i trust my readers...  


to make the connection as to why i'm posting this article. Don't let me down.


Bowling for Columbine  


I wish i could go back in time and watch this movie w/o knowing that so much of the editing led to half-truths and misperceptions. Unfortunately i can't, and thus will never know if my disgust is genuine or the result of being predisposed. That being said, i didn't like the movie.

I can tell Michael Moore feels strongly about the issue. However, i can't tell what the issue is, or, more to the point, what his opinion is. I've got this much down so far: guns are bad, m'kay? Connecting the dots between how, why and what are a bit more complicated.

Facts: The United States has a lot of guns. The United States has a SHOCKINGLY high rate of homicides by gun compared to their peers.

That's about it. Oh, and sometimes crazy people have guns and/or innocent people accidently die by guns.

Moore does an absolutely poor job at making his point. His arguments contradict themselves. He spends a good portion of the movie complaining that America has too many guns and it's too easy to get access to them. He buys a gun at a bank and bullets at Kmart. Ok, that's all well and good, if your argument is that guns = deaths by gun.

Except that's not the case. Later in the movie (well actually sandwiched in the middle of the movie), he argues that the United States has a different culture....one that leads to gun homicide. Proof: Canada has 7 million guns among it's 10 million families, yet nobody (or practically nobody) is murdered by gun violence in Canada.

I don't understand how Moore doesn't realize that his Canadian example actually HURTS and contradicts his "too many guns in america" theory. You can't have it both ways. I suppose you could start out with the theory that we have a different mentality and then say that the extra guns don't help. But Moore didn't do that. He made it out like the supply of guns themselves was the problem and that if we limit the guns, we limit the problem.

He also did liberals every a great diservice by pointing to a few pyschos and generalizing that thats' why no american could have guns. 1) This group uses guns. 2) Tim McVeigh was in that group 3) that group having guns is bad. Sorry, that doesn't fly. I'm not going to take the blame for someone else abusing their freedom. I don't know what Moore's views are on the war on drugs, but i bet dollars to donuts (what does that mean anyway?) that he's for decriminalization.
Speaking of the "group", he spent a lot of time showing the milita's in Montana. While I'll grant him the fact that there is probably something "wrong" with their personalities that they live in such fear and feel the need to devote their time to such "preperation", i don't think that they are as danerous as he makes out in the movie. Is it that inconceivable that a group would want to prepare themselves just in case their government fails them? If Moore could have his way, all these Americans wouldn't have guns. But the government still would.

Would moore feel safe in a world where there could be no resistence to the government? I wouldn't. When the sequel to the civil war goes down, i want to make sure we are fully armed.

And finally, what really got me riled up was his accusation that Heston was insensitive to the vicitms of gun violence by going into those towns* (note: i think this was the stuff that was compeltely taken out of context by moore, but don't quote me on that). Heston believes in a cause and as such it's important to protect his cause. Towns that suffer shocking violence (columbine, the 6 year old's death, etc) might be more willing to infringe on Heston's cause. To pass gun control laws, and such and such. That's why it's important for Heston to go to those towns.

And more importantly, isn't it insensitive for Moore to use the victims specifically to get his point across? Do you think moore REALLY cares about the dead 6 year old? No, she's a means to an end. a means to an agenda. When he shows Heston the picture of her (and leaves it on his door step) he's USING the girl. Granted, his message and cause might be more inline with the victim's mother's, but it's still exploitation. Why doesn't Moore show the same restraint that he requests of Heston?

There's more, but i'm tired. Now i remember why i gave up blogging.