List Price: $14.98 Our Price: $2.49 You Save: $12.49 (83%)

Product Description

Acclaimed filmmaker Michael Moore (Roger & Me) takes aim at America's love affair with guns and violence in this Oscar(r)-winning* film that "demands attention" (People)! Mixing riveting footage, hilarious animation and candid interviews with everyone from the NRA's Charlton Heston to shock-rocker Marilyn Manson, Bowling for Columbine is a "brilliant" (The Hollywood Reporter) tour de force of filmmaking. *2002: Documentary Feature

Michael Moore's superb documentary (following in the footsteps of Roger & Me and The Big One) tackles a meaty subject: gun control. Moore skillfully lays out arguments surrounding the issue and short-circuits them all, leaving one impossible question: why do Americans kill each other more often than people in any other democratic nation? Moore focuses his quest around the shootings at Columbine High School and the shooting of one 6-year-old by another near his own hometown of Flint, Michigan. By approaching the headquarters of K-Mart (where the Columbine shooters bought their ammo) and going to Charlton Heston's own home, Moore demands accountability from the forces that support unrestricted gun sales in the U.S. His arguments are conducted with the humor and empathy that have made Moore more than just a gadfly; he's become a genuine voice of reason in a world driven by fear and greed. --Bret Fetzer

Customer Reviews:

• Too liberal!
  I'm a lib too but I draw the line when Mike marches into the K-Mart headquarters with the paralized victims of the shooting in tow and demands an explanation as to why they sold the bullets.
  Michael, K-Mart is not to blame. Anyone could have sold those. You're acting like a trial attorney. Get it together and quit trying to blame those not responsible and for your own personal gain. ...more info
• Not Great!
  Only ordered this movie because it was a requirement of ENG102. I think the movie was just ok. It seems bias in many areas although it does make you stop to wonder how much the media really does play with our minds. I know the media only tells us what they want us to hear, to buy the products they want us to buy, etc. Movie wasn't that bad, just a touchy subject I suppose because it makes me angry how the media uses us (the public)....more info
• Good film, but doesn't get to the real issues
  Does life have a meaning and a purpose?
  
  If you answer yes, then logic dictates that everything we do in life has meaning and effect and that effect must be either negative or positive. There is no in-between, Marilyn Manson's comments not withstanding.
  
  Our actions, and the actions of those around us, either build us up or tear us down; increase our respect for ourselves and others or reduce that respect; give us hope and a positive outlook or create fear, resentment, and insecurity.
  
  When you're forced to put the influences on our young people into only the columns of good or bad, and not allow yourself to hide behind the "it doesn't matter" excuse, the problem begins to emerge. Divorce; consumerism; abortion; violence both real and simulated in the news, TV, sports, movies, and video games. An over-emphasis on competition with other people.
  
  It all adds up. There is no way to legally prove that Marilyn Manson ever caused anyone to act viloently. But would you agree that his influence is never positive? If so, he goes in the bad column and someday he will be forced to answer for the way he used his time and talents in the pursuit of fame and money. I'm glad I'm not him.
  
  Has our society been "bowling for Columbine"? You betcha. But guns (an inanimate object) never impact a person's attitude. They are a tool, nothing more. Easy access to guns raises the likelihood of deadly viloence for a person already inclined toward such actions. But guns, in and of themselves, never influence anyone. They don't even fit the category of actions, so we can't put them in either the good or bad column.
  
  Our children are scared, lonely, cynical, insecure, sedentary, overly-competitive, isolated, and screaming for our attention.
  
  We're so busy earning money for a new SUV, getting divorced, terminating pregnancies, consuming alcohol and sleep aids, using the TV as a babysitter, trying to look younger, and buying our kids off with gifts that we've forgot to love our children.
  
  Make a movie about that, and I'd give it 10 stars
  
  ...more info
• Like it or not, it makes you think
  Michael Moore makes people feel uncomfortable. In his interviews with different people, the camera lingers, waiting for an additional comment or reaction. Sometimes, he will follow up with another question to get the speaker to explain what he or she means in more detail. Nevertheless, you want to laugh at the person being interviewed, but you can't help feeling a little uncomfortable yourself.
  
