How does Michael Moore make his arguments in 'Bowling for Columbine'?

Likely to be most thought-provoking film of the year, Bowling For Columbine is Michael Moore’s big, heartfelt, funny, angry, messy exploration of guns and violence in U.S. culture. The question posed is this: Why do we as Americans shoot and kill over 11,000 people on average each year? What causes the Columbines? What causes innocent bystanders? Why don’t other countries have these problems, even ones with lots of guns, or a violent national history? What makes us so insanely special?

Moore’s savviest choice is to avoid placing blame for American gun violence on easy targets. Indeed, he seems less interested in placing blame than in burrowing in to find the reasons behind the problems, to peel back the curtain and take a long hard look at the wizard (In the film’s climax, Moore interviews NRA chieftain Chuck Heston. Heston was always a bold actor, and here he bravely chooses to talk to Moore void of all logic, proving that utter cluelessness can serve evil just as well as malice can.)

Columbine makes a cogent argument we don’t so much have a gun culture as we have a fear culture – a fear both sensationalistic and racial in nature, a paranoia that is fueled by corporate greed and political power. There is an implication that gun violence is due in part to an insidious manifestation of repressed racism still alive and virulent in our country. Heston, when asked what he thinks causes our high rate of gun violence, hems and haws before mumbling something about our more ‘mixed ethnicity.’ Hey, Chuck: I think we’ve cracked your code.

There are nay-sayers who attack Michael Moore for his tactics, but try to see the forest for the Bushes (unless you feel that the filmmaker’s liberties means that there is no gun violence problem in this country, in which case I hope the sand is nice and warm where your head is). Yes, Moore goes on tangents. Yes, he is, on occasion, guilty of over-simplification. Yes, sometimes he ambushes people that don’t deserve to be ambushed, and yes, sometimes his set-ups seem pre-planned. In other words, he behaves like somebody trying to make a point that he feels passionate about; and there is far more hit than there is miss. Columbine should be seen less as a documentary and more of an ideological quest, an op-ed piece concerned mainly with asking questions. Moore himself admits he is confused; he presents suggestions, but by his own admission the answers are beyond him. It’s all right; sometimes questions are enough.

Any U.S. citizens concerned with the state of this country should view this film. There are moments of high comedy and moments that are unspeakably moving. You will be affected. Some say we have a constitutional right to any and all weapons, the better to overthrow any unjust government. Moore suggests that it may be more powerful to arm ourselves with inquisitive natures, and with outrage. I hope this film shakes people up. I hope it makes them think. Time to wake up and smell the fear. 11,000 murders each year, within our borders alone. We’ve got the Constitutional right to them all.