Bowling for Columbine

Originally posted by Paul Ranson
there's no correlation between gun law and shootings.
Click to expand...

USA: 11167 gun deaths, pop: 270M, rate: 1 per 24000
Canada: 165 gun deaths, pop: 30M, rate: 1 per 181000
UK: 65 gun deaths, pop 60M, rate: 1 per 923000

No correlation I'm sure.

Whilst Moore did not take the more useful rate measure into account, on the dataset provided above, there is a correlation. Of course, the dataset is extremely limited indeed and thus inaccuracies arise, but the trend this suggests (and would, of course, need backing up with further data with regard to level of policing of gun control (eg, almost non-existant in many parts of africa, eastern europe, south america, etc), gun laws, etc, etc) does not agree with your contention that there is no correlation.
 
However, MM is only using techniques that the almost universally right-wing media in the US use every day.
Click to expand...
I think if a media organisation did what MM did they would be crucified. Look at the self-flagellation the NYTimes has been enduring over comparatively trivial stuff. Or in the past the news programme that faked footage of an exploding fuel tank.

And it doesn't make it right.

Moore got away with it because it's entertainment and amusing. But he trivialises a serious issue.

If it's all so factually incorrect then why isn't he facing 100s of defamation/libel lawsuits?
Click to expand...
Because libel law in the US really doesn't protect public people. And Moore has been clever. Is Charlton Heston a racist? Did Moore say so? Did TonyL watch the film and get that impression?

Paul
 
USA: 11167 gun deaths, pop: 270M, rate: 1 per 24000
Canada: 165 gun deaths, pop: 30M, rate: 1 per 181000
UK: 65 gun deaths, pop 60M, rate: 1 per 923000

No correlation I'm sure.
Click to expand...
Sure about what?

I'm not sure what correlation you're claiming. In the UK there's been a massive clampdown on private gun ownership and yet shootings and the murder rate are rising. Is that a correlation? The murder rate in the US is falling, what does that mean?

In 1999 in the US 10828 out of 16889 homicides involved guns. But 29199 people commited suicide, 97860 died in accidents, 19109 from drugs, 19171 from alcohol, 5761 died from injuries incurred at work. I can't find figures for how many shooting homicides involved legally held guns, nor for tobacco related deaths, but 725192 died of heart diseases. And 824 from gun accidents.

On the face of it 'guns' are a political problem rather than a real one. Not liking gun lovers isn't sufficient reason for demonising them. Education not vilification.

FWIW I was in Connecticut a few years ago, the people there didn't shut windows or lock doors when they went out or at night. But using Connecticut as an example wouldn't help Moore's position.

Paul
 
paul,
either you have a very blinkered view of what bowling for columbine was really about or you yourself are guilty of dissembly.
BfC was not just about americas attitude towards the gun. that is just a symptom of the wider issue of americans acting like rabid animals when scared. their first reaction is to reach for the biggest stick they can and flail away without any thought for the consequences. yes the columbine shootings (and the others mentioned in the film) are tradgedys but in shear cost of human life they pale into insignificance when compared to the bombing of kosovo that took place on the same day, and the days before and indeed those after. or perhaps an american life is woth more than the life of someone from kosovo.
the terrorist group responsible for 9/11 has far more to answer for than the deaths they caused on that day. they have to carry the guilt of releasing americas full paranoia onto the world unchecked by any sort of moral constraint, 'cos they bombed the US first'. is it any wonder that kids think it's ok to take guns and knives to school when the highest authority in the land is bombing and invading other countries without any thought to the consequences.
cheers


julian
 
And you think a good approach to what you see as US 'paranoia' is to lie to them?

That is the point. 'Bowling for Columbine' is worthless as documentary because it is deceptive and falsified. It's dangerous as entertainment because it pretends to represent some sort of truth. The same argument can be levelled at Stone's 'JFK' and that recent U-Boat film that rewrote history.

I don't understand your point about Kosovo. Or where you get the idea that American foreign policy is responsible for children taking guns to school. It seems to me that there is more than one paranoid around here.

American foreign policy and the skills of its armed forces are clearly deficient. But what is required is sober analysis and debate. The recent incident in Afghanistan for example. Incompetence of the highest order.

Paul
 
paul,
from what i've bothered to read on the links you supplied these 'horriffic lies' are nothing more than a bit of editing and are really in the nature of artistic lisence, yes mm edited hestons speaches a bit to cut the waffle out and yes he took some bits out of context but any reasonably inteligent viewer who's been exposed to modern media for more than a few years would pick up on that sort of thing immediately - know an ironic soundbite when i see one and so should you.
children will always take what their parents do and believe that that is the way to live. so if a child parent is a spousal abuser then they are very likely to grow up thinking this is ok and commit spousal abuse themselves. a similar albeit perhaps subtler relationship exists between a population and it;s government. when a government reacts rabidly and violently to a threat then the populous is more likely to react the same way to threats at their level. this was the point being made by the film and i for one think there is something in it.
i'm not sure what you are referring to in afghanistan - some new incident or just the general afghani debacle? personally, i have decided that the world is going to hell in a handbasket and the only thing i can do about it is be nice to the people i meet. i therefore don;t torture myself by watching the crap spouted by the so called media.
cheers

julian
 
Originally posted by julian2002
i'm not sure what you are referring to in afghanistan
Click to expand...
American A10 "WartHog" air raid which was supposed to assasinate a big Taleban chief. Result of this "targeted" raid? 9 dead children and US Marines doing DNA tests to see if the one adult killed was actually the bloke they were after :rolleyes:

