Has there ever been a discussion here about this 'movie'? I saw it recently and I think Mr. Moore is a little close-minded and/or confused. At one point he compares homicide rates of different countries, noting that in most cases guns are abundant and readily available, but only in the US is the homicide rate grossly obscene. This would indicate that the main factor is something other than availability of guns. Then, he blasts Charlton Heston and the NRA for their activities in support of our 2nd amendment. What gives?

Kendor, I'm not familiar at all with this movie, but I really think that I've seen it discussed here somewhere.

I missed you. Glad to see ya.

From memory his argument about guns being available in countries with lower homicide rates was that it suggested that American culture was more gun happy; that there was something in the culture that made the use and possession of guns attractive, or manly, or something along those lines.In other countries then, the culture was different; you might well have guns available there but that had nothing of the American thinking about it.Result? Kids shooting people for kicks or because it had some attraction, I suppose.

There were various criticisms about the editing and some factual complaints though none which seemed to affect the basic tenet viz. that America was an amazingly gun happy country,with amazing, horrifying, gun homicide statistics where you could even get a gun as a promotional gift for opening a bank account The complaints were also used as evidence of some basic trickery or dishonesty in the man himself

But if you want to see a proper documentary properly done, ignore this rather crude, amateurish work and go to see Fahrenheit 9/11. This was a deserving winner at Cannes.

[Personally I think the right to bear arms makes as much sense as a right to arm bears, but that's another matter ]

Fred, I plan on seeing Fahrenheit 9/11, but I'm sure it's just another man's personalized Bush bashing. What he [Michael Moore] and other's don't understand is that had Al Gore been given the office 4 years ago, not much would be different in this country today. Our countries agenda and actions are rooted much, much deeper than the puppet stage of the Presidency; has to be.

Kendor, you would be in for a big surprise if you went in thinking this film is like Columbine or any of Moore's books. Of course the film is critical of President Bush; look who made it; but it is not some simple minded polemic. Moore himself barely figures in it on camera . In earlier Moore work the film is Michael Moore. This stands perfectly well on its own merits as a film, as a documentary. Unusually Moore is justified in challenging anyone to disprove facts in it and he seems to have taken considerable care to avoid what brought criticism of 'Columbine'. I am perfectly serious when I say that it is easy to get a lot from the film without accepting any of the speculation about reasons for any thinking or decision made by anyone in it. It is particularly good when it is away from Bush's history. The film really comes alive with the human interest; the recruiting sergeants, the men, the families, the ordinary people, the volunteers and, yes, even the politicians. That's really what elevates it.It's why it won at Cannes.

He is not Blasting Heston for the Support of the 2 amendment, he is blasting him for the way he went about it. Come on, a week after a deadly shooting is not the time to hold the local National Riffle Convention where speeches about the wonders of Gun ownership and SALES of guns are going on. There was also the hint that major shootings like Columbine where used by the NRA to spread there message. In other words the NRA cashed in on the "free" publicity that certain murders got.

The Timing of two such meetings was in very poor taste. Sort of like your spouse dieing from an anvil dropping on his/her head and then the next day the Annual Anvil Convention sets up its celebratory tents right across the street from you. - Now imagine that your spouse's death was national News and the National Anvil Association were cashing in on that event by using the national news to promote their views on Anvils.

There are those freedoms, we are free to use them and have them and act on them, but at the same time we must have the humanity, the decency to know when to not to exercise our rights.

Bowling For Columbine was not meant to blast any one person, it was meant to ask some embarrassing questions about the way do business here in America. Go back and Review, Mikey was asking Heston embarrassing questions, like "When does a person have the right to shut up and not exercise their rights?" "When does the humanity of an individual push a convention's right to take place to the back seat?"

Mike has no problem with Gun ownership, he spent a great deal of time pointing out that many western nations have personal gun possession with low gun-crime statistics. He is not blaming the gun, nor is he questioning the right bear arms.

At the same time it was Designed to bring attention to the Media - News Media tends to blow things up, hype things up, and cash in on the misfortune of millions of people everyday to sell a product. Fear mongering is a way to cash in on these things, it is the very same thing that Heston Done. You got to look at the broader picture to see the theme of Mikey's Films. He isn't blasting News, Guns, NRA for existing, he is blasting the way we use these things to achieve what ever goals we have - which unfortunately are selfish, egotistical and has created a society which is terrified of its neighbor and believes that Rights of Organizations always - ALWAYS take first step to individual human emotions.

I would imagine that F911 does the same thing. However it hasn't come out on DVD (We just watched the "Passion of Mel Gibson" BTW) thus I can not make any real comment on it. From what I heard people are pointing at the details and screaming "bloody liar!"

Mike Moores' style is to blast several individuals or groups with some "detail stuff" not all the details just enough to get the viewer asking those other questions. He is aiming to paint a larger, general picture where some, not all, of the details are fleshed out for the viewer. A few embarrassing questions which should lead the viewer to asking more embarrassing questions and causing them to step back and see the whole picture, the commonality of human nature at work is in the details, however the same motivations are at work through out the whole general story.

Heston is blinded by his vision of Gun ownership to all people - It doesn't matter if a recent mass shoooting took place in the location of the next Convention, that Convention will take place. This is being blind to all eles for a single point of view which is more damaging to a cause than having the wisdom to know when to cancell a convention to respect the humanity of a recent event.

David

Because of your comments, Fred, I am looking forward very much to seeing F911.

And David, your Anvil analogy made me chuckle, but I get your point. Thanks.

I suppose I'm just swayed by Mr. Moores ingonrant disapproval of Bush as our President. (I'm not pro-Bush or pro-Kerry, BTW; to me it's trivial).