Michael Moore's bodyguard arrested on firearms charge

X-ray wrote:
"...Maybe it's because not everyone who has a gun licence is of sound mind..."

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

You mean like the tit who took the gun to the airport?

 :lol:

Especially this tit.

[X-ray]

@ Zudobug

"...Fahrenheit 9/11 won best movie of the year. Lots of moore-on's out there it seems..."

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

I think you'll find that "Bowling for Columbine" is the Moore film that is relevant to this thread, not Fahrenheit 9/11.
As regards the quantity of Moore-ons out there, I haven't researched it myself. You see, if I step in dog-sh1t on the pavement I try to clean it off and see that it doesn't happen again, rather than waste time researching how many other poor unfortunate souls have done it. That is why the number of Michael Moore films I have seen is 1. Don't be surprised if that number does not increase at all.
You may find a kind of reassurance in the safety of numbers, but my quality control mechanisms are a little more discerning. I am not as likely to join the throng of moore-ons who seem to spend their lives scratching their arses and smelling their fingers instead of doing real research.

[zudobug]

X-Ray,

Is Bowling for Columbine the one Moore film you accidentally stepped in?

Have any of the other Moore haters in this thread actually seen that film and think Michael Moore is anti-gun? I must be missing the point. America does have a scarily high gun-crime rate. Moore asks "why are Americans so violent?" and blames it mostly on the culture of fear created by the media and politics - not guns.

There are probably people out there who do faithfully accept everything Moore says. It's easy to just accept something you want to believe. But I'm just as against that as I am people who accept everything they read in The Sun as fact.

-zudo

[X-ray]

"...Is Bowling for Columbine the one Moore film you accidentally stepped in?..."

Yes.

"...Moore asks "why are Americans so violent?" and blames it mostly on the culture of fear created by the media and politics - not guns..."

----------------------------------------------------------
How does a culture of fear promote violence? Perhaps you meant to say that Moore suspects that a culture of fear promotes gun ownership.
If Moore wasn't against guns and gun ownership he wouldn't have pulled that stunt at Charlton Heston's house, and wouldn't have targetted Walmart for selling the bullets that were used to paralyze a teenager. Not once did he ever ask an adult to account for why a shooting had occured. The worst example of this is the kid that took his father's gun to school and shot another kid (my details may be fuzzy here because it's been a while). The point is he never tried to interview the father and tell him what a tit he was for leaving the gun out where his kid could find it. Instead he blames the incident on gun culture and gun ownership. Same with Walmart. They didn't shoot the teenager and they don't make the gun laws. Yet he blames them for the shooting of the teenager.

Moore might as well blame spoons for the fact that he is so fat.

[Speelgoedmannetje]

X-ray wrote:
Moore might as well blame spoons for the fact that he is so fat.

Or, rather, for instance the McDonalds, for promoting a culture of obesity :-P

wait wait wait

now I see a link:
often, ppl with bolemia are tensioned, maybe that's because of fear?

[zudobug]

How does a culture of fear promote violence? Perhaps you meant to say that Moore suspects that a culture of fear promotes gun ownership.

Actually, I don't even think I meant that. How I understand it is, in Moore's opinion, the culture of fear promotes making people scared enough to over-react and not take proper precautions. I don't have the statistics at hand, but many gun-shot injuries and deaths are accidents caused by guns being accessible to adults (and children) who have not had adequate safety training. Something I'm sure you would agree is a good idea before using a gun. Imagine someone who thinks their house is being burgled in the middle of the night, pulls out a gun they have never used, full of fear – mistakes will happen. It could end up not being a burglar, but a family member getting shot. Or they could just end up providing a burglar with a weapon they didn't previously have. Etc etc etc. The culture of fear puts them in the frame of mind that yes, makes them get the gun without considering the risk in the first place, but also makes them reach for it whenever they feel threatened – and increases the paranoia to make them feel threatened more often.

If Moore wasn't against guns and gun ownership he wouldn't have pulled that stunt at Charlton Heston's house...

