I have previously written an article on the subject, entitled “Bowling For Columbine is shit.”, but I had not seen the film in quite some time when I wrote that and my focus was not on flaws with the documentary itself, but with the general position supported by its fans and, to some extent, Michael Moore. Thus, my title seems to have been somewhat inadequate. However, I will correct this here: I recently had to view the film and it will now be easier for me to criticise the documentary as a documentary, to explain why it really is shit.

I expect the same from documentaries as I expect from news articles. There is a certain methodology involved that is at the root of the discipline — a methodology that is known as “objectivity” — and Michael Moore could not have violated it in more conspicuous ways.

The film is indeed entertaining, spiced with his love of irony and his layman’s approach to the topic, and I did laugh on a few occasions while viewing the film, but the comedy aside, it seems like a collage of superficial looks at the issue. He will dig a bit, then see a new, amusing angle and pursue that, rather than continue to analyse what he first started elaborating upon. It makes it all very shallow.

This, however, I can deal with. What annoys me with his documentary is how it is passed for far more than it is, both by Michael Moore and his fans, and that he consistently misleads the viewers. There’s nothing too bothersome about a news article that says nothing and bores the readers, but what about one that excites and misleads them? Click here to continue reading »« Click here to hide text

There was perhaps no financial incentive for Michael Moore to take an intelligent and sensible approach to firearm laws — people like to see a black and white approach to political issues, and they like a touch of humour –, but that doesn’t change the fact that Bowling for Columbine is a shitty documentary. By that I mean that, though it is great entertainment, it’s a terrible and misleading documentary on firearm-related issues.

Now, don’t get me wrong: my issue is not with his belief that firearm ownership should be limited by the government, my issue is not with his opinion, but with his approach to the question. My own opinion is that the widespread ownership of firearms is harmful to society and that many of the arguments — such as the right to protect oneself from the government and to hunt — are not arguments in favour of the private ownership of firearms. As for actual policies concerned with firearms, I find it quite clear that there are several well-accepted and positive breeches of individual rights that are on the same level as regulating firearms, so I find arguments about how it is “none of the government’s business” to be rather simple-minded; it’s just about the line we set between the private ownership of nuclear arms and the private ownership of butter knives. However, I believe that the tools that the government can use to restrict firearms ownership — such as banning certain or all models, creating a registry, levying special taxes etc — are limited and that existing laws should be scrutinised to see how they apply in real life.

It’s not because I believe that firearm ownership should be limited that I should support any law that intends to limit the ownership of firearms. This may seem obvious to some, but I am quite convinced that it is not obvious to most; if I advocated the end or extension of the Canadian Firearms Registry to a person who knows nothing of the Registry except that it is there to limit firearm ownership, I would almost certainly get a knee-jerk reaction that paints the Registry as either good or bad based not on how well it fulfills its precise goals, but on whether or not firearms are “good” or “bad” according to that person. This is a ridiculous mistake that people make when approaching many of these popular political issues.

Click here to continue reading »« Click here to hide text