saw 'Columbine' last night...

[DeeKnow]

I'd heard on and off about Michael Moore but didn't know much about him. Last night a friend gave me a copy of 'Bowling for Columbine'. some of the news I'd heard about in the last few years began to make a little sense...

sure, he often stretches the point, and gets a little melodramatic, but that does not take away from the fact that he makes a valid point.

wanted to hear from ppl what they think of Moore and about the film...
what I'm not looking for a liberal/democrat/republican/vegetarian flame-fest

just- have you seen the film, do you agree with the point he makes, what did he miss out..?

 

[Painman]

A lot of people miss the point of BFC completely which is, "we don't need gun control, we need American control" - this is pointed out succinctly when it's revealed that Canadian gun ownership per capita is higher than our own, yet gun deaths in Canada are profoundly less common than they are here. The film is an investigation into America's paranoid psyche more than anything else.

 

[nageov3t]

I mostly agree with Moore's politics. but he's a crap film maker, they're misrepresented as documentries, and he "misrepresents" the truth way too often and way too far.

 

[Helenihi]

His "point" is complete crap. I'm curious as to what you think his point is, and how he proved it with the film.

 

[Hossenfeffer]

I'd go along with his point, but I think he shoots himself in the foot a bit when he steps over the line. A prime example is the handling of the Heston interview. It -could- have been a great piece, and good on Heston for agreeing to it. Moore just went too much on the offensive for my taste and it made me cringe a bit to watch. That being said, I enjoyed the film and thought it was relatively fair (though I'll be the first to acknowledge the slant).

 

[DeeKnow]

Heston just disgraced himself... I don't know much about his past, but I don't think I care to find out... He just came across as a rat, I think ... far worse than any politician we love to revile (and god knows there's enough of them to hate...)

Helenihi - you didn't get the 'point' ...? you should watch the film again

 

[sandorski]

Great film. The point, IMO, was that Americans have a twisted view of reality and a lack of respect for guns.(wrote a more detailed opinion in another recent thread on BFC)

 

[biostud]

Since I don't live in US I can't say if it's right or wrong, but I think he makes some good points abut the how focus on violence as entertainment gives a skewed view of the society.

So I think that the point he made is that the lack of debate and discussion about our society and how we wants to live is a large problem. Instead "we just wants to be entertained, and live our own lives" and when problems arise we don't know how to tackle them, because all we've seen is the "scary" stuff on TV.

It reduces our will to ask questions about our own lives and how we live them, and specially how to improve them. So because the lack of understanding and because of beeing told to many scary stories, people see their safety beeing threatened if something just differs a little from "normal". So persons who wants to lives different are very likely to be alienated, and that can extreme cases result in the shooting.

Do we ever wonder why so many need psychopharmica? have we just degenerated in one generation, or are our society maybe not as good as we think it is? Why are we always trying to cure the probelms instead of preventing them?

Michael Moore does ask questions and he provocates the middle class, of course he does it to the extreme, but it's just to people up from the chairs and start thinking and start asking questions. He doesn't necesarily wants people to agree with him, but he wants people to start thinking and discuss how our society should be. This, the media really should be doing, but they're to focused on earning money and because of that the don't want to have any opinions that might differ from a potential viewer/consumer.

 

[conjur]

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

 

[Shelly21]

Originally posted by: Painman
A lot of people miss the point of BFC completely which is, "we don't need gun control, we need American control" - this is pointed out succinctly when it's revealed that Canadian gun ownership per capita is higher than our own, yet gun deaths in Canada are profoundly less common than they are here. The film is an investigation into America's paranoid psyche more than anything else.

That's what I saw too. NRA should support this film because it pins the blame of gun violence on people and not the gun itself.

 

[Bulk Beef]

Originally posted by: DeeKnow
Heston just disgraced himself... I don't know much about his past, but I don't think I care to find out... He just came across as a rat, I think ... far worse than any politician we love to revile (and god knows there's enough of them to hate...)

Helenihi - you didn't get the 'point' ...? you should watch the film again

Helenihi asked what you think Moore's point was. Simple question.

I'd like to know how you think Heston disgraced himself.

 

[3chordcharlie]

When Moore did the bit on locking your front doors, being Canadian I completely missed the point until he actually started opening people's doors.

I thought he meant "do you lock your door when you go out" and was thinking 'well, of course I do. Then he started opening doors and talking to people and I realized he meant "do you lock your door when you're at home"!!!

I would never even think of locking my door when I'm at home during the day, and I live in what the media portrays as the highest-crime city in all of Canada (not sure if it really is the worst, but I guess it must be right up there).

 

[Bling]

Millions of people have first been disarmed, then killed. Everytime they think, it can't happen that way.

Unfortunately, Columbine is the type of horror that we have to deal with because of this. As bad as it is, it's better than the alternative. Many of us think, "It will never happen again, gun control is a good thing". History tells us otherwise.


138,000 guns are stolen a year.
Almost 10% of all prison inmates stole a gun that they used to commit a crime.

Gun theft seems to be a much scarier issue.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Bling
Millions of people have first been disarmed, then killed. Everytime they think, it can't happen that way.

Unfortunately, Columbine is the type of horror that we have to deal with because of this. As bad as it is, it's better than the alternative. Many of us think, "It will never happen again, gun control is a good thing". History tells us otherwise.


138,000 guns are stolen a year.
Almost 10% of all prison inmates stole a gun that they used to commit a crime.

Gun theft seems to be a much scarier issue.

--------------------------

Gun control doesn't mean 'no guns'. It means more controlled access (i.e. the ability to require longer 'cooling off' periods before purchase, possibly training, and maybe limits on number of guns owned), better enforcement for conditions of storage (secure locked locations, ammunition stored separately) and (*maybe* this one might trample individual freedoms) the ability of police to quickly identify that a residence they are called to, or that has been burgled, may have firearms present. (I would like the police to know quickly that the suspects in a house robbery may have aquired a gun in the process, though as I said, an evaluation of privacy concerns might trump this particular benefit of gun control, I'm not sure).

