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