Ok, fair enough. Over the years this part of the film has really got to me. I agree it is completely unnecessary and the film would have been oh so much better without it. I don't know what the guy was thinking. But like he says, he's a member of the NRA and has no problem with rifles. And when it comes to small arms, he goes out of his way in the film to say many people in Canada own hand-guns, but their murder rate in minuscule compared to the states. I personally don't think the National 'Rifle' Association should be so keen on small arms.

Back to the spoon comparison. As I understand it, Walmart used to sell bullets and had few or no restrictions in place when selling them. The kids who shot up Columbine bought the bullets from Walmart. They weren't to blame for the shooting. Moore wasn't blaming Walmart. It's been a while since I watched it too but IIRC, he asked them to put in place greater restrictions, but instead they said they'd simply stop selling bullets. Bravo Walmart!

Not once did he ever ask an adult to account for why a shooting had occured.

This film was more about the columbine kids. Obviously he couldn't ask them why they did it. I have some ideas about that which weren't discussed in the film, but that's a whole other thread. I agree it would have been interesting if he'd asked some adults why they had shot people. I'd be interested to know what they'd say if he could get honest answers. But if they helped promote his view I feel people would suggest he put words in their mouths, and besides, they are criminals.

The point is he never tried to interview the father and tell him what a tit he was for leaving the gun out where his kid could find it.

Imagine the response from the anti-Moore crowd had he done that. “How insensitive”, “how cruel”, “how evil”. You are right that people leaving guns out where kids can get them is wrong. Owning a gun and not looking after it properly and safely is wrong. My interpretation of the film is not that Moore is blaming gun ownership in general, but suggests that irresponsible gun ownership and far too relaxed gun control laws contribute to the problem, as does the climate of fear. No single thing is blamed, although I felt there was emphasis on the fear argument. Lots of possible reasons are explored and it's up to the viewer to contemplate the evidence. It's true Moore has his views, also there was bias at play when he picked the subjects for the film in order to paint the picture he wanted. This is commonplace with documentaries. I don't agree entirely with Moore's politics, but there are enough interesting facts and ideas in that film to make it worth watching at least once imo.

If you don't agree, no problem. I'd be interested to know what you and people who have researched the subject think causes such high gun crime figures in the states.

Woooh, I didn't mean for this reply to go on so long. I think I made the same point twice back there a few time. Cheers if you managed to get to the end without falling asleep :-)

-zudo

[Wilse]

Michael Moore's bodyguard arrested on firearms charge

:roflmao:

I almost fell off my chair laughing when I saw that.
The fat one must be torn between being pissed off and marvelling at the irony.
Excellent. :-D

@X-Ray:

Perhaps you meant to say that Moore suspects that a culture of fear promotes gun ownership.

Hmmm.. are you sure you watched it?

I only ask because it's quite clear from the film that he doesn't think gun ownership alone is the problem.
Hence the piece on ownership in Canada being as high (higher?) as in the USA.

Obviously he is against unneccessary gun ownership but, equally obviously, he doesn't blame America's problems on it.

Did you see the part about Canada?

[X-ray]

"...Moore wasn't blaming Walmart..."
---------------------------------------------

Then why did he parade the guy in the wheelchair at Walmart?

"...I personally don't think the National 'Rifle' Association should be so keen on small arms..."
-----------------------------------------------

A rifle IS a small arm. And the name of an association need not fully dictate what its all about. Example: the Ham and Petersham Pistol and Rifle Club here in London does not have anything to do with pistols, although it once did.

"...How I understand it is, in Moore's opinion, the culture of fear promotes making people scared enough to over-react and not take proper precautions..."
-----------------------------------------------

Really? What part of the film, or what incident that he discussed, makes you think that?


"...This film was more about the columbine kids. Obviously he couldn't ask them why they did it..."
-----------------------------------------------

Do you think he could have asked the kids' parents where the guns had come from? That is more what I am getting at, since the guns obviously shouldn't have been available to those kids. As for the film being more about the Columbine kids, that's not entirely true, and if it is, you need to explain to me why there are satirical cartoons in there with KKK references and digs at various historical events pertaining to the development of the country.


