Bowling for Colombine

[Evan van Eyk]

I recently watched 'Bowling for Colombine' and have to say that movie is very interesting. Micheal Moore as the skill to aks critical questions without getting respectless our impolite.
I also think he has some interesting ideas about the gun-murder problem and in fact think he is right - it matches quite fine with 'Hobbes' theories, one actually has to say sadly.

However I wonder what the others think of it?

[First of Two]

Michael Moore makes a few points in his video, despite the somewhat biased way it portrays gun owners.

However, overall, Moore is pretty much a jerk. He said some really offensive things in some speeches lately, such as that the people on the planes that hit the WTC were "sheep."

I'd have to say that I consider Moore to be the Left's version of Rush Limbaugh... but less happy.

[Chang]

whats the movie about, I have not heard anything about it.

[Dan Stack]

I've heard it mentioned a number of times but have not seen it. Could someone explain the points/issues it raises (in as non-opinionated a manner as possible)?

[AslanC]

When did Moore refer to the victims of 9/11 as Sheep?

I follow this guy pretty closely and never heard that one before.

What did I miss?

[First of Two]

Actually, sheep was not an exact quote.

http://www.independent.co.uk/story.jsp?story=366725

Moore went into a rant about how the passengers on the planes on 11 September were scaredy-cats because they were mostly white. If the passengers had included black men, he claimed, those killers, with their puny bodies and unimpressive small knives, would have been crushed by the dudes, who as we all know take no disrespect from anybody

Moore also plays fast and loose with the truth, frequently:

http://www.andrewsullivan.com/main_a...rtnum=20021208

[Ramage]

Michael Moore is pretty much the Rush Limbaugh of the Left.

In other words he makes a few solid points, attacks a lot of weak points (and HORDES of Straw Men) and comes up with few, if any, answers to his own questions.

I try to ignore both of them.

[Kevin]

I wouldn't take anything Mr. Moore has presented as being America.

I'd like to thank Fist of Two for pointing out this Andrew Sullivan. I peticularliy liked this article
http://www.andrewsullivan.com/main_a...rtnum=20030121

America is too diverse to be summed up.

[Ergi]

Originally posted by Chang
whats the movie about, I have not heard anything about it.

This is the link to the website. Most of the interesting things can be found there.

http://www.bowlingforcolumbine.com/

I have seen the movie and looked up the summary of recent US foreign policy. You can find it in the library section. Since its heading is "What a wonderful world" I played the song while reading it (I believed they used the same song in the movie).
This makes it feel even worse.

[Evan van Eyk]

Originally posted by Dan Stack
I've heard it mentioned a number of times but have not seen it. Could someone explain the points/issues it raises (in as non-opinionated a manner as possible)?

The movie makes a case study of the Colombine massacre and Moore tries to fnd some answers why things like that happen.

He asks different people and takes a look at US and other countries more violent part of the culture.

E.g. he speaks with the producer of 'Cops' and visits a militia camp. He also does an interview with Charlton Heston at the end and pays a visit to the K-Mart-HQ together with two students of Colombine High, who were hit by 'K-Mart'-Bullets.

Using the example of Colombine, Moore raises the question, why the US have such a high death toll by gun-murders. several times higher than e.g. in Canada, Germany and ( with the lowest one ) Britain.

He asks different people what they think the reasons are, e.g.

1) High amount of weapons
2) Black people are bad ( one girl actually says that explicitely ), because they are poor
3) Violent History


He shows that, e.g. Canada has no less weapons than the US, but have only around 300 deaths a year - compared to the 12000 of the US.

He points out other poor countries where things like that do not happen and doubts that a violent history is the reason as others do have it as well ( e.g. Germany ).


During his 'investigations', he shows that e.g. the massacre in Flynt (?) would maybe not have happend if the 6-year old boy would have had his mother at home. And questions if its is right to have mothers of such young kids force to take two jobs to get the welfare paid and things like that.


In the end he comes to the conclusion that the reason for the high amount of violence is simply fear. In Canada nobody locks his door ( he tried it out ), although people own weapons as well. But he sees that the media concentrate more and more on shows which let people frighten, e.g. Cops and such. Whenever you turn on the TV, there are reports about murderers and the like.

He manages to even silence the most prominent people with simple questions, that is fascinating. E.g. Charleton Heston had no answer why he had a loaded weapon under his pillow, like the father/ uncle? of McVain. They just stated it were their right.

Heston had no answer as well why he held a NRA speech the day after the Colombine and after the Flynt massacre as well.



I actually think he is quite unbiased and lets most of the interview uncommented - he just asks the questions. He as well asked a wide range of people, people of the street, police officers, managers, etc..



