Bowling For Columbine.

I think this topic may have been on before but I can't find it.

I watched it last night and thought it was very good,however, I do understand that many didn't agree with many of facts, figures,and premises in the film.
I was hoping that those that have seen the movie and dissagree with it might take the time to explain why.

I thought that the fact that the NRA was founded the same year,and just after, the KKK had been outlawed particlarly revealing.

As I said I enjoyed it but I am aware of some controversy.

Just the fact that this movie comes up so much says something about the controversiality of this excellent movie.

My favorite part was the cartoon, followed closely by the American body count and the nichols interview.

What was your favorite part.

XAOS

Check this out...

www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html

All of it.

It won an Oscar didn't it?

It was well deserved.It exceeded my expectations.
The woman who had to be driven to work for $3 an hour who's son shot a little girl.
The difference between a Canadian town and a US town seperated only by 1/2 a mile of water.
The KKK/NRI connection.

And many other bits as well.

I fully recommend it.

www.hardylaw.net...

Thankyou Krond.

I will read this carefully before I respond.

It is exactly what I was looking for.

I've got up to point 4.
I'll do them as I read them.

1/To be honest this is a large passage about nothing really.I did not get any impression the Moore was trying to imply anything by his comment about the Lockheed trucks rolling through the town at night.It didn't strike me as anything other than a throw away line at the end of a sequence.

2/This is more serious and it was misleading.The timing of the speeches by Heston was,at best blured and I certainly did get the impression the "In my cold,dead hands"line was from the Denver speech but the Second time it was used it was obviously being used refering to the previous speech.I did get the impression the the second NRA meeting was held 48 hours after the shooting refered to.That was very misleading.

The editing of the Heston Flint Speech did not change the escence of the speech in my opinion.

3/This denial on this site about the KKK and NRA is badly made and seeks to blur any connection by putting up lots of different dates.I think Moore's point was simple and well made.

4/I'll quote and comment later.

Fact: The little boy was the class thug, already suspended from school for stabbing another kid with a pencil, and had fought with Kayla the day before. Since the incident, he has stabbed another child with a knife.


Fact: The uncle's house was the family business -- the neighborhood crack-house. The gun was stolen and was purchased by the uncle in exchange for drugs.The shooter's father was already serving a prison term for theft and drug offenses. A few weeks later police busted the shooter's grandmother and aunt for narcotics sales. After police hauled the family away, the neighbors applauded the officers. This was not a nice but misunderstood family

Fact one.Kids argue,kids "stab" other kids with pencils(Hell I think I did)I wasn' a "thug".This is nasty and irrelevent.Anything that happened afterwards can easily be attributed to trauma.This bit is unnecessary.

Fact two.The movie did not hide these facts.The boy and his mother had only just moved in.The Movie recognised that this contributed to the shooting.It is a point made in the movie.So what??

But Michael Moore has done better. "The Big One" was my favorite. He tackled big Corporations & left politics out of it. I agree with Moore on some of his politics & am looking forward to his 9/11 film, but if you like Columbine, look at The Big One & Roger & me.They should not be overlooked.

"Moore leads the reader to draw inferences which he must have known were wrong....."

".......Bowling uses deliberate deception as its primary tool of persuasion and effect."

I couldnt agree more with these statements even if i don't agree with all the points on that website.

His arguments are simplistic, poorly examined with a severe lack of depth and are presented as if they hold their own without thorough explanation. Well they don't!! This kind of film is deceptive and dangerous viewing for those not able to come to their own conclusions (believe me there are many).

I think the worst part was possibly his failure to mention how difficult it is to purchase a weapon in certain countries whilst dishing out those countries' 'impressive' statistics on the comparitavely low number of fatalities as a result of a shooting.

Although i did appreciate Moore's capture of the vain 'reporter' moments before going live for what was less of a report and more of a performance in response to a shooting. On the odd occasion that his footage does speak for itself he deserves some merit.

Also, maybe its just me but i couldnt help feeling that Moore saw his attempts to stop Wallmart selling ammunition as personal victory.