"...The culture of fear puts them in the frame of mind that yes, makes them get the gun without considering the risk in the first place..."
--------------------------------------------------------

What risk are you talking about? And is this risk significant when compared to the risk of confronting a burglar unarmed?


"...makes them reach for it whenever they feel threatened – and increases the paranoia to make them feel threatened more often..."
-------------------------------------------------------

So fear increases paranoia, resulting in feeling threatened, eh? That analysis is beyond the scope of my training and experience, so I'll have to trust your psychoanalysis on that one. You never did tell me what your day job is, and now I'm curious.


"..Imagine the response from the anti-Moore crowd had he done that..."
------------------------------------------------------

Well, I am definitely in the Anti-Moore camp and I would have preferred it if he had demanded to know why the parents had allowed these kids access to the guns. Unfortunately it would not have been controversial enough, so he instead turned the movie into wide-sweeping crockumentary that it is.

I think if you read this review you will perhaps come to some undestanding of the reason why it is so crap and why Michael Moore is crap:

http://www.demosophia.com/2003/09/the_whining_clo.html

Edit: I mistakenly said the bullets were from Walmart, but they were from K-Mart.

[X-ray]

@ Wilse

Look at my post to Zudobug again: that comment was aimed at Zudo, where I was suggesting that he had meant to say something other than he had said.

"..Hmmm.. are you sure you watched it?.."

I also said in another reply that I have seen it, so I don't know why you are asking if I have.

[X-ray]

@ Wilse

"...Hence the piece on ownership in Canada being as high (higher?) as in the USA..."
--------------------------------------------------------

Either you or Mr Moore have got the statistics a bit wrong here. The Canada Department of Justice conducted a survey of 9 countries to establish the percentage of households nationwide that had guns, including long guns.

Here are the standings, in descending order: USA (48%), Switzerland, France, Canada (22%), Sweden, Austria, Scotland, England & Wales, and the Netherlands.

I'm assuming that it's Moore up to his usual style of overinflating things and going off on a tangent, rather than you getting it wrong.

[X-ray]

@ Wilse

"..Obviously he is against unneccessary gun ownership but, equally obviously, he doesn't blame America's problems on it.."
---------------------------------------------------------

Then why does he focus entirely on gun crime? He doesn't mention any statistics on violence involving blunt force trauma or edged weapons. The trauma model in the US is very similar to that of SA, and we get 6 times as many stabs there compared to gunshot wounds. If he was only interested in the psyche of the perpetrators of violence, why did he not do proper research into this across the board? Why make cheesy clips of people firing guns for recreation that suddenly cut to scenes of murder and suicide?

[zudobug]

"...Moore wasn't blaming Walmart..."
---------------------------------------------

Then why did he parade the guy in the wheelchair at Walmart?

The guy in the wheelchair was "paraded" because bullets were bought at the store and MM and the kids wanted Wal/K-Mart to a) know that was the case and b) make sure kids can't buy bullets in future.

A rifle IS a small arm. And the name of an association need not fully dictate what its all about. Example: the Ham and Petersham Pistol and Rifle Club here in London does not have anything to do with pistols, although it once did.

I stand corrected and agree... what's in a name? But I still personally feel the NRA shouldn't be so keen on erm, very small arms(?) - particularly automatic weapons designed for the purposes of being easy to conceal and for shooting people.

Really? What part of the film, or what incident that he discussed, makes you think that?

Oh come off it. Like I said it's been been a while since I watched it. I accept I might be getting mixed up but I think the bit about the climate of fear is near the end. I'll watch it again if necessary. Maybe someone else has seen it more recently and can help me out here? anyone?

Do you think he could have asked the kids' parents where the guns had come from? That is more what I am getting at, since the guns obviously shouldn't have been available to those kids.

Oh yeah, he could have but what would have been the point? I totally agree with you about the kids not having access.

As for the film being more about the Columbine kids, that's not entirely true

You're right. I retract my previous statement.

What risk are you talking about? And is this risk significant when compared to the risk of confronting a burglar unarmed?