  Although the focus appears to be gun control, his argument doesn't seem to be focused there. He looks at other cultures and their gun-death rates, then follows this with looking at how these are different than ours. His answers highlight that this is not an easy question to answer. For some reason, we are more violent than similar cultures.
  
  Like most Moore documentaries, the editing can seem a little disjointed. It gives a slight comic twist to the film, but it also makes you question what got cut out. Is he taking people out of context?
  
  Even if you don't like Michael Moore or his documentaries, you have to admit that they create discourse. Further, these are issues that we should be talking about more. For instance, he mentions that the mother of the six-year-old boy who shot a school-mate was on the welfare-to-work program, which prevented her from being at home. The link from this program to the child having a gun was tenuous at best. It is an issue that we should be discussing, but it's place here seemed forced.
  
  Also, Lockheed keeps popping up in the film. Although the link is not direct or the primary focus, the repeated reference leads the viewer to think that this corporation may take a big share of the blame. I don't think that it is true, but it is an interesting connection. I had no idea of Lockheed's connection to the welfare system, though I will probably look into this on my own to affirm for myself.
  
  There are two disks in this special edition. Unless you are a Michael Moore fan, these probably wouldn't interest you (like the interviews with the director). However, it would be great if teacher's looked at the Teacher's Guide. I think it would be good to start discussions at an early age. Perhaps it would prompt students to look into the issues and check the statistics and facts out for themselves.
  
  I like this documentary because it got me thinking about an issue that we, as a country, need to address. We have to find an answer for our violence....more info
• Michael Moore's take on U.S's preoccupation with guns and violence.
  (1) Michael Moore starts with the quest to understanding the inherent tendencies for violence in USA by showing us the statistics with respect to other countries where America fares as the place with the maxium murders with respect to European countries.
  
  (2) He first considers America's support for production and ownership for firearms to be possible reason.
  
  (3) Charlton Heston comes up for heavy stick in this documentary as president of National Rifle association. He seems to turn up for rallies at locations where tragedies using firearms have just occured.
  
  (4) The columbine tragedy is talked about and what led the assailants to do it.
  
  (5) He points the finger also at the system which needs mothers to be working 10 hr shifs to make a living, mothers who are unable to give attention to their kids.
  
  (6) Michael Moore and 2 victims of columbine go back and return bullets to Kmart from where the columbine perpetrators bought the bullets. Kmart announces to de-shelve the sale of bullets at their stores.
  
  (7) Then arrives to the bush legacy and does his usual enjoyable bush bashing.
  
  (8) Concludes that America's addiction to guns which leads to the violence is due to an atmosphere of mistrust and fear that he supposes is brought about by the politicians (read BUSH) and media. He cites examples of citizens in canada who dont lock their doors.
  
  (9) He concludes that people in US are predisposed to guns and thus violence because of the lack of trust among one another. He concludes
  
  (10)that Americans think as 'I' instead of 'We'. He leaves us with the message that when we change that attitude to 'We' only then our nation will reverse itself from it's current violent trend.
  
  regards, Vikram
  ...more info
• A wake up call.
  This was a similar to Michael Moore's other film on 9/11 again spelling out in a simple way what is wrong with the country.
  
  Have always had a high regard for Moore over the years watching his tv documentaries in the UK and hope the message sinks in....more info
• Bowling for Columbine
  I prefer this Micheal Moore movie to most of his others. I agree with his point that fear is perhaps the one characteristic that separates Americans from other western cultures. Each year we are bombarded with images and video that is intended to promote fear in our lives. Election campaigns teach us to fear one side or the other ratherthan advocating what good a candidate will do.
  
  Once fear is in place groups like the National Rifle Association can inform us how we need all sorts of conceal and carry laws because if we don't carry a weapon, sooner or later we will be attacked. Solve a gun problem with more guns. It sounds like trying to solve the credit crisis with more credit. The NRA will say that because we don't know if a person has a gun, we will be less likely to become violent. Yet 11,000+ people are killed with guns each year. Only a handful of situations occur where someone with a gun can prenvent a crime. The NRA also has the audacity to say that more guns in schools will prevent shootings similar to Columbine or Virginia Tech.
  
  Micheal Moore tries to flush out myths people tend to blame for shootings. Violent video games, rock music, even the availability of guns. Most other countries have all of these, yet they do not have 11,000+ gun-related killings annually. Again, he may have something with his fear theory. Like Moore, I too am a member of the NRA and proud of it. Our constitution gives us the right to own guns and no government can take that right away. I just wish we wouldn't be so darn afraid of everything....more info
• I like Moore, but why does he have to >lie< to make his point
  I was very, very disappointed with this documentary. It largely consists of editing tricks (lies) to make its point. Example:
  
  In one of the Heston speeches, it appears Heston is telling the Columbine mayor "too bad" in response to the tragedy. In reality, if you look carefully, HESTON'S TIE CHANGES COLOR SEVERAL TIMES during the speech. Hmmm. Why? Because Moore is editing together multiple speeches/ random phrases, from many different cities, to give the ILLUSION of a single speech. Moore is not showing us a real speech. He's showing us a >fake speech< that he wrote himself & using Heston like a puppet.
  
  Why does Moore have to create fake speeches to make his point? Why lie? It makes no sense....more info
• Entertaining and thought-provoking
  This film made some excellent points about guns and violence in America. I loved the scene where the Lockheed-Martin representative is talking about Columbine and how we need to reduce violence--while standing in front of a Lockheed missile. I also liked the scene where a seemingly ordinary teenage boy wearing a loose-fitting shirt turns out to be a walking arsenal, with dozens of guns concealed in his pants. My husband and I were practically rolling on the floor laughing at that one.
  
  Seriously, though, Moore brings across very well how much better our quality of life in the U.S. could be if we rethought our love affair with guns. Canada has strict laws about registration of guns and the like, and their quality of life is no worse than ours. What would be so terrible about making sure that lunatics and criminals can't buy guns, and seeing to it that guns used in crimes can be traced? Although Moore doesn't mention this, I think that gun owners and manufacturers should also be required to pay into a fund that hospitals would use for the enormous health care costs caused by guns. Gun owners and makers should also pay the cost of the extra policing that guns make necessary.
  
  Moore does tend to fall off the liberal deep end at times. He makes a big deal of the fact that the mother of the 6-year-old who shot his classmate was in a welfare-to-work program, working two jobs, and had no time to supervise her son. While this is sad, in my opinion Moore is barking up the wrong tree by blaming welfare-to-work. The first thing to ask is why a woman with no skills and no husband chose to have a son. Did her church tell her it was a sin to get an abortion? If so, it should be her church who supports the two of them, not the taxpayers.
  
  Another question Moore fails to understand is that it's rather odd that this woman works full time but can't afford to pay rent. I think more welfare is not the answer here. The sad fact is that no one has ever figured out a way to spend money to relieve poverty without creating dependency; no matter what you do, you end up with a problem worse than the one you started with. To find the right answer, you need to ask why housing costs are so high in the U.S., and why there is so little low-cost housing near jobs. After all, the salary this mother was making at the mall would have put her into the middle class in most countries, and the cost of building materials is simply not that different between countries. Surprisingly, a big part of the answer as I see it is bad zoning and parking laws and overly restrictive building codes in most U.S. cities. These laws make it difficult and expensive to build housing here, and the housing that does get built is spread out widely, so that it's hard to get around without a car. For more on this, see Kunstler's book "The Geography of Nowhere" and Shoup's "The High Cost of Free Parking."
  
  Overall, though, the movie is consistently entertaining. Watch it even if you don't agree....more info
• Total misrepresentation of facts
  Moore spends much of this film misrepresenting 'facts'. He takes things out of context and splices much of this film together to make it appear that people are saying things they didnt say.
  
  What appalls me the most is the way he ambushes Charleton Heston with things that arent true. Heston is obviously not at his best and in the early stages of Alzheimers. His lack of recall is show as a way to depict him and all 2nd ammendment supporters as uncaring and callous. It would have been much fairer to everyone if he had been able to give that same interview 5 or 10 years earlier. Taking advantage of old people is just sad and I find Moore to be a sad individual indeed.
  