His ideas of fear being the driving force behind that murders fits Hobbes ideas of a society very well. Hobbes said that fear lets you gather more and more power, to prevent others from have power over you. A weapon is an easy tool of power. High amount of fear lets a society eventually break, or prevents it from coming to existence and essentially leaves a state of war.

[Eric R.]

Originally posted by Evan van Eyk


He asks different people what they think the reasons are, e.g.

1) High amount of weapons
2) Black people are bad ( one girl actually says that explicitely ), because they are poor
3) Violent History

He points out other poor countries where things like that do not happen and doubts that a violent history is the reason as others do have it as well ( e.g. Germany ).

But Germany's past violence is quite different from America's past violence. Germen violence was state violence i.e. war where as American violence was criminal in origin a very important difference. One is controlled the other is not, one is part of a group the other is individual.

I actually think he is quite unbiased and lets most of the interview uncommented - he just asks the questions. He as well asked a wide range of people, people of the street, police officers, managers, etc..

Obviously you never saw the obnoxious SOB on Bill Mier's Politically Incorrect. and lets don't forget any interview is edited to show the interviewers angle on the questions a two hour interview is often reduced to but 3 minutes worth of showed film.

[The Prodigal]

You're not kidding. Micheal Moore is one of the most... Iriating people currently out there. Rude, crude and socially unexceptable as they come. He's been known to ask a leading question to get something and then edit the interview with one questions answers going to a diffrent question to make the person look like something he or she is not.

[Kaiddin]

Originally posted by Evan van Eyk
Using the example of Colombine, Moore raises the question, why the US have such a high death toll by gun-murders. several times higher than e.g. in Canada, Germany and ( with the lowest one ) Britain.

He shows that, e.g. Canada has no less weapons than the US, but have only around 300 deaths a year - compared to the 12000 of the US.

As a Canadian, I wish this were true. The only thing that statistics show is that the higher the population density, the greater the crime rate. I bet he didn't mention that per capita, Canada has more knivings than the US. Does that mean that Canadians are just a little more barbaric than Americans? I don't think so.

I also read an article on one of the British sites that since the last round of gun laws, violent crimes using guns has increased by 40%.

Ever wonder about statistics? Ever notice that they can be slanted to prove anything you want?

In Canada nobody locks his door ( he tried it out ), although people own weapons as well.

ROTFLMAOPMP! And our streets are paved with gold, it rains Coke Classic and everyone knows that Santa Claus is a Canadian!

Actually since the Marc Lapine incident (I would prefer to refer to it in a way to not give him the publicity but I can't spell the name of the school) our government has over reacted to appease a small vocal lobby.

Okay, yes I own guns. Three heirlooms, two have never been fired and one hasn't been fired in 20 years. I do not hunt, don't see any purpose in it. I don't have ammunition in my house. These are heirlooms!

But our government forces me to licence them (No problem), register them (Basically no problem except that they have mismanaged this to the cost of $1 billion) and they give the police the authority to enter my house and remove any guns without warrant or probable cause based on my being registered. I do not have to be charged with a crime or suspected of committing a crime. If you don't like me, you can go to the police and poof no more guns.

Four months ago there was a gangland shoot out in Edmonton. One gang member was killed on site and several weapons were recovered. Surprising thing was they were all restricted weapons that no one can legally own in Canada. So our gun control laws sure worked there! Yay, Canada!

I actually think he is quite unbiased and lets most of the interview uncommented - he just asks the questions. He as well asked a wide range of people, people of the street, police officers, managers, etc..

Unbiased? As a previous poster said, yup just as unbiased as Rush Limbaugh and (I'll add) Nancy Pelossi. I took a class on surveys. The first few classes dealt with how to set up a series of questions that sound neutral but however answered will prove your point. I've even laughed when Angus Reid called to see if I was happy with our dictator. The questions were severely slanted.

Sorry Capt Matt, I really wanted to ignore this thread but I hate being used as an example incorrectly. I promise to try and not post anymore on it. Just remember the lines from Ladyhawke were Matthew Broderick promises to turn over a new leaf.

[Kaiddin]

Please note that in the previous post I referred to Capt Matt. It seems that I have inadvertantly promoted Lt Cmdr Matt two grades. I would like to extend my apologies and say, as a mitigating factor, I thought you were promote here. Other than becoming a moderator.

[Evan van Eyk]

Originally posted by Eric R.


But Germany's past violence is quite different from America's past violence. Germen violence was state violence i.e. war where as American violence was criminal in origin a very important difference. One is controlled the other is not, one is part of a group the other is individual.

I think the violent history Heston spoke of, was the 19th century, which was quite violent even by the state. However the main fact meant is simply that people are simply 'used' to violence no matter the source of it.