So why are you pretending that it's more influential than it really is? It's just a psuedo-documentary. There are lots of others that take lots of other positions, advocating or decrying lots of other world events. Imo, you are right that he raises no real substantive questions and is narrow-minded in his "investigation" of the causes leading to the Columbine massacre, but so what?

If you wanted to start a thread about why Bowling for Columbine sucks, then why didn't you just do that?

Although I agree with a lot of the opinions belied by your comments, your argument is not on point and lacks any semblance of logical structure. What is the exact point you wish to make? That Michael Moore is a hack filmmaker?

That Bowling for Columbine is a weak film?

That violence in the media is an antecedent to real violence? That society is in denial about this chain of causation?

That Michael Moore's point about Canadian gun laws and comparative low violent crime rate has been contradicted by this latest event?

You're all over the place.

The dozy sociologist in Moore awakens: "fear" is media-fed to Americans leading them into a gun culture nested in unbridled greed for running shoes, soft drinks and meat between fibreless white buns. With ugly wall-to-wall muzak behind interviews coupled with very easy-to-get anti-Bush, anti-military laughs, he shows: that Americans have tons of guns; that America is violent; that American elites bomb Aspirin factories in the Third World, whenever they feel like. These are a limited series of conclusions after 125 minutes don't you think? But he's addressing the masses. He has to keep it simple, that way it'll get on TV and everyone will vote for Ralph Nader; then we'll have wind power. And one by one, the fingernail removing dictators will fall, as the self-repairing ozone saves us, bringing green fields and sunshine in every pot. Moore has to sugarcoat the message. Smug, inactive, intellectuals use such arguments to defend Moore's lack of depth and courage as a documentary film-maker.

Police: Teens Plotted Columbine-like Massacre

Officials Say Green Bay Boys Planned to Deploy At Least 20 Bombs Throughout School

Sept. 16, 2006 — Police say the plan was diabolical and imminent: Shawn Sturtz and William Cornell, both 17 years old, had amassed an arsenal of guns, ammunition and at least 20 homemade bombs.

"This threat was real and would have been carried out in the near future," said Capt. Lisa Sterr of the Green Bay Police Department.

Authorities say both boys had long been fascinated with the Columbine massacre of 1999. They were depressed, hated school and hoped to die in a shootout. They had apparently learned how to build bombs on the Internet.

According to police, the teens planned to storm the school, set off bombs in the bathrooms, and light the doors on fire with napalm so no one could get out. Investigators say there was also a list of people they planned to kill.

"One's got to ask themselves, as the mayor of this city: 'Where were the parents in this?' " said Green Bay Mayor James J. Schmitt.

As they walked out of court, Sturtz's family maintained they were in the dark.

Investigators say the Columbine-style plan was two years in the making. A fellow student tipped off school officials.

"If someone hadn't come forward, we'd be talking about funerals instead of charges," said John Zakowski, Brown County District Attorney.

Sturtz and Cornell are being on held on a $50,000 dollar bond. They are expected to be charged next week with conspiracy to commit homicide.

This whole thread in fact isn't solving anything, it's just pointing the finger at more people and furthering the very thing you are trying to stop.

I think Marilyn Manson said it best in that movie when he said 'I wouldn't say anything. I'd just listen to them. (The kids)'

It's really as simple as that. That would almost completely solve this whole violence amongst the youth thing.

Criticism
The film is highly controversial, and some of its critics have gone so far to call for a revocation of the Academy Award because they do not consider Bowling for Columbine a legitimate documentary. Some of the film's defenders, on the other hand, view these criticisms as symptomatic of the highly emotional atmosphere that characterizes the gun rights debate. Criticism has been made by both pro-gun and anti-gun groups.

Accusations of editorialism
Critics of Moore such as National Review's Dave Kopel claim it is deceptive to call this film purely a "documentary;" they say it is more accurate to describe it as selective documentary, or as Moore has at times called another of his films, an "op-ed" piece [4] that displays his own views. Kopel says the film omits key facts while stringing together other facts to lead to a conclusion, which he says is blatantly untrue, or at the least somewhat deceptive. [5]

For example Kopel points to an early scene that has Moore visiting a savings bank which had advertised a complimentary firearm upon the customer's creating a bank account. Kopel points out that Moore shows us his completing of the savings account application, and then the film's next scene shows him wielding a gun (specifically, a rifle) in front of the bank. Kopel argues that this sequence may lead one to believe is that it is possible to obtain a free gun immediately upon signing an application, without a waiting period, and that the guns are kept at the bank. Kopel states that what actually occurred behind the scenes is that Moore had to deposit thousands of dollars into the account and produce photo identification, then wait at the bank for an FBI background check. In March 2003, John Fund reported in a Wall Street Journal diary page that the bank employee who handled Moore's account, Jan Jacobson, claimed that Moore had arranged the transaction weeks in advance, and that customers have "a week to 10 days waiting period" before collecting their guns. [6] While the use of "free" firearms as a marketing ploy may be legitimately questioned, Kopel questions the means by which he makes this argument. [5]