  Dont waste your money, you wont be getting any facts from this. Just a bunch of spliced together propoganda....more info
• VERY important topic. Mediocre documentary.
  I originally became aware of Michael Moore after viewing his well known documentary "Roger and Me". I enjoyed the film, but unfortunately never found the time to view his later efforts, Fahrenheit 9/11 and Bowling for Columbine. Both films were always on my "films to watch" list, but I guess I needed a good kick in the rear to get around to it.
  
  I finally got that "kick" after watching his Amazing documentary "Sicko", which I feel is one of the most important films of the past five years. After being completely awestruck with "Sicko", I decided it was time to view both Fahrenheit 9/11 and Bowling for columbine. Here are my thoughts....
  
  [SPOILER ALERT] I will be revealing certain aspects of the film within the following portion of my review.
  
  While Columbine may be the Oscar winner among his four most known films, I personally found it to be the most amateurish and disappointing. The film slowly constructs a message that I found to be schizophrenic and quite ambiguous. The journalism here could be described as being "Jeraldo-like", a simple hodgepodge that fails to deliver a cohesive or fully coherent message of any kind. In fact, part the film speaks of the constant fear generated via the news media, and yet this very film itself, could in some ways, also be considered more of the same.
  
  At one point the film suddenly displays a couple of "death by gun" scenes in rapid succession, for what appears to be shock value alone. I did not appreciate his careless use of such images. On the other hand, The film later uses graphic imagery to great effect, while making a very important point about U.S. Military actions around the world, throughout history, and the ultimate outcome. It's that kind of schizophrenic approach that detracts from the overall impact of the film.
  
  The structure of the film is meandering, and at times I was left wondering, "what's his point"? The segments with Dick Clark and Charleton Heston seemed contrived. Did you really expect Dick Clark NOT to drive away? Did you really expect Charlton Heston NOT to walk out? The intent of Mr. Moore as interviewer in these scenes seems insincere and scripted to generate the desired (and expected) "end result". When interviewing Marilyn Manson, why didn't Mr. Moore ask leading questions regarding the potential harmful effects that his music "MIGHT" have on impressionable young minds?
  
  I also found the brief excursions into racism, violence in media (video games and entertainment), and extreme Rock Music (Marilyn Manson) to be ineffective. These are all points that definitely need to be discussed when dealing with the main topic at hand, but in the end, once again, we are left with a very ambiguous stance that detracts greatly from any possible impact. One almost gets the feeling that Moore is actually downplaying the impact of violence in media within a society. A very big mistake!
  
  Mr. Moore speaks loudly of corporate responsibility (with good reason) and yet seems to gloss over the responsibility of artists, who also have a huge impact on our society. It may be true that citizens in other, less "gun violent" countries play the same violent video games and watch the same violent movies, but that surely isn't a stamp of approval (or blame-buster) for such violent creations. You simply cannot gloss over such matters by being one sided and asking an inane question like, "if you're going to blame Marilyn Manson, why not blame bowling too". I wonder how long it will be before the rest of the world decides to tune-out all of the ultra-violent media we so kindly spread around the world?
  
  I could have also done without the stupid cartoon representing the "history of America", and I highly doubt we're going to find the answers to our country's problems by interviewing the creator of South Park.
  
  The heart of the film is basically good. It's the message that's a little too blurry for my tastes. Bowling for Columbine tackles an extremely important topic, but fails to deliver a strike. Recommended viewing, but just don't expect anything on the level of a "Sicko" or "Fahrenheit".
  
