The Truth About “The Truth About Bowling For Columbine”

This is a response to a website which claims to be the "Truth About Bowling For Columbine". The website was created by a man called David T. Hardy, and it tries to discredit the film Bowling For Columbine (BFC). The page can be found here: http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html

The author has some good points and he does show that Michael Moore showed certain events/statistics in a way that favoured his position (who doesn't?). While the page does go into greater detail about certain issues then Michael Moore did in BFC (a luxury of scrutinizing a 2 hour film on a webpage), it is often unfairly biased, and in some cases just plain wrong. The website also alludes to a lot of things that Michael Moore MIGHT have done, with no factual evidence to back up its claims what so ever. In order to fully understand my counter-arguments you will need to be familiar with the arguments on the "Truth About Bowling For Columbine" site. Once you've read that go on to my counter-arguments to some of the points about the supposed "Truth About Bowling For Columbine":
 

Point 1. Lockheed-Martin and Nuclear Missiles.
- The whole point to that segment was that the media and others were taking the easy route out and blaming among other things, heavy metal music, and more specifically Marilyn Manson for the shootings. Why? Because it was the simple answer. He's the freak, he's different, let's blame him. Let's not ask the tough questions. Let's not look in the mirror. Let's not look at the structure of society, and the prejudice’s we have. So Moore simply asked, if Marilyn Manson can be so easily blamed for such tragic events, is it not possible that the fathers who work for the #1 defense contractor to the United States could be an influence as well? And if a guy who sings some rock songs can be an influence, why not parents who work for a large weapons manufacturer such as L.M.? This was the (condensed) question Moore asked the PR guy for L.M. and his response was, "well I guess I don't see that connection". If L.M. was just producing "communication satellites and space exploration units" as the "Truth" website claims, wouldn't you think their PR guy might mention that?

Regardless of whether that specific factory makes weapons, L.M. is a weapons manufacturer just as Moore claimed. If you'd like to know what L.M. makes, don't take my word for it. Why not hear it from the horse’s mouth? The following paragraphs are right off of LM.'s very own website:

1990's - Traveling Time and Space: Lockheed-made aircraft and weapons systems and Martin Marietta-made missiles, weapons, and electronics make significant contributions to Operation Desert Storm, as do the works of heritage companies Vought, IBM Federal Systems, Loral, and Unisys. In 1995, Lockheed and Martin Marietta merge to become one of the largest aerospace, defense and technology companies in the world. The company's core efforts now also include telecommunications and information systems.

1991 - The Vought-made Army Tactical Missile System becomes the first surface-to-surface missile ever fired by the U.S. Army during combat.

Lockheed, Martin Marietta, Vought, IBM Federal Systems, Loral and Unisys -- all heritage companies -- contribute to the allied victory in the Persian Gulf. Lockheed provides multiple aircraft and electronic countermeasures systems, while Martin Marietta contributes missiles, weapons systems and electronics.

1999 Lockheed Martin wins one of two contracts to develop a Joint Strike Fighter for the U.S. Air Force, Navy, Marine Corps and the British Royal Navy. The contract includes design, development, construction and, ultimately, flight test of two full-scale demonstrator aircraft. The Pentagon goes on to select the Lockheed Martin led team to build the next-generation multirole strike fighter in 2001.
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/about/history/1990.html

The "Truth" website makes it sound like Lockheed-Martin (L.M.) is making weather balloons. The website claims that weapons aren't made at the Littleton factory, which is supposed to discredit the segment. As evidence of this, the website gives a link which describes what they make at the Littleton factory. One of the factories main purposes is converting Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBM's). They "refurbish, integrate, and launch 14 Titan II ICBMs for government space launch requirements". Because the Littleton L.M. plant no longer produces missilies, the "Truth" website throws all of Moore's points out the window, and totally misses the point of the segment.

The website also takes shots at Moore for stating that they truck the weapons through the city, "in the middle of the night while the children are asleep." Yet if you read the page (provided by the "Truth" website), you would read this:

BACKGROUND - Lockheed Martin built more than 140 Titan ICBMs, once the vanguard of America's nuclear deterrent force, for the Air Force. Titan IIs also were flown as space launch vehicles in NASA's Gemini manned space program in the mid-1960s. Deactivation of the Titan II ICBM system began in July 1982. The last missile was taken from its silo at Little Rock Air Force Base, Arkansas, on June 23, 1987. Deactivated missiles are in storage at Norton Air Force Base in San Bernardino, California. Lockheed Martin is responsible for transporting the Titan IIs from California to its facilities in Denver. http://www.ast.lmco.com/launch_titanIIfacts.shtml

- L.M. plainly states that they built more then 140 Titan ICBM's. Some of them even carry the Martin name, such as the "Martin-Marietta LGM-25C Titan II Missile", and the "Martin MGM-31A Pershing I Tactical Ballistic Missile". For pictures of the ICBM's click here: http://members.tripod.com/missileer/pic5.html
 

Point 2. NRA & Reