered on all legal aspects?

That said, is there any way to find out if there was a security cam covering the ammo counter? If so, I'd be very surprised if the tape wasn't on file somewhere just in case.

I have to say that I haven't been carded for liquor or tobacco since I turned 18, so like I said, how smart can they be?

They can run the full range. Just like the posters here.

[The Kernel]

Was the clerk the only person in the store at the time? There was no mananger or even supervisor present?

I didn't see one.

In a corporation the size of Wal-Mart, I would assume that any encounter with the media would have to be reported to the corporate office immediately. Wouldn't they want to ensure that they were covered on all legal aspects?

Documentary filmmakers don't always ask permission and Michael Moore in particular is pretty good at keeping a low profile with his filmmaking (at the time he shoots anyways). Glocksman is right that he doesn't use hidden cameras, but even regular DV cams can be pretty compact. I'm not saying the clerk didn't notice, but perhaps the manager or the rest of the store didn't notice a thing.

That said, is there any way to find out if there was a security cam covering the ammo counter? If so, I'd be very surprised if the tape wasn't on file somewhere just in case.

Interesting point, but seeing as how WalMart got some excellent PR from that movie, I doubt they'll be willing to give it up anytime soon.

They can run the full range. Just like the posters here.

Was that a dig?

[Durandal]

We know that it's one of the three: Illegal, Edited, or Staged.

Your opinion is that is was an illegal sale.

You have no evidence that the sale was illegal other than the sequence of events in the video, and Moore is infamous for editing his footage to tamper with the sequence of events. Hell, it's his trademark that dates back to Roger & Me when he implies that a lot of the bad things that happened in Flint occured after the GM plant closed when in reality they happened before the plant closing.

If the sale was illegal, I have no doubt Moore would have mentioned it as being 'illegal, but easy as even Wal-Mart and the Canadian government look the other way'.

The other two options are more credible.

Please present some sort of evidence to back up your claim that the footage was edited. Is there some sort of monstrous gap during the scene where Moore's ID could have been checked? If I remember correctly, he was at the check-out counter, got the ammo scanned, paid for it, and then left. Are you saying that he contracted ILM to work some digital effects wizardry in order to concoct an elaborate conspiracy to avoid doing something illegal on camera, even though he historically has no problem at all doing things of that sort?

I think your definition of "credible" needs reevaluating.

[Lord Poe]

How is that a non sequitur? You've been on ASVS long enough that I'd expect you to actually know what it means.

non se·qui·tur

An inference or conclusion that does not follow from the premises or evidence

Conclusion: Moore lied about key facts in BFC. Actual concrete evidence he did so: zero.

Conclusion: Bush lied about WMD. Actual concrete evidence he did so: zero. Let me know if I need to go back to school, Durandal.

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?

Because you are introducing a red herring into my post. It doesn't MATTER what the consequences of the "alleged" lies are, the FACT IS, you have to PROVE THE LIE for BOTH PARTIES in the FIRST PLACE.

Clear?

[Durandal]

Conclusion: Moore lied about key facts in BFC. Actual concrete evidence he did so: zero.

Conclusion: Bush lied about WMD. Actual concrete evidence he did so: zero. Let me know if I need to go back to school, Durandal.

Except that you're making ridiculous demands like "absolute proof" and comparing two situations which are entirely different. The criticisms of BFC have amounted to nitpicks ("Oh, he didn't show everything in chronological order" and "That purchase was illegal under Canadian law", et cetera) which don't affect his overall point in the slightest. This was all covered in the previous thread I linked.

Bush's overall claims (Iraq had links to al Qaeda, Iraq had nuclear weapons programs, Iraq had weapons of mass destruction), on the other hand, was destroyed so thoroughly after the invasion that there must have been some manner of deception somewhere. Bush was at the very least ignoring contrary evidence, and there's evidence that he ordered the CIA to dress up anything they could to make the case for war.

Clear?

[Andrew J.]

Another opionion of yours that is completely unsubstantiated by actual fact.

Wrong, the fact that most employees are not dumb enough to break the law in front of a big video camera[/quote]

We are, actually. Sorry.

[Master of Ossus]

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.

Cart before the horse. Moore says that the gun ownership rate in America is due to a culture of fear (which is at least partially legitimate), not that a high gun ownership rate causes a culture of fear to come about.

Look back at what I originally wrote (and what you bolded), then, dolt. I claimed that no evidence is presented in BFC that guns are the cause of the "culture of violence," and that evidence was presented to the contrary. You demanded that I state the evidence. I did so. You then claimed that I was wrong because Moore claims that gun ownership is a RESULT of the "culture of fear," and not the cause.

THANKS FOR PROVING MY ORIGINAL POINT!

[Master of Ossus]

We can argue this all day but the impression Moore meant to convey with that little clip was just how easy it was for an American to walk into any Wal-Mart and buy ammo with no ID.

If it was illegal, it wouldn't be that easy.

It's illegal for games that arre rated Mature to be sold to minors, yet no one ever cards and it is ridiculously easy for a minor to purchase an adult game simply because the law isn't enforced.