  JM...more info
• You can't trust an idiot like Moore if his movies are given free airtime in Islamic Iran
  Michael Moore movies are useless and full of lies. No doubt about it. However, what makes me give this moron a zero star rating is that his movies are all shown for free on Iranian regime run TV channels many times a year. Gee, you wonder why anti-American regime of Iran loves Michael Moore so much. His movies are truly worthless and based on lies he fabricates out of his hatred for the country which has given him the freedom to do so. Zero Star!...more info
• Excellent piece of work
  Finaly something what portraits the reality of american life. Something different from the everyday Hollywood junk. I am very thankful that Michael Moore has the guts to do this kind of work: swimming against the tide of money and power.
  ...more info
• Marketing Guns Through Fear
  I recently re-watched this important film that so frightened the perception managers of the gun industry. This film exposed the mind-set that has created huge revenue streams for gun sales people. The mind-set is fear. The same mentality that equates safety with being well-armed is the same mentality that accepts ever larger weapons budgets for the country. The military industrial complex that we should fear (the one that Eisenhower warned us about Why We Fight) is confiscating more of our tax dollars each year.
  As "Bowling for Columbine" points out, Columbine High School is located in the same district with a huge Lockheed Martin weapons plant. It's not hard to imagine where the Columbine killers may have picked up the idea that violence is the way to solve problems.
  It's also important to note that this Lockheed Martin plant is located in the district represented by the demagogue, Tom Tancredo. Tancredo has made a living lashing out at Muslims (threatening to bomb Mecca), and lashing out at immigrants (threatening to round them all up and put them in detention centers). I don't think he believes his rhetoric, but he does understand that his bigotry serves the business interests of Lockheed, which will make a ton of money off of the hi-tech wall being contructed along the southern border, in addition to making piles of money with new weapons systems that we terrorize the world with.
  
  For more information on the connection between gun sales, fear, and the idolatry of violence among sectors of the US population, I'd recommend Gun Show Nation: Gun Culture and American Democracy....more info
• Left-wing propaganda
  As a propagandist, Moore performs quite adequately but, I suspect, only when he is preaching to the committed Left. However, his treatment of the aged Charlton Heston is disgraceful and devious.
  A self-serving journalist and undeserving of praise....more info
• The Hollywood Propaganda Machine In Full Motion
  I can't see how the anti-gun movement is anything less than yet another radical feminist assault on the alpha male. I mean, let's face it, women don't own guns, don't use guns, don't want to have anything to do with guns. This comes in sharp contrast to the relationship men have with guns where firearms are seen as items of recreation, tools of security, a safety insurance for them and their loved ones. This sense of safety, security, and perhaps even empowerment amongst men is something the feminist movement absolutely WILL NOT tolerate. Every man must be emasculated because if a feminist were being robbed in her home or on the street and a man (say perhaps a boyfriend, husband, or father) came up and blew the robber away this feminist would have a hard time justifying her crackpot ideology. And of course the magnum opus of the Flower Power generation was that ideas never need to be justified so long as we feel "sincerely" about them. This has very little to do with guns and everything to do with feminist attempts to correct male behavior. They'd want to take swords and sheilds away if we had them.
  
  Not suprisingly the already passified and waif Michael Moore had no qualms about reflecting these views in his film which is quite suprising given that Moore himself grew up in Kent, Michigan, a town where street gangs and other scum keep the citizenry in a constant state of fear. This is hardly anything new for urban America where women can't walk down the street at night, where adults can't even correct wild teenagers in public for fear of being pistol whipped.
  
  Of course Moore presents no solutions to these problems but the idea that the police, given enough time and money, would be able to get things under control is always assumed. And that's exactly what this boils down to: Moore's and the anti-gun movement's inability to come to terms with the fact that any normal kind of police presence isn't going to be able to control crimes against civilians.
  
  There are restrictions on state power and naturally criminals use that to their advantage. This is because we live in a free society, well, at least we used to. People don't want to see a team of cops on every corner, in every building, in every subway car because realistically that is what it would take to get crime under control. That's what it took in New York but what about the other hundreds of cities that don't have a hundred billion dollar budget and who have citizens that don't want to live in a police state? Well...
  
  They could look to the Second Amendment but of course Moore has his own twist on that idea, ridiculously trying to cast the Right to Bear Arms as a "right to overthrow tyranny." The thing Moore fails to realize was that the Bill of Rights was written before the French Revolution and before Marxism; back when the idea that a few farmers could topple a central government would've been seen by anyone, especially the elites, as utterly preposterous. More than likely I would think that the Second Amendment was written with folks on the frontier in mind where having a tomahawk sunk into your skull was far from an uncommon event. Also this was written at a time when a great deal of the police work (keeping in mind that most folks did not live in cities) and keeping a state of order was done by regular folks. Defending yourself and your household would have, in most cases, been an entirely personal endeavor.
  