Michael.
 
when a government reacts rabidly and violently to a threat then the populous is more likely to react the same way to threats at their level.
Click to expand...
I think you have this round the wrong way.

But the evidence is that violence in the US is decreasing so what's your actual point?

this was the point being made by the film and i for one think there is something in it.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure there is a point in the film.

FWIW you may find http://www.spinsanity.org entertaining. Hardly 'extreme right wing'...

Paul
 
Last edited by a moderator:
so paul, you see no correlation between the americans trying to assasinate someone using depleted uranium shells and a per capita gun fatality rate an order of magnitude greater than what we have in the uk?

perhaps what with violence, i presume you mean gun fatalities, decreasing as america terrorises the rest of the world they should start dropping nukes on north korea in order to eliminate it (gun fatalities) completely.

as they say, lies, damn lies and statistics.
cheers

julian
 
Film is a highly manipulative medium, and with Bowling for Columbine Michael Moore has proved that he is as adept at massaging the audience's emotions as, say, Steven Speilberg. We should be wary of this. In the end, though, he just asks the questions that need to be asked about guns, and he doesn't offer any pat answers.

Also in the midst of the elective editing and statistical subterfuge, he touches on some deeper truths (I actually agree with Julian here, which must be a first): the American state's immense propensity for violence; the in-built need for its model of capitalism to create insecurity and inadequacy; and the neo-conservative belief that it's not enough for the rich to be rich, but that they also have to demonise the poor and squeeze every last ounce of self-respect out of them. Again, these points need to be aired, and we have to sit up and listen and debate them, because there are signs it's beginning to happen here too.

Yes, Moore uses smoke and mirrors. But the American left needs his brand of bluster (Noam Chomsky may have the intellect, but who's listening?) to counter the hateful flatulence emitted by the likes of Ann Coulter et al?
 
I watched this at last thanks to a recording.

I was moved by it and felt that it asked some very pertinant questions. As far as I could see MM simply asked questions that I suppose many like me have wondered in exasperation when we see the tradgedies such as Colombine on the TV.

I did not feel manipulated by it at the end, but thank Paul Ranson for allowing me to keep my eyes open when watching it.

I felt it got a tadge gushy at the end when they were doing the walmart thing and I felt that the interview proved what a twat Heston seems to be.

Lets put it this way I never felt inclined to move to America this has done nothing to change that!
 
so paul, you see no correlation between the americans trying to assasinate someone using depleted uranium shells and a per capita gun fatality rate an order of magnitude greater than what we have in the uk?
Click to expand...
What?

Why would you think that drug crime has anything to do with reluctance to engage closely with an enemy? There's no correlation at all, in fact the intimacy of gun violence is the complete opposite of remote controlled airstrikes.

Paul
 
I would just like to interject a comment that if you already have a taste for the Moore books and film, then you will like even more the latest 'Dude where's my country' He drops some of the minor issues and starts seriously wading into some of the politicians. Although it's looser language than, say, the Economist, I still feel the points are well made. For some reason the reviews quoted on the cover try to convince you it's a barrel of laughs, but I personally benefited most by reading it straight.
 
Originally posted by michaelab


There's nothing in any of his material which is blatantly false. There may have been detail changes for the sake of entertainment etc but the big picture he paints is totally accurate. If it's all so factually incorrect then why isn't he facing 100s of defamation/libel lawsuits?
Click to expand...

I went to see Michael Moore in London recently as part of his book promotion. The subject of the anti-moore websites came up in a Q&A after and his main response was very similar to michaelab's comment above.

Paul Ranson countering this suggestion with "...libel law in the US really doesn't protect public people" maybe true at a 'personal' level but a company or organisation that has had its reputation bought into question is quite within its rights to take action against any false allegations. But MM has no law suits taken out against him to this date. By anyone, despite his alleged lies.

Theres a book called 'Why Do People Hate America?' (written Ziauddin Sardar and Merryl Wyn Davies) which is worth reading - it gives a good insight on how Americas political and cultural dominance has impacted modern society and the sometimes dubious tactics used to further the American (and other nations admittidly) economic stranglehold throughout less developed countries.
 
I'll turn that round and ask why Moore hasn't sued anybody for libel? He's threatened to but not actually done so. Does that prove that the criticisims in Forbes and Spinsanity are valid?

Paul
 

Latest posts

Back
Top