"I think the worst part was possibly his failure to mention how difficult it is to purchase a weapon in certain countries whilst dishing out those countries' 'impressive' statistics on the comparitavely low number of fatalities as a result of a shooting."

That was the whole point wasn't?
Other countries don't have gun lying all over the place.That was the very point he was trying to make.

"Also, maybe its just me but i couldnt help feeling that Moore saw his attempts to stop Wallmart selling ammunition as personal victory"

I watched it last night.I got the impression he was surprised.

Well, guns are clearly a political issue. We have different guns laws here in the US, the right to keep arms, etc, etc.

Take Moore himself, he doesn't live in Flint, MI. though he'll claim to live there, and he sends his child to private school. (and trust me, I don't fault him for not living in Flint)

My only point about Moore is this: Without lies, half-truths, and fancy film editing what would be left? and would what's left sell movies and books?

He talks about flint cause thats where he grew up. His first movie was made because of flint and he returned there in later movies and books.

He may be rich, but he admits it. He admits that he has alot of money but he uses it for good, rather that to take advantage of the poor like most of his victims do.

XAOS

"I think the worst part was possibly his failure to mention how difficult it is to purchase a weapon in certain countries whilst dishing out those countries' 'impressive' statistics on the comparitavely low number of fatalities as a result of a shooting."

That was the whole point wasn't?
Other countries don't have gun lying all over the place.That was the very point he was trying to make.

Well actually he went to Canada with the intention of showing that it was just as easy to get hold of a gun and failed to mention gun laws in any other country than America(if he even mentioned those). So perhaps thats the point he was 'trying' to make, just very badly. Perhaps to somebody who was already aware of this information(yourself included) it went without saying, perhaps to michael moore it did, but to countless scores of sheeple who watched the movie i bet that thought never entered their minds.

For this reason 'Bowling' only serves as propaganda in the fight to disarm the american people and promotion for an arrogant, simplistic man wishing to fill his pockets. It hardly suprises me that his new film is being funded by disney. They make such great fantasy he's just perfect for them. They're also home to some of the greatest misinformers and have been and are being used for numerous propaganda projects for the government. The fact that 'Bowling' won him an oscar, considering its such a shoddy piece of documentation, lets you know that he pleased somebody up there. When have they ever been awarded for quality acting/film production and when are they ever not awarded for political or financial aims?

His trip to Canada: I believe that he went and bought ammo to show how easy it was. However, I remember reading somewhere, that a Canadian official disputed the purchase saying it just wasn't how Canada guns laws worked and should not have happened the way it did. (in other words, the purchase might not have been in Canada, something was edited, the clerk should have checked ID, etc, etc). Not that it makes me feel any better, but, more Moore trickery me thinks.

disclaimer: I have yet to see the movie - it's just what I have read about it - so, just ignore me.

It was entertaining; but in some ways the very worst kind of "faction": an apparently persuasive argument relying upon deceptive inferences from often dubious premisses.
I can't see what it had to say that was in any very helpful sense: "new"

Moore has, of course, been caught out before ("Roger and Me" for instance) in this scarcely well-disguised make-bucks-with-a-Dem-flavour approach.
And he is certainly aware, it would appear, that one can take greater liberties with the truth on celluloid than one can in print.

And, I guess, his audience will largely be the "converted".
For a Rep-spin on this, try:
www.spinsanity.org...

Bob,I certainly won't ignore you.

I think the controversy undermines the the valid points in the movie.

In Britain 68 people died because of gun crime(Moores figures but they sound about right)in one year.

In the USA,with a population a little over 4 times bigger,over 11,000 died.

This was the unsavoury point Moore was trying to make.

Why?was the only question he was trying to answer.

If you know the answer.Why don't you resolve it?Or are 10,000 lives a year not worth saving?

My freedoms will not be compromised for any amount of loss of life.

The brittish have a higher crime problem than the US, and the brittish also buy more baseball bats then Americans, which is odd because they don't play baseball.

But I guess you don't hear those statistics in this movie because it is a horribly biased peice of $hit.