  It's not so much repulsive as it is bizarre watching Michael Moore go to work on these little projects of his. I mean, in a documentary that is supposed to be about gun control he spends about a half hour on the Oklahoma City Bombing. What an attack that was carried out with a truck bomb has to do with guns or gun control I'll never know. Instead it's just a pathetically calculated excuse for Moore to mention that Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols happened to be gun owners. Look, these terrible people owned guns so if you own one you'll be terrible just like them! Even Hitler had a gun! You don't want to be Hitler do you? Endlessly amateurish. Infinitely infantile.
  
  It's really weird the way Moore is seen by so many millions as the lovable champion of the people. Sort of like a pretentious and much fatter version of John Candy. The truth is Michael Moore cares about the average person's problems but only in the same way that every one else in Hollywood cares about the average person which is not so much caring about them as it is wanting to make them "better." Typical Marxist hatred of the Middle Class. There's no place for this garbage in Middle or Working Class America.
  
  Wouldn't it be better living in a world where instead of finding helpless victims criminals found themselves getting pumped full of lead? I'll give it 2 stars because it was at least watchable....more info
• Now This is Propoganda
  Gun control is a hot issue in America, and will be for a long time. There is no question that there is a problem with gun violence, and Mr. Moore tackles this issue head on in Bowling.
  Does he do it successfully? I don't think so. There are simply too many loose ends and lazy connections that need to be resolved.
  For example, in his expose of the the Columbine shootings. He targets Lockheed Martin the major corporation that makes arms for the military (because having military technology is conducive to teeage violence). He interviews Marylin Manson on the social reasons of teenage rage and why they kill (because they feel unnaccepted). He then goes on to take on Kmart for selling bullets (because bullets go into guns). He then takes a grand tour of socialist Canada where no one seems die from gun wounds (because capitalism seems to breed violence).
  So in conclusion, we can safely say that teens tend to kill because we have alienated teens, living in a greedy capitalist society, with corporations that make military grade weapons and shop at Kmart. It really is a neat arguement if it works. The problem is, there is no real one cause and no real way of knowing why people go on shooting sprees.
  Moreover, Mr. Moore never quite addresses the question of personal responsibility and family supervision. Where are the PARENTS in this movie? Is it possible that a loving mother and father could have saved the day? Nah. Of course not, they are not in the movie. However, it is possible that Marlyin Manson may have the key to unlocking the mysteries of the universe.
  Otherwise, this is a thoroughly engaging and entertaining movie.
  
  
  ...more info
• Not convincing and homogeneous arguments
  Michael Moore hit the road of glory with this documentary. He speaks of the High School shooting in Littleton. He is always surprising. We expected an approach that would try to recapture the two young men who went berserk, their backgrounds, their surroundings, their friends and families. In one word try to explain why these two perfectly normal young men could have run into such a pile of guano. But no. Michael Moore attacks somewhere else. He attacks the National Rifle Association all along, and yet he comes to the idea that it does not explain anything because in Canada they probable have even more guns per head. And they do not have a number of killings with fire-arms that could come close to comparing with the US. That's just the point here. The whole film is built on a line that in the end he has to push aside. And he comes up with another completely different and hardly supported in the film: Americans have a problem with their psyche. He does not specify if it is their individual psyches or if it is their collective psyche. And I must say it is kind of disappointing. He brutally interrupts the President of the NRA, Charlton Heston who is speaking of the wide presence of violence in American history (and the ethnicity of that violence) by quoting Germany, Russia, England and Japan as violent countries. But that does not in anyway bring him towards his conclusion. In other words he concludes with an opinion that is not supported by what he has shown in the film. For a documentary it is harsh to say so.
  
  Dr Jacques COULARDEAU, University Paris Dauphine, University Paris 1 Pantheon Sorbonne & University Versailles Saint Quentin en Yvelines
  ...more info
• Biased and dissapointing
  I would say before I got involved in firearms, that I really didn't have much of an opinion on gun ownership. I figured what people did was their own business and that it didn't affect me.
  
  As I started reading more into Columbine, I saw Michael Moores documentary called "Bowling For Columbine" and I had remembered seeing his film on Flint, Michigan when I was in highschool. I figured the documentary was going to be about Columbine, not about gun culture. Either way, the documentary started off pretty good and I couldn't really tell the direction it was headed. The direction of the film sounded like it was criticizing American culture rather than guns until the film compared us to Canada and the rest of the world how "similar" we were. The problem is, Moore makes the assertion that somehow Canada and the rest of the world are safehaven utopias where you can reside with your doors unlocked with a low number of murder statistics. What he fails to mention is the size of our country and many of the issues that are a result of it.
  
