Bowling for Columbine

I saw Bowling for Columbine last night, and was alternately pleased and frustrated. It's a powerful and moving film, but it's marred by Moore's tendency to distort facts to suit his views. Sometimes the distortion is obvious--like the caption that claims Osama bin Laden used "his CIA training to murder 3,000 people"--and sometimes it's not.

Many of the factual problems with the film have already been addressed (e.g. by Spinsanity's Ben Fritz here and here). But there's one side I haven't seen covered and I think it's worth discussing.

One of the tenets of Bowling for Columbine is that Canada has about the same level of gun ownership as the US. Based on the statistics I found, this is not true. According to a Justice Canada document (taken from the 1996 International Crime Victim Survey), gun ownership in Canada by household is about half of what it is in the US:

Nearly 22% of Canadian households possessed at least one firearm. Possession was highest in the United States (48.6%) and lowest in England and Wales, Scotland, and the Netherlands.

Canadians also tend to own rifles rather than handguns, and gun ownership tends to correlate with rural living (i.e. a smaller proportion of people in cities own guns). From the Coalition for Gun Control we also find this interesting fact:

Canada has roughly 1 million handguns while the United States has more than 76 million. While there are other factors affecting murder, suicide and unintentional injury rates, a comparison of data in Canada and the United States suggests that access to handguns may play a role. While the murder rate without guns in the US is roughly equivalent (1.8 times) to that of Canada, the murder rate with handguns is 14.5 times the Canadian rate. [Emphasis in the original]

These facts were presumably available to Moore, if he'd looked for them. The problem is they undermine his points about the culture of fear and media-fuelled paranoia. The reason so many Americans die from guns may simply be that there are way too many guns in the US. And consequently Americans might be scared of each other because their chances of encountering someone who is armed and hostile are actually pretty good. In other words, Moore's thesis might be precisely inverted.

But anyway, gun control doesn't make for such an interesting movie.

Also, and nothing to do with the points above, I thought the segment on killer bees migrating north ("Africanized" Bees--"not the friendly European bees we're used to") was brilliant. It nicely illustrated the fear mongering and subtle racism that seems to pervade the media--punctuating two of Moore's arguments at once.

Comments

Deep says...

Michael Moore's figures were all per capita.

Posted on Dec 11, 2002
Gene says...

Actually, a lot them weren't per capita. The numbers on gun deaths in various countries--Germany, Japan, Canada, US--were absolute. (Here's a site that lists them, along with population: http://arizona.indymedia.org/news/2002/11/4589.php)

That's another thing I found frustrating about the movie--Moore throws out numbers without giving you any way to really compare them.

Posted on Dec 11, 2002
Cate says...

I love Micheal Moore...

Posted on Jan 20, 2003
Randy says...

I loved the film. Moore may have skewed certain facts, to further emphasize his points, but I beleive that he did what he had to do to make the points known. One of the few points i felt should have been addressed more clearly was that, we as Canadians do have a fair quantity of fire arms, but we do not have nearly the amount of handguns. This says a lot, as the sole purpose of a hand gun is to incapacitate another human being.It is much harder to walk down the any street with a high powered riffle, or even a shotgun, and go unnoticed.

Posted on Feb 17, 2003
James says...

Randy said: "I loved the film. Moore may have skewed certain facts, to further emphasize his points, but I beleive that he did what he had to do to make the points known."

Randy, if he had to LIE to "make the points known", were those points really accurate, or even rational? Was he just lazy - fabricating his "evidence" rather than bothering to find the real stuff - or malicious, fabricating it because he knew his points were based on lies?

More detail here: http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=6841

I'd say splicing together bits of sentences to make someone say what you want them to say should disqualify you from any kind of honor - and should probably be illegal, when you fabricate a speech to discredit the speaker!

Posted on Apr 18, 2003
jimi says...

i have to agree with james for the simple reason of what was done to charlton heston. moore uses segments from multiple speeches, cut very quickly as to not draw attention that they are actually from different speeches, to make him sound like a racist. first and foremost, YOU CAN'T DO THAT IN A DOCUMENTARY!!!! it goes against everything that defines what a documentary is. second of all, heston is far from a racist. he was one of the first to support black actors in hollywood and he supported martin luther king jr at many civil rights rallies.
this is far beyond "skewed facts." it's a matter of displaying someone as a racist and manipulating film to do so.
doesn't anyone remember the simpsons when homer went on springfield's version of 20/20 and he said how he just wanted to get the candy that stuck to her hind end, but they cut it all up to make him say he wanted her juicy sweetness or somehting like that? it was even less redicules there than it was in Bowling for Columbine.

Posted on Jul 1, 2003
gloriabella says...

Rather than comparing gun deaths, it is more apropos to compare total deaths-- I believe we still top those other countries except on suicide rates (especially Japan, which has a very high suicide rate).

Guns do not have much to do with it. Switzerland arms every adult citizen with an assault rifle and there are very low gun death rates. If you look at the UK, they have very low rates from guns but very high levels of lethal stabbings. I agree with Michael Moore on this point. If someone is determined enough to kill, they will use bombs or knives or swords or whatever.

And, you can't use the argument that "at least so many would not be killed at one time" because homemade bombs can kill hundreds at a time and any kid can get his/her hands on the supplies and make them if they so wish.

It is more a culture of violence and media fear, I agree with Moore.

Posted on Jun 25, 2007

Post a comment

Remember me?

Basic HTML is allowed.

 

About this Page

Posted by Gene Smith on Dec 3, 2002. Before this there was Pure Sale-a-bration. Next up is Merchants of Cool.

About the Author

Gene Smith is a principal with nForm, one of Canada's leading user experience consulting firms. He writes about information architecture, interaction design, community, the web and other such topics. More >

Subscribe

Get the feed Get the RSS feed (full posts, no ads)

My Book

Recent Posts

Archives

Elsewhere

You can also find me on Flickr, Upcoming, LinkedIn, Del.icio.us and Digg.

Work

nForm User Experience

Endorsements

Hosting by Dreamhost.