Wrong. I have been carded in the past when buying such games.

Besides which, cite the law that makes it illegal to buy such games as a minor. IIRC, it's a voluntary industry standard.

[The Kernel]

Wrong. I have been carded in the past when buying such games.

Besides which, cite the law that makes it illegal to buy such games as a minor. IIRC, it's a voluntary industry standard.

I already conceeded that, read further along in the thread.

[Master of Ossus]

Wrong. I have been carded in the past when buying such games.

Besides which, cite the law that makes it illegal to buy such games as a minor. IIRC, it's a voluntary industry standard.

I already conceeded that, read further along in the thread.

Ah, sorry about that. I see that, now.

[Elfdart]

A few things:

1) Most states and many cities in the US have laws concerning the sale of guns, tobacco, alcohol, pornography, and even allowing under-17s to attend R-rated movies. These laws are flouted CONSTANTLY -yes, even in front of cameras. Many people who work retail make very little money, are treated like shit, are teenagers, and don't give a goat's greasy dick if they get fired for breaking the rules. They also don't care if they get ticketed or (VERY rarely) busted for breaking the law.

2) Do you think a retail worker is going to do everything by the book when he's being filmed by

Michael Moore!?

Or do you think he's going to say: "Wow! I'm on TV with Michael Moore! Hi Mom! Want anything Mr. Moore? You got it!"

3) The clubhouse lawyer tactic of looking for an undotted "i" or an uncrossed "t" to try to discredit an argument is just as lame as arguing "Because I said so.".

[Bill Door]

We know that it's one of the three: Illegal, Edited, or Staged.

The version that I have (UK DVD of Bowling for Columbine ©2002), it cuts from the clerk getting the ammunition out of the cabinet to Moore paying for the ammuntion. No mention is made of needing ID.

[Glocksman]

Is there some sort of monstrous gap during the scene where Moore's ID could have been checked? If I remember correctly, he was at the check-out counter, got the ammo scanned, paid for it, and then left.

There are four cuts in the segment, including one in between when she (the clerk) gets the ammo out of the lockup and Moore asking her 'do you take American?' as he hands her the money.

Why cut out her standing up and telling him how much he owed for the purchase if that's all that happened?

Brevity? I doubt it as those 4 or 5 seconds wouldn't have made a difference one way or another if all he had to do was pay for the ammo.

Also, I noticed that there was an open binder on the counter next to Moore. Could that be the records logbook with all the details of the sale that the store is required to keep by law?

After seeing that binder and viewing the scene again, I now believe he edited the scene instead of staging it.

[Glocksman]

3) The clubhouse lawyer tactic of looking for an undotted "i" or an uncrossed "t" to try to discredit an argument is just as lame as arguing "Because I said so.".

Moore's 'argument' in the segment is that he could just waltz into a Wal-Mart in Canada and buy ammo no questions asked and with no paperwork.

If he edited out him filling out all the paperwork and getting the requisite permits, it's directly counter to his 'argument'.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Don't you understand the test of falsifiability? You construct impossible lengths of proof, no matter what, there could be counterevidence but there's no evidence.

Well shit, there's also no cogent reason to hypothesize that. You can't debate from unprovable suppositions. Your argument is garbage.

[Glocksman]

Have you even seen the scene in question? There are four quick transition edits in it.

That Moore edited the scene is a fact. The only question is what he edited out.

You have the option of either believing that the girl made an illegal sale while a camera crew (Moore was accompanied by both a cameraman and a soundman with a boom) filmed the whole thing, or that Moore edited out the scene of him filling out the paperwork.

The claim that is was an illegal sale and that this Wal-Mart worker was stupid (as was claimed earlier) and would willingly break the law while being filmed is a lot less likely than the explanation that Moore simply edited out the part that ran counter to his 'argument'.

I can't prove what that large open binder was on the counter next to Moore, but I doubt it was the store CD catalog.

Something else. On his site, Moore has a petition against Wal-Mart selling ammo.

Stop Wal-Mart from selling bullets!
Bullets have no place at the world's largest corporation. We call on Wal-Mart to immediately stop the sale of handgun ammunition.

If the sale was illegal, wouldn't Moore be shouting it from the rooftops in order to publicize his 'case' against Wal-Mart selling ammo instead of saying 'no comment' when asked about the circumstances surrounding the clip?
[/quote]

[Durandal]

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.

Cart before the horse. Moore says that the gun ownership rate in America is due to a culture of fear (which is at least partially legitimate), not that a high gun ownership rate causes a culture of fear to come about.

Look back at what I originally wrote (and what you bolded), then, dolt. I claimed that no evidence is presented in BFC that guns are the cause of the "culture of violence," and that evidence was presented to the contrary. You demanded that I state the evidence. I did so. You then claimed that I was wrong because Moore claims that gun ownership is a RESULT of the "culture of fear," and not the cause.

THANKS FOR PROVING MY ORIGINAL POINT!

Sorry, I misread what you wrote. Twat.