  Take in account Canada, a population of 32,984,700 in 2007. The US has a population of 302,213,000. Population wise, we are going to have more homocides. What Moore failed to state was that Canada while they may have gun registration is that before it was ever implented into Canada, the murder rates have been unchanged for the most part and crime has actually increased. Does this signify that guns were never the problem in Canada to begin with? The same applys for the United Kingdom, before handguns were outlawed, the murder rate and gun crime was actually lower than it is now. While the European nations may have supposed "low" murder rates, gun ownership rates really have nothing to do with it but rather what fuels violence.
  
  In the US for example, much of our crime is black on black crime, gang warfare, the drug trade, and illegal aliens coming into this country. Actually 20 percent of our prison population are illegal aliens. The folks killing each other are not law abiding gun owners.
  
  Moore also fails to mention how some of the most violent nations are those that actually have some of the most strict gun control laws in effect. Mexico, South Africa, India, Russia all have much higher murder rates than our country yet they have very strict laws pertaining to who can actually have a gun legally.
  
  Overall the movie was nothing more than propaganda meant to look like a sceptical view of gun ownership. I was rather dissapointed with the film. I've watched it 3 different times to try and get an understanding from Michaels point of view but I think that the Bowling For Columbine dvd I purchased on ebay will make better use for skeet shooting. ...more info
• Great Movie
  When a co-worker had originally told me about this movie, I looked at her like she was totally clueless. A couple of years later, I decided to purchase this DVD to find out what all of the fuss was about. I have found out and I have become a huge fan of Michael Moore. Of course, he has biased views, but so does everyone else. The movie tells us why guns are dangerous and what companies should be doing....more info
• Eye opener about gun ownership
  Let me say this first, if you do not like Michael Moore don't watch this movie. Also, if you are conservative and very pro-gun ownership, then you will hate this movie. This movie uses the Columbine shooter to jumpstart a discussion and investigation of the 2nd Amendment and why the United States has more gun related homicides than any other nation. Michael Moore is a card-carrying member of the NRA so he is not completely biased. I really liked how he went to many different groups trying to get all perspectives on this hot-button topic. He even traveled to Canada to see why they have such a lower gun-related homicide rate.
  
  This movie will definitely open your eyes to the 2nd Amendment debate and make you question why people feel the need to own so many guns, when a lot of times all it does it ruin lives. It also makes you wonder why our gun control laws are so weak and if they were stronger, maybe Columbine would have never happened.
  
