Michael Moore -- Bowling for Columbine arguments

[Jadecristal]

Michael Moore

Ok... here's hoping that it falls under political things, so that I don't get into trouble. I've recently started discussing guns and rights with friends, etc. I'm running into people who have been ... influenced (I'm trying to be nice here) by Moore's Bowling for Columbine, which I haven't seen. It would appear that in order to debate effectively, I'm going to have to see it. In general, though, my question is this:

What are some good, safe, and logical arguments to use on those people who took more than I suspect they should have to heart?

Overall, even without seeing it, my guess is that the movie is primarily pathos (emotionally) driven, with little logical or credibility (logos, ethos) arguments. Which worries me. It seems that the left usually uses primarily emotional arguments, since they work on [too] many people.

Please comment on all of the above. Or shred me if I've got it coming.

 

[Unlucky]

http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html

 

[Elmer Snerd]

Check Mr. Hardy's main site:

http://www.mooreexposed.com/

 

[Treylis]

See also:

http://www.bowlingfortruth.com

http://www.moorewatch.com

 

[Geech]

I definitely do recommend that you see it, because it will help you become more familiar with the arguments surrounding. A problem that I've noticed among some well-intentioned folk is that they don't want to contribute to Moore financially but are still eager to fight the films influence, and as a result they end up making some incorrect statements about the film.

Stay away from the invective some of his critics spew, and don't bother bringing up the more questionable issues like the bank scenes or the staging of the hunting accident. I think the best approach would be to pick something relatively small that will stick with your friends. A good example from the Hardy link posted above is that fact that the 'Culture of Fear' book recommended by Moore listed school shootings as one of the overexposed fears in our culture. Moore didn't mention that in his film for obvious reasons. Of course, you should familiarize yourself with the other arguments just in case they come up.

 

[rayra]

Just the deliberately misleading statements made about Heston and the NRA convention staging re Columbine should be enough to impeach this film in the minds of the fair.
And a careful pointing out of the deliberate and misleading intercutting of two different Heston NRA speeches, done at different times and places to kraft a false presentation of his remarks should sink it completely. One of those listed websites details the intercutting, and the film-editing techniques moore used to distract from it - intercutting other scenes to cover the breaks in Heston segments, and distract from the changing suits / drapes, etc.

 

[Mulliga]

Borrow it from your local library. Easy, free, and you'll be ready to counter their rhetoric.

 

[flatrock]

Borrow it from your local library. Easy, free, and you'll be ready to counter their rhetoric.

Great idea. I was trying to figure out how to see this movie without any money going toward Moore.

 

[Stebalo]

I downloaded it from Kazaa. A waste of bandwith though. The library is a good option, if you are going there already. Don't waste the gas on a special trip for that piece of crap.

 

[SDC]

Unless he was TRYING to portray "a lack of gun control" as the problem, why did he make it seem like it was as simple as walking into a bank and opening an account to get one? He had to deliberately STAGE that scene in order to convey that impression, rather than show the forms, NICS check, and wait that's involved, so what was his purpose? TO CONVINCE PEOPLE THAT GUNS ARE BAD AND THAT GUN OWNERS ARE EVIL PEOPLE. When someone has to go to lengths to avoid showing the truth, you can be sure that they don't have your best interests at heart.

 

[Dex Sinister]

Great idea. I was trying to figure out how to see this movie without any money going toward Moore.

Um, rent it from a video store? It's not like video stores send royalty payments to film producers every time someone re-rents a movie - they already bought it, so he already got his cut.

Dex

 

[Paco]

Funny, but I got something completely different from that movie than the rest of you guys. I've seen it three or four times wonderin' about alot of what's been said here and been said on the left. I didn't see the movie as anti-gun more so an affront on American culture as being the source of violence.

The whole lay out was to show you that yes, we are a gun-loving country but that doesn't mean it's the guns that makes us violent. Thus his protrayal of himself as a life long NRA member and gun-user and Canada having more guns per-capita than we do, but less violent crime per-capita.

-I think he's got a point, and that is exactly the argument I use against the anti-gunners who would like to demonize the gun and heap all the world's problems on what is essentially a tool(guns), not the devil himself(evil-guns!).

We do have a violence problem here, but just as it was pointed out in the movie, you can't say it's the video-games, books, movies, music or guns that causes it since many other countries have these things at the common man's disposal (well maybe not the gun thing). He was demarcating what the problem WASN'T more than pointing out what it was.

After seeing the movie many times, I still don't know what our problem is in America-but we do have some sort of problem.

-This movie can be seen as VERY pro-gun if you see the whole point being made: it's not the guns...

-paco

 

[Mk VII]

op-ed from today's London Daily Telegraph

It must have been a gruesome sight: the elite of the Cannes film festival applauding someone even more self-regarding than themselves. Michael Moore, portly archpriest of the anti-Bush cult, premiered his film Fahrenheit 9/11 at the festival this week. The American documentary-maker sent three undercover film crews to Iraq; they returned with footage - included in the film - claiming to show US soldiers abusing Iraqi prisoners. If such abuse occurred, then it should be condemned. But no one should rush to judgment on the basis of allegations emanating from Mr Moore.
Many of the claims made in Bowling for Columbine, his Oscar-winning film about America's gun culture, have unravelled spectacularly under scrutiny. His target audience of 20-year-old slackers will not hear a word against him, but many American commentators - including Left-wing ones - are embarrassed by the crudity of his rhetoric, the unreliability of his "facts" and the gulf between his claim to represent blue-collar America and his personal lifestyle.
Mr Moore lives on New York's Upper West Side and travels in corporate jets with a rock-star entourage. Asked about this by the Los Angeles Times, he implied that only middle-class journalists were bothered by the contradiction - "the working class just thinks it's cool". This concern for the working classes is touching: it was on display again at Cannes, where Mr Moore took time out from gobbling canapés to address a local protest over benefit cuts. "I'm here to support workers in France, the United States and all around the world," he declared.
This folie de grandeur might be forgivable if Mr Moore were funny. And, to be fair, some people think he is. In a recent live show in London, he suggested that, if the September 11 hijack victims had been black, as opposed to pampered whites, they would have fought back and overcome their attackers. His right-on audience lapped this up. Relatives of those who died might not have laughed so heartily.
The simple truth about Michael Moore is that this self-righteous critic of corporate America is one of its most bloated beneficiaries. It is time someone made a film about him - and, we are pleased to report, someone is. Forget Fahrenheit 9/11: later this year, a young film-maker called Mike Wilson will unveil a documentary entitled Michael Moore Hates America, in which the self-proclaimed "slob in a baseball cap" will find his techniques turned on himself. Don't miss it.

