  In Bowling for Columbine , Michael Moore adds a witty, entertaining commentary to the national conversation regarding the second amendment and violence in our society. Unfortunately, many of Moore's conclusions are based on flawed logic and his most pointed criticisms are simply passionate rhetoric. The first significant interview is the first sign that Moore's investigative techniques are questionable. In depicting America's "gun culture," he interviews members of the Michigan militia and Terry Nichols, who was acquitted in the Oklahoma City bombing trials. These interviews, which Moore's voice-overs portray as emblematic of every gun owner in America, are as representative of gun owners as the ten o'clock news interviews of the redneck whose trailer was blown away by the tornado.
"It was pandelerium..." Trust me, there are plenty of less radical, noncriminal, educated advocates of the second amendment in this country. You're reading one of them. Moore then accuses the NRA of insensitivity for holding a regularly-scheduled annual meeting in Littlefield, Colorado not long after the Columbine shootings. While I'm sure that some people did object deeply and sincerely to the NRA gathering in Littlefield, I think that these people would have protested the NRA gathering whether or not such a tragic event had just occurred. Does anyone remember Nazis in Skokie ? Let us not forget that unpopular points of view have an especially protected place in this society. Even so, from the looks of the footage, the NRA rally was a fairly popular event that year, even after the events at Columbine High School.
In the same segment on Columbine, Moore insinuates that because Lockheed Martin, the nation's largest weapons manufacturer, has a major plant in Littlefield, the children of Littlefield were subliminally desensitized to weapons. Now, there is a massive Trane factory just west of Waco, but I don't feel the uncontrollable urge to keep my home refrigerated to 60 degrees. This line of thinking is really a stretch, especially when you consider the types of weapons made by Lockheed Martin. Defensive missiles in no way resemble the handguns Moore so despises, they are transported on average-looking trailors that could be carrying anything, from steel to sand, and it is highly doubtful that any of Littlefield's impressionable children are hanging out by the plant, hoping for a glipse of the latest in national security mechanisms.
At this point, Moore interviews Marilyn Manson, a heavy metal performer. Manson was asked not to conduct his scheduled concert in Colorado after Columbine because it was thought by many that his music influenced the killers. Manson had the most relevant observation I have heard to date regarding our violent culture, and one that Moore, to his credit, examines in detail later in the movie.
The proposition is that our acceptance of violence stems from the behaviors of our government, which in postmodern society is as paternal a figure as any. When torture and preemptive invasions are not only condoned but supported by many citizens, that can definitely translate into an acceptance of violence as commonplace and even useful. Unfortunately, Moore veers off into conspiracy theories and gross generalizations about gun owners. His emphasis on the NRA's opposition to an assault weapons ban ignores the fact that what the majority of NRA members oppose is loosely-worded legislation which would allow for restrictive registration or even confiscation of more common models, like hunting rifles, shotguns, and pistols carried for self-defense. These regular citizens rely on the policy wonks and lobbyists at the national level of the NRA to prevent such legislation, in the same manner that is utilized by nearly every interest group in the nation. The nuances of policymaking are not accurate indicators of the views of a organization as large and diverse as the NRA.
Despite the bias of the picture, which I had expected and even welcomed at times, the first real surprise I experienced was when Moore tried to compare the raw numbers of gun deaths in the U.S. with the numbers of other free world countries. By not using the numbers per capita, Moore blatantly twists the facts for shock value. Reporting with a bias is one thing, but deliberately misprepesenting facts is another. A second example of this is his linking of the KKK and the NRA in 1871, a tenuous relationship at best.
Moore uses this same ridiculous reasoning to link the fear of "Africanized" bees to racial tensions. By the midpoint of the film, I was riled up and taking notes. It was at this juncture that Moore thankfully focused on two issues that are valid. First, he notes the exaggeration of gun violence by the media in areas mostly inhabited by minorities, like South Central Los Angeles. Moore documents that while television cameras chase any report of a drawn gun, they ignore the pollution that obscures the view of the Hollywood letters. He also pursues the issue of petty misdemeanors receiving more coverage than massive corporate corruption on popular TV shows like Cops . Both of these phenomena deserve much more attention than Moore gives them, but he is one of the first to broach the subject in such terms.
Moore returns to the idea of the state cultivating a culture of fear, and charmingly interviews some flunky Canadian teenagers. They are skipping school and believe that the U.S. is "just mean," which is why there is so much more violent crime here. While funny, these Canadian interviews do nothing to support the thesis that citizens can be desensitized by the actions of their political leaders. This assertion should have been explored in significantly more depth and would have made an excellent main theme for the segment, instead of the sensationalization of isolated gun-related incidents. Moore also had an excellent chance to link the influence of the state when he began citing the large number of guns which exist in private homes in Canada, but he chose instead to segue into contrasting its low amount of violent crime with that in the U.S.
This comparison continues without seriously engaging the roots of each nation's crime rate. The ominous voice-over repeats the adage of "If guns made people safer, the U.S. would be the safest nation in the world, but it's not..." This statement creates a slippery slope which has no supporting evidence, destroying the argument which Moore had begun exploring earlier.
Finally, Moore's cornering of Charlton Heston in Heston's home cemented my opinion of this film as merely an appeal to emotion, rather than a reasoned approach supported by logical arguments and facts. By attacking ad hominem the man that most of the nation identifies with gun rights, Moore does a great injustice to his own valid arguments. His representation of the views of the NRA, gun owners in general, and in a broader sense all advocates of individual liberty devalue his argument regarding Glassner's culture of fear theory, one in which many of the former groups might join him if he avoided such alienating rhetoric. The precept of individual autonomy in matters of life and death, which is so inherently carved into our collective identity, is the very one which protects the second amendment just as equally as it does the first, fourth, fifth and eighth. While I welcome and encourage dialogue on the subject of the right to bear arms as a civil liberty on par with freedom of speech and religious liberty, Moore's fallacious arguments and rhetorical grandstanding do nothing to further this vital, relevant conversation. The best I can hope for is that by voicing my distaste of the film, I can inspire other liberal-minded indiviudals to reconsider their opinions of the second amendment and if not that, at least to realize Moore's faulty assertions are just that--false, inaccurate, and misleading. 