  Again, this is a great documentary by Mr. Moore but if you are conservative or just don't like him, you will probably dislike this movie....more info
• an Essential Documentary
  Michael Moore, Oscar winning filmmaker, antagonist, and a man subjected to frequent ridicule. Many people have many views on Michael Moore, and many people have endless debates over whether his views on certain subjects are right or not. Everytime he releases a documentary, it sparks discussion and debate. Bowling for Columbine would've been his most controversial, but Fahrenheit 9/11 ruined that. Many people don't like Michael Moore.
  Dick Clark, Vincent Gallo, Charlton Heston, George W. Bush; These are just a few people who have stated, or just obviously, dislike the guy. In this film he investigates gun control, which frequently returns to the subject of the Columbine massacre which occurred in a little town called Littleton. Columbine occurred a long time ago, but it still arises on people's mind and is something we'll probably never forget. This movie truly exposes ignorance and leaves you wondering. Who's more of a dick...Michael Moore or Dick Clark? First we see Moore opening an account at a bank where he gets a free gun, we see some Chris Rock standup stuff (pretty funny too), and then we meet James Nichols. James is the brother of Terry Nichols, one of the bombers that was on the news years ago. James Nichols appears to be a lunatic; He looks and sounds like one of those serial killers you see on the news and does and says a whole lot of disturbing stuff during his interview with Moore. We hear about Columbine some more; And then I heard something that truly surprised me. Charlton Heston, one of the main guys of the National Rifle Association, held a rally right after Columbine. We see Matt Stone (one of the co-creators of South Park) getting serious for possibly the first time. We see a kid holding a whole array of guns inside his jeans (which is slightly exaggerated; The kid is standing still as he removes all these guns, had he been walking...Someone would've noticed). Then we get to a big subject, Marilyn Manson. For those who didn't know, Manson was a target after Columbine for apparently inspiring the kids to do what they did. I'm a Marilyn Manson fan and supporter; What Marilyn Manson does is for entertainment and shock value. Here, Moore interviews Manson and it seems that Marilyn Manson may be the most sane person Moore talks to. One of the great things that is said is when Moore asks Manson "If you could talk to the kids at Columbine, what would you say?" To which Manson replies "I wouldn't say anything. I'd listen to what they have to say, apparently no one else did." I'm paraphrasing, but I got the point across. Moore points out the difference in deaths by guns in other countries; The fear of black men (which comes years after blacks were granted equal rights); A young 6 year old school shooting victim...Charlton Heston held a rally the day after this young girls death. Moore talks to Dick Clark who slams the door of the van he's in and speeds off. I lost all respect for Dick Clark while watching this. Moore takes two of the living Columbine victims to the K-Mart Headquarters in Troy, Michigan (the shooters at Columbine used bullets they bought at K-Mart) and tries to get them to stop selling ammunition. Finally, he interviews Charlton Heston who, basically, runs from him. Moore is a very antagonistic guy in his interviews, because he won't stop until he achieves at getting the answer that he wants. People don't like him for that but, in the end, it's those people that don't answer the question that come out as the bad guys. My only real complaint about Moore is that he makes George W. Bush look a lot more powerful than he is. A lot of people ridicule Moore, but he deserves a lot more respect. This film is not only entertaining, but it manages to expose the ignorance of a lot of American's and asks some really important questions. Should be required viewing for Americans.
  
  GRADE: A
  ...more info
• Lying For An Oscar
  Michael Moore is a disgrace to the left-wing society, much like George W. Bush is a disgrace to the right-wing society. "Bowling For Columbine" is a film that if it is taken seriously, the results are just laughable. The Columbine shootings weren't based on gun control, and the attackers didn't get their weapons legally either. Moore is just contradicting the second amendment and placing the blame on the firearms business. This isn't a documentary, it's a deceptive, biased, and opinionated hack job of a movie that Moore is shoving right into our faces. Weapons aren't a problem, humanity and lack of responsibility is the problem.
  
  Somebody give Moore a laxative, because he's so full of [sh]it when it comes to his "documentaries". ...more info
• Makes you wonder what is going on in this world
  This movie really made me wonder what we are all doing, things can go soooo very wrong when we do not treat eachother with some respect. This movie was shocking as respect for other is absolutely not taught anymore, which makes things like what happened possible. And the politicians don't care a bit....more info
• Bowling For Soup
  Bowling for Soup. That's what Michael Moore really wanted to name this documentary: because then, he would have had an excuse for eating an extra three meals a day.
  
  What is causing our youth to gun down each other in schools?
  
  Well, if you listen to The long lost member of the Fat Boys and other people like him, the #1 culprit is guns. Oh, and really mean conservatives who have hijacked our culture.
  
  But answer me this, if conservatives are in control of American culture as so many claim, then explain to me why what liberals believe dictates what is politically correct and mainstream, while what conservatives believe is fringe and pushed off to the radio talk-show circuit?
  
  Guns provide a means to death, not a motive; not an inspiration. There are no guns whispering in people's ears telling them to kill. Guns are a MEANS to-not a CAUSE of-killing.
  
  Taking the guns away from law abiding good people while allowing the bad people to keep theirs by obtaining them illegally makes PERFECT sense.
  
  Rich dopes like Moore can afford to say nobody should be able to have guns when he has enough money to hire security and to live in a safe neighborhood with its own police force.
  
  Guns were more easily available 40 years ago, yet there wasn't a school shooting every week. This alone should tell you that guns aren't responsible for our thirst for blood.
  
  I argue there should be MORE guns. We all should be packing. The more of us with guns, the easier to shoot that hamburger out of Mikey Moore's hand.
  
  Remember, Mikey will eat anything....more info