However later in 2004, Moore responded to these criticisms in a posting on his website. To the claim that the transaction had been arranged weeks in advanced he said that "Nothing was done out of the ordinary other than to phone ahead and ask permission to let me bring a camera..." He also states that the background check took less than 10 minutes and he was handed the rifle 5 minutes later. To back up his version of events, he posted out-takes from the documentary. The video shows Jacobson explaining the process to Moore, including that the rifles are held in the bank's vault. [7] The footage in which an employee states that the guns are stored in the bank's vault appears in televised broadcasts of the film.

Criticism from pro-gun groups
The gun-rights lobby believes that Moore unfairly portrayed lawful gun owners in the USA as a violence-prone group. While few dispute that the gunshot homicide rate is higher in the US than in other countries, Richard Bushnell claims his statistics as presented in the montage of other countries sequence are ambiguous [8] on two counts: first, they maintain Moore's statistics are not adjusted for smaller population in other countries; further, Bushnell claims that Moore includes acts such as self-defense, which are not in uniform with US murder statistics. However, Moore's statistics are for homicide, and not murder. Although self-defense does not fit the legal definition of murder, which only applies to unlawful and premeditated acts of killing, it does fit the legal definition of homicide, which applies to all forms of killing in general. Finally, David Hardy argues that all homicides and violent crime should have been included in the comparison. [9]

In the film, Moore berates the American media for creating a culture of fear in the American public. Dave Kopel and David Hardy argue that his own movie is geared towards creating fear of guns and gun owners, and accuse him of hypocrisy on those grounds. [5] [9]

Critics also claim that Moore makes misleading statements in the movie. For example, Moore conducted an interview with Evan McCollum, Director of Communications at a Lockheed Martin plant near Columbine, and asked him

"So you don't think our kids say to themselves, 'Dad goes off to the factory every day, he builds missiles of mass destruction. What's the difference between that mass destruction and the mass destruction over at Columbine High School?'"

McCollum responded:
"I guess I don't see that specific connection because the missiles that you're talking about were built and designed to defend us from somebody else who would be aggressors against us."

The comment then cuts to a montage of questionable American foreign policy decisions, with the intent to contradict McCollum's statement, and cite examples of how the United States has, in Moore's view, frequently been the aggressor nation.

McCollum has later clarified that the plant no longer produces missiles (the plant manufactured parts for intercontinental ballistic missiles with a nuclear warhead in the mid-1980s), but rockets used for launching satellites. Indeed, the plant was also used to take former nuclear missiles out of service, converting decommissioned Titan missiles into launch vehicles for satellites. [10] Since the interview was conducted in the plant, and on the backdrop of these rockets, David Kopel makes the charge that Moore was misleading his viewers by implying that this particular plant still produced nuclear missiles. [5] Moore later added to his statements from the movie, to say that satellites were equally responsible as nuclear missiles for US-instigated violence, to maintain this point.[11][7]

It should be noted that McCollum, in the part of the interview that is shown, does not refute Moore's statements about Lockheed's weapons manufacture, which implies Moore is attacking (and McCollum is defending) Lockheed in general, not specifically the Littleton plant. As of 2005, Lockheed was still the world's largest defense contractor by revenue, which Moore states in the film.[12]

Moore is also criticized by Richard Bushnell [13] for a cartoon depicting a Ku Klux Klan member becoming the NRA and saying that the NRA was formed "the same year that the Klan became an illegal terrorist organization." While supporters claim that this is satire, critics charge that this misleads the viewers into thinking that the KKK became the NRA or that the NRA was founded by former KKK members. In fact the NRA was founded by anti-Confederate, anti-KKK Union officers, and Ulysses S. Grant, who as U.S. President signed the order declaring the KKK illegal, later became the NRA's eighth president.