Said risk is owning a gun you don't know how to operate safely and the fact that, some people will panic and be very scared in a situation where they feel the need to use it - leading to accidents. I'm sure you'd be cool as a cucumber and would handle the situation ok because you have plenty  of experience, but many others, myself included, would probably fall apart and make mistakes. I feel if I was confronted by a burglar unarmed, there's more chance of both of us surviving.

So fear increases paranoia, resulting in feeling threatened, eh? That analysis is beyond the scope of my training and experience, so I'll have to trust your psychoanalysis on that one. You never did tell me what your day job is, and now I'm curious.

Oh no, not another appeal to authority. If you must know I'm not qualified to make a statement as above and claim it as fact, nor would I. That is my understanding of what was said in the film. I have read similar things elsewhere, but am no expert. That's only the gist of it recalled from memory so apologies if it seems a bit crude or if it is inaccurate.

As an aside, I consider everything written on forums such as this to be opinion unless stated otherwise, and only care about the profession or experience of the person making their point when they claim authority - not that that always matters. If I need to search for expert opinion to back up everything I say, I wouldn't bother posting at all. Maybe thats what you want ;-)

Well, I am definitely in the Anti-Moore camp and I would have preferred it if he had demanded to know why the parents had allowed these kids access to the guns.

What good would it have done? What would they say? “Yeah, I f**ked up! Sorry." Is it possible that they thought the guns were secure but the kids were smart enough to get at them? Who knows? I don't see how it would help the “why is america so violent?” debate to turn it into “why are some american parents so careless?” What drove those kids to get at the guns and shoot up their class? Just the fact that they had access and wanted to try out a new toy? Come on!

I think if you read this review you will perhaps come to some undestanding of the reason why it is so crap and why Michael Moore is crap:

I've read that before and many other reviews like it. You share that opinion and you're entitled to it. I don't totally agree with Moore and will accept alternative theories on all of the above if anyone fancies being constructive.

-zudo

[zudobug]

X-Ray,

"..Obviously he is against unneccessary gun ownership but, equally obviously, he doesn't blame America's problems on it.."

Then why does he focus entirely on gun crime?

Sorry to hijack a question not aimed at me but the answer seems to be a no-brainer (so I'm easily qualified to have an opinion about this.)

At the end of the day the film is about the columbine kids, even though he does stray off the subject to get some of his politics in. They used guns. Why? Thats what Moore sets off to try to help answer (and get some MM trademark stabs at the republicans in for good measure.)

He may have had other motives to tackle the columbine tragedy, maybe the biggest being a movie about such a high-profile event would sell cinema tickets.

-zudo

[Wilse]

@X-Ray:

"..Obviously he is against unneccessary gun ownership but, equally obviously, he doesn't blame America's problems on it.."
---------------------------------------------------------

Then why does he focus entirely on gun crime?

I don't see the relevance here.
Are you saying that because he focuses on gun crime, he *does* blame America's problems on gun ownership?
In focusing, as you put it, entirely on gun crime, he asks why it is so high and quite clearly and, to me at least, obviously states that he doesn't think the level of gun ownership is the reason.
Whether he inflated ownership figures in Canada to get that point across, I don't know.

But the point *was* made and was one the main themes I took from the film.

[Wilse]

Like I said it's been been a while since I watched it. I accept I might be getting mixed up but I think the bit about the climate of fear is near the end. I'll watch it again if necessary. Maybe someone else has seen it more recently and can help me out here? anyone?

It's been a while since I saw it too but that was definitely covered.
He went on about how the TV news in the U.S. is different from other countries.
Again, maybe he's exaggerating but a quick look at Fox and you can see what he means.

I actually thought his proposal was that it was this 'culture of fear' that was more responsible than gun ownership.,
He doesn't actually say this in the film though. It was just the impression I got.

[X-ray]

@ Zudobug

I said: "As for the film being more about the Columbine kids, that's not entirely true"

You first said:

You're right. I retract my previous statement.

Then you said:

At the end of the day the film is about the columbine kids, even though he does stray off the subject to get some of his politics in.

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

'nuff said.