 

[Michigander]

In Moore's very lame response to criticizm concerning Bowling, in which he does not address the majority of lies, he states:

I can guarantee to you, without equivocation, that every fact in my movie is true. Three teams of fact-checkers and two groups of lawyers went through it with a fine tooth comb to make sure that every statement of fact is indeed an indisputable fact.

But later, in the same article, he says:

Actually, I have found one typo in the theatrical release of the film. It was a caption that read, "Willie Horton released by Dukakis and kills again." In fact, Willie Horton was a convicted murderer who, after escaping from furlough, raped a woman and stabbed her fiancé, but didn't kill him. The caption has been permanently corrected on the DVD and home video version of the film and replaced with, "Willie Horton released. Then rapes a woman."

Note that he guarantees, without equivocation that all the facts are correct, but then points out that the three teams of fact-checkers and two groups of lawyers must have missed this one little, insignificant typo and that he found it himself!

This: Willie Horton released by Dukakis and kills again.
becomes
this: Willie Horton released. Then rapes a woman.

That's a pretty big "typo" if you ask me.

Can anyone say, "liar, liar, liar"?!

He really should get a new group of "fact-checkers and lawyers" if he is truly concerned with accuracy. Of course he isn't and he won't.

 

[Geech]

Paco, the truth is that even though his conclusions are not anti-gun, his portrayal of gun owners, the NRA, and Heston seems to influence people in the same way. I mean, the whole reason for the thread is because some of his anti friends are referencing the movie in their arguments.

 

[trooper]

I think the least defendable parts of his movie are the cited violent crime statistics from different countries.

After I watched "Bowling" I started researching the respective numbers myself. It took me about 30 minutes to find out that they were either plain wrong or grossly misinterpreted. All I needed were some official data from a couple government web sites.

BFC is just a piece of crappy propaganda. I nearly laughed my a** off when he tried to compare crime rates in the US and Canada by using absolute numbers.

Sadly enough, the movie proved to be quite a success among liberal mainstream people over here.


Regards,

Trooper

 

[trooper]

I think the least defendable parts of his movie are the cited violent crime statistics from different countries.

After I watched "Bowling" I started researching the respective numbers myself. It took me about 30 minutes to find out that they were either plain wrong or grossly misinterpreted. All I needed were some official data from a couple government web sites.

BFC is just a piece of crappy propaganda. I nearly laughed my a** off when he tried to compare crime rates in the US and Canada by using absolute numbers.

Sadly enough, the movie proved to be quite a success among liberal mainstream people over here.


Regards,

Trooper

 

[trooper]

I think the least defendable parts of his movie are the cited violent crime statistics from different countries.

After I watched "Bowling" I started researching the respective numbers myself. It took me about 30 minutes to find out that they were either plain wrong or grossly misinterpreted. All I needed were some official data from a couple government web sites.

BFC is just a piece of crappy propaganda. I nearly laughed my a** off when he tried to compare crime rates in the US and Canada by using absolute numbers.

Sadly enough, the movie proved to be quite a success among liberal mainstream people over here.


Regards,

Trooper

 

[Daedalus]

MY favorite part was at one point he says something to the effect of "Hand gun purchases have been going up, but crime has been declining...." Only a looney left winger would be incapable of seeing a correlation.

 

[Paco]

Gentlemen,

Use the tools of the enemy against them!

-I get WAY more mileage using that movie and the pro-gun angle with libs than I do if I try to dog the movie. Trust me on this one. Experience from both ends. I always get listened to if I am favorable to that movie and point out what I believe is the main message: guns are not the problem.

Everytime I have done this, it gets the anitgunners to have a moment of pause. This man and documentary, they believe, is their golden child. Very effective and I have changed a few very-closed minds before using this exact tactic.

 

[cordex]

-This movie can be seen as VERY pro-gun if you see the whole point being made: it's not the guns...

Paco,
If Moore doesn't believe that guns are the problem, why make such a big issue about forcing K Mart to stop selling handgun and "assault weapon" ammunition?

It's a serious reach to claim that the movie is pro-gun at all.

 

[Geech]

That may well prove the better tactic, Paco.

 

[dance varmint]

I just watched this fetid smear piece, and I'd have trouble improving on the rebuttals already posted out there on the web. It's just incoherent and emotional. The immature cartoon about American history by the South Park creators was one of the low points. Some of the most offensive idiots were the ones who tried to implicate Michigan's welfare-to-work program for the 6-year-old girl being shot in school. The comparison with Canada was simplistic and the quotes were lame-brained, particularly the girl who generalized about American belligerence. Now I better understand why K-mart deserves such disdain for pathetically caving in to Moore's publicity stunt. His placement of the 6-year-old girl's photo by Heston's house was cheap and sickening. This film is vomit.