Another criticism of Moore has to do with his editing of several Charlton Heston speeches. He juxtaposes Columbine pictures with footage of Heston saying "from my cold dead, hands" and says that Heston held a rally ten days afterwards, then shows footage of Heston saying that he is refusing the demand "Don't come here" because "we're already here". David Hardy makes the charge that this juxtaposition implies that Heston deliberately held a rally after Columbine. The NRA however cancelled all Denver events except for an annual meeting required by the group's bylaws and by New York State law.[14][15] The "cold, dead, hands" remark was from a different meeting a year later, and the "we're already here" remark was edited in from a different part of the speech, while Moore edited out lines where Heston says he is cancelling the events. [16] [17]

Regarding the shooting of Kayla Rolland, David Hardy also accuses Moore of misleading editing when he says "Just as he did after the Columbine shooting, Charlton Heston showed up in Flint, to have a big pro-gun rally." Hardy points out that Moore does not mention that the rally was eight months afterwards rather than immediate, nor that the rally was a "get out the vote" rally done at a time when Bush, Gore, and Moore himself were at rallies.[18] Moore also shows a web page saying "48 hours after Kayla Rolland was pronounced dead" which, Hardy charges, implies that Heston had the rally 48 hours after the shooting, when the full quote from the web page refers not to Heston, but to Bill Clinton appearing on The Today Show 48 hours after the shooting. [19] [20]

Richard Bushnell also accuses Moore of omitting facts about Kayla Rolland's shooter when he says that "no one knew why the little boy wanted to shoot the little girl". Bushnell points to reports in the Dayton Daily News and Deseret News that suggest that the boy had already been suspended once for stabbing a student with a pencil, that his father was in jail, and that his uncle (from whose house he got the gun) was a drug dealer and the gun had been stolen and exchanged for drugs. [21]



Sidney Poitier, Harry Belafonte and Charlton Heston on the 1963 Civil Rights March on Washington, D.C. Sculpture of Abraham Lincoln behind.

Bushnell also points to a part of the movie where Moore quotes Charlton Heston as saying that the US has a violence problem because "we had enough problems with civil rights in the beginning," implying that he and the NRA are racist. Heston's supporters say he was a strong supporter of civil rights in the 1960's and that Heston's remark most likely refers to racism being a cause of violence, not to a racist belief that blacks are the cause of violence. [22]

Criticism from anti-gun groups
Moore argues that high gun ownership is not responsible for violence in America, and instead argues that there must be something about the American psyche and the media that makes the nation uniquely prone to high rates of murder and shootings. David Hardy questions how Moore can blame TV news for youth violence after having rejected movies and videogames as possible factors.[9] Gun control advocates argue that it is the higher rates of gun ownership, especially handgun ownership, that are to blame for the higher gunshot homicide rate in the US.

In support of his claims, Moore argues that Canadian gun ownership levels are as high as the U.S. Ben Fritz in Spinsanity considers this misleading because "Moore ignores the fact that Canada has significantly fewer handguns and a much stricter gun licensing system."[23] The 1996 International Crime (Victim) Survey from the Canada Department of Justice found that handguns were owned by 6.02% to 16.07% of households, depending on the province (the remainder being shotguns or long guns).[24] By contrast, gun deaths in the U.S. are generally related to handguns in inner cities. It is easier to legally purchase a handgun in the United States than in any other industrialized nation.[citation needed] In Bowling for Columbine, Moore claims that it is easy to buy guns in Canada too, and attempts to prove this by buying some ammunition.

Criticism from liberals
The American Prospect published a piece by Garance Franke-Ruta criticizing the movie for ignoring the role that municipal governance plays in crime in America, and ignoring African-American urban victims of crime to focus on the unusual events of Columbine. "A decline in murders in New York City alone—from 1,927 in 1993 to 643 in 2001 — had, for example, a considerable impact on the declining national rate. Not a lot of those killers or victims were the sort of sports-hunters or militiamen Moore goes out of his way to interview and make fun of."[25]

Canada
When comparing the ethnicities of Canada and the United States, Moore states that "Canada is 13% non white" and "we're pretty much the same." Moore counts Hispanics, who comprise approximately 13% of the U.S. population, as 'non-White'. By that definition Canada is about 18% non white, while the United States population is more than 30% non-white. Canada's minority demographics also differ from those of the United States — overall, Canada has a much smaller population of blacks and Hispanics, while at the same time having a higher percentage of Chinese and other Asians.

The film also paints Canada as free from problems like those at Columbine, but makes no mention of the École Polytechnique massacre in which a man by the name of Marc Lépine killed more students at a college in Montreal in 1989 than the Columbine shooters did at Columbine ten years later. The Dawson College shooting further calls Moore's claims into question. [baracine: This is the subject of the present thread, remember?]

Non-gun related criticism
Critics point to a passage saying that the US gave $245 million to "Taliban-ruled Afghanistan" (see above). Although literally correct in the sense that the US did give the aid, its placement in a list of evil acts by the US and its careful wording suggest that the US gave the aid to the Taliban, when in fact this was humanitarian aid that was sent through the UN and nongovernmental organizations, and was intended to bypass the Taliban.