None of these things, including storing ammunition separately, will stop you from getting out your gun quickly enough to defend your land when the british come calling.

As a more important side benefit, improved standards of storage just might help with the major problem of gun theft.

I'm for responsible gun control; ideally this would mean everyone taking responsibility, and there being no need for official controls at all, but I think the number of gun deaths in the United States suggests that people are not being responsible.

 

[nageov3t]

the part in the movie where he took those kids to the K-Mart headquaters made me cringe.

I also hated the way he totally lied about the NRA, making it seem as if they were holding a rally in Columbine itself.

 

[T2T III]

wanted to hear from ppl what they think of Moore and about the film...

I know little about the film "BFC." However, Mr. Moore ... is another topic. First off, let me say that clearly I'm *not* a liberal. But, I also don't subscribe to radicals who use out of context quotes to skew the facts. I don't care for/about Rush Limbaugh on the conservative side and I damn sure don't care about Michael Moore on the liberal side either.

As citizens of the U.S. and other countries, we have to push ourselves harder to find out the true facts. We've settled for a lot of "out of context" news bytes as a source of information that leads to us forming opinions. However, these news bytes have only started to scratch the surface of the facts.

If you are one who believes in what the liberal party stands for, then I suggest that you dig deeper and get the views from many liberals and not just a crazed one like Michael Moore. After all, it's you're hard-earned money that gets spent on his movies ... only to make him a very rich person.

 

[Kipper]

I think the point of Bowling for Columbine is a two part-statement. How we as a society are quick to blame OTHER influences for school shootings and gun violence rather than going for central issue, the guns. It then goes into an investigation of the entire American obsession with firearms and how embedded in our culture it is. Moore's criticism is how as Americans we refuse to recognize the gun problem(s) that we have and therefore, we blame other things instead - so why not Blame "Bowling for Columbine?"

 

[sygyzy]

Originally posted by: Painman
A lot of people miss the point of BFC completely which is, "we don't need gun control, we need American control" - this is pointed out succinctly when it's revealed that Canadian gun ownership per capita is higher than our own, yet gun deaths in Canada are profoundly less common than they are here. The film is an investigation into America's paranoid psyche more than anything else.

I like this synposis.

 

[sMiLeYz]

There were definitely unnessarily graitious shots towards the NRA, and Heston himself.

I thought the movie's point would come through better if he didn't make enemies with the NRA. What his point is, that irrational fear in America, fear mongering in the media plus easy access to guns equal the highest homicide rate in America.

 

[Bumrush99]

If you want to see a Moore film that is much more effective than BFC, go check out "Roger and Me"

If you ask me, that film is 10x better than Bowling for Columbine.

 

[Perknose]

Originally posted by: Painman
A lot of people miss the point of BFC completely which is, "we don't need gun control, we need American control" - this is pointed out succinctly when it's revealed that Canadian gun ownership per capita is higher than our own, yet gun deaths in Canada are profoundly less common than they are here. The film is an investigation into America's paranoid psyche more than anything else.

Damn decent overview.

To answer another's question, Charlatan Heston disgraced himself by making blatantly racist remarks while fumbling to defend unfettered gun ownership. He unmasked himself. He got owned.

Go watch the movie, so you all will know what you're talking about.

 

[Bulk Beef]

Charlatan Heston disgraced himself by making blatantly racist remarks

Specify please.

 

[jEnus]

Would you say its a must see?

/sig

 

[Zephyr106]

Originally posted by: jEnus
Would you say its a must see?

/sig

Sure. Much better to see something and come away underimpressed than to dismiss it as "something I don't need to know about."

Zephyr

 

[ciba]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
Gun control doesn't mean 'no guns'. It means more controlled access (i.e. the ability to require longer 'cooling off' periods before purchase, possibly training, and maybe limits on number of guns owned), better enforcement for conditions of storage (secure locked locations, ammunition stored separately) and (*maybe* this one might trample individual freedoms) the ability of police to quickly identify that a residence they are called to, or that has been burgled, may have firearms present. (I would like the police to know quickly that the suspects in a house robbery may have aquired a gun in the process, though as I said, an evaluation of privacy concerns might trump this particular benefit of gun control, I'm not sure).

First, a gun securely locked away isn't accessible if someone kicks your door in.

That aside, many "Gun Control" group sare after the complete outlaw of guns. They are working on small things first, and will fight for more control when they are successful with that. Judging by the AWB, they don't want sensible laws, but "feel good" laws.

Originally posted by: MadCowDiseasethe guns. It then goes into an investigation of the entire American obsession with firearms and how embedded in our culture it is. Moore's criticism is how as Americans we refuse to recognize the gun problem(s) that we have and therefore, we blame other things instead

The problem is not the guns, it is the people. Many of us "gun nuts" would be happy to see legislation not on guns, but gun owners. Criminal liability for firearms negligence - ENFORCED. Strict enforcement of violence with firearms.

Many politicians are happy to make new laws, but not enforce those already on the books. I personally believe we should look at what we have and use it. If it is still insufficient, THEN we can look at more legislation. The problem is, we have firearm laws that are put into place which are not enforced. Of course, law abiding citizens will follow the law. The criminal doesn't care, but Betsy Suburbia does.

As for Moore. I don't have a problem with Moore's politics. Yes, I disagree with them. My problem with Moore is that he arranges scenarios weeks in advance (take the bank scene in BFC as an example) and then passes them off as fact. It is a shame that the academy gave him an Oscar for BFC, where it did not meet the published criteria for the award.