So Bowling for Columbine was on TV just now. I've seen it few times before and I got to say it's one well made film.
Problems. Moore presents the wrong questions, getting the answers he wants. The end of the film, there is no one single answer as to why US has so many killings with guns. He clearly makes a big point about Canada having LOADS of guns, yet not so many incidents.
SO why did he make NRA the bad guy? If the number of guns doesn't play the definite factor, why was NRA left as the sole reason for it, added with racism, media whoring, bloody history, and then quickly countered that many other countries have all the same things that US has, that would play into high numbers, yet US is the only one with such high numbers.
There was no answer to it, but loads of guilty targets were displayed.
Seems to me, the technique this was done was brilliant but very obvious. That is, propaganda. He brings good points and backs up many of them, so it's difficult to see why it's not 100% flowing to the right direction. He sets assumptions, and let's them live in the air, unanswered, thus you take the guilty parties to be guilty, at least partially.
It must be a combination of many things, but he did take out kids as an example, shooting each other. Well, if you are a parent and have a gun at home, you are supposed to have it properly there. This is parent issue IMO more than gun control issue. Little kids shouldn't be able to reach them guns, loaded guns, and go out to see what happens when you pull the trigger.
The only answer to his scenario is that we should have 0 guns. That unfortunately is not possible.
Also, he made every gun owner to be ****ing psycho right wing nut. Because he had the convinient opportunity to pick the ones he wanted on screen. What about responsible gun owners, the 98% of gun owners? But that would have been a boring film, plus it still wouldn't have answered the question why the murder rate is so high.
But killers and gangbangers and gun toters rarely ask permission to purchase a gun, even if it is controlled. So who suffers from it, the responsible gun owners. Yes, tragic mistakes happens when people with no effort to responsibility leave their guns available to kids and stuff, but I don't tihnk that's the issue or the reason fro high murder rates.
So in short, he brings out the targets, the ones he chooses to portray as guilty parties, asks them the wrong questions and leaves the film with no answer, and thus the viewer has no option but to assume the guilty parties are actually guilty.
That is BS.
Problems. Moore presents the wrong questions, getting the answers he wants. The end of the film, there is no one single answer as to why US has so many killings with guns. He clearly makes a big point about Canada having LOADS of guns, yet not so many incidents.
SO why did he make NRA the bad guy? If the number of guns doesn't play the definite factor, why was NRA left as the sole reason for it, added with racism, media whoring, bloody history, and then quickly countered that many other countries have all the same things that US has, that would play into high numbers, yet US is the only one with such high numbers.
There was no answer to it, but loads of guilty targets were displayed.
Seems to me, the technique this was done was brilliant but very obvious. That is, propaganda. He brings good points and backs up many of them, so it's difficult to see why it's not 100% flowing to the right direction. He sets assumptions, and let's them live in the air, unanswered, thus you take the guilty parties to be guilty, at least partially.
It must be a combination of many things, but he did take out kids as an example, shooting each other. Well, if you are a parent and have a gun at home, you are supposed to have it properly there. This is parent issue IMO more than gun control issue. Little kids shouldn't be able to reach them guns, loaded guns, and go out to see what happens when you pull the trigger.
The only answer to his scenario is that we should have 0 guns. That unfortunately is not possible.
Also, he made every gun owner to be ****ing psycho right wing nut. Because he had the convinient opportunity to pick the ones he wanted on screen. What about responsible gun owners, the 98% of gun owners? But that would have been a boring film, plus it still wouldn't have answered the question why the murder rate is so high.
But killers and gangbangers and gun toters rarely ask permission to purchase a gun, even if it is controlled. So who suffers from it, the responsible gun owners. Yes, tragic mistakes happens when people with no effort to responsibility leave their guns available to kids and stuff, but I don't tihnk that's the issue or the reason fro high murder rates.
So in short, he brings out the targets, the ones he chooses to portray as guilty parties, asks them the wrong questions and leaves the film with no answer, and thus the viewer has no option but to assume the guilty parties are actually guilty.
That is BS.
Comment