In the same "What a Wonderful World" sequence Moore claims that the United States trained and gave money to Osama bin Laden's terrorist groups. However, the bipartisan 9/11 Commission concluded in chapter 2 of its final report that the United States gave bin Laden himself little or no money or training. [26] They cite a passage from Ayman Al-Zawahiri's biography Knights Under the Prophet's Banner in which he denies accepting any money from the US. [27] Bin Laden has also denied receiving money from the US. Large factions critical of American Foreign policy have maintained that the United States government in all probability supported and even funded bin Laden's Maktab al-Khadamat organization following the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan (as the MAK and the United States both opposed the Soviet presence there), though the US government and the CIA have denied this, claiming they gave aid only to Afghan fighters, not the MAK. Former support of the Mujahideen in Afghanistan by the American government during this time is likewise common knowledge and widely accepted by most.

Former CIA officials have denied distributing any aid.[28] "While it is impossible to prove a negative, all available evidence suggests that bin Laden was never funded, trained or armed by the CIA," said Richard Miniter in a Fox News report.

Dave Kopel has also accused Moore of misrepresenting the contents of a plaque on the B-52 bomber's display at the Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs and of trying to equate "fighting enemy pilots and perpetrating war crimes against civilians" by showing the Vietnam War era B-52 Bomber immediately after showing footage of airplanes hitting the World Trade Center[5]. Brendan Nyhan, writing for Spinsanity, has directly criticized Moore on the grounds that his "phrasing insinuates that the plaque praises the bombing of civilians"[29]

Moore states that "...the plaque underneath it proudly proclaims that this plane killed Vietnamese people on Christmas Eve 1972..." while according to the Colorado-Mall website the plaque reads: "Dedicated to the men and women of the Strategic Air Command who flew and maintained the B-52D throughout its 26 year history in the command. Aircraft 55,003, with over 15,000 flying hours, is one of two B-52's credited with a confirmed MIG kill during the Vietnam conflict. Flying out of Utapao Royal Thai Naval Airfield in southeast Thailand, the crew of 'Diamond Lil' shot down a MIG northeast of Hanoi during "Linebacker II" action on Christmas eve 1972." [30]

Criticism from Trey Parker and Matt Stone
Bowling for Columbine includes a brief interview with South Park co-creator Matt Stone, who suggests that South Park was largely inspired by Stone' s childhood experiences in Littleton, Colorado. Stone presents a vision of Littleton as painfully normal, and highly intolerant of non-conformist behavior. In a segment that followed, an uncredited cartoon in a style somewhat reminiscent of South Park is featured, depicting the National Rifle Association and Ku Klux Klan as interchangeable evil organizations. However, this sequence was not the work of Matt Stone, nor that of Trey Parker. It became a point of contention between the two and Moore, as they believed Moore meant to imply they had contributed to his film beyond the interview. [31] Subsequent releases attempted to distance this implication by delaying the animation until ten minutes later in the film, and correctly crediting the animation. The animation was in fact made by FlickerLab and written by Moore. According to Stone and Parker,[31] the appearance of Moore as a suicide bomber in their 2004 film Team America: World Police is their sardonic response to this incident.

Bowling
The film title originates from the early myth that Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, the two boys responsible for the Columbine High School massacre, went bowling early that morning, at 6:00 am, before they committed the attacks at school starting at 11:18 am. However, that assertion has turned out to be a myth that originated from several testimonies of distressed witnesses who accidentally forgot that they had been absent that day.[1] Moore suggests that it is as reasonable to blame their actions on bowling as it is to blame them on violent video games, movies, and music (during the aftermath of the shooting, many used the opportunity to denounce Marilyn Manson and The Matrix, claiming a connection between violence in the media and violence in schools).

Moore incorporates the concept of bowling in other ways as well (beyond the 6 am rumor). Ironically, a militia in Michigan uses bowling pins for their target practice. When interviewing former classmates of the two boys, Moore notes that the students took a bowling class in place of physical education. Moore notes this might have very little educational value and the girls he interviews generally agreed. The girls note how Harris and Klebold had a very introverted lifestyle and a very careless attitude towards the game and nobody thought twice about it. This calls into question the state of the school system (a fact strongly reinforced by Matt Stone). Moore asks the question of whether the school system is responding to the state of today's troubled youth or if they are simply reinforcing the concept of fear to the children and allowing the youth to wallow in this façade. Moore also interviews two young residents of Oscoda, Michigan, in a local bowling alley and in the process learns that guns are relatively easy to come by in the small town. Eric Harris spent some of his early years in Oscoda while his father was serving in the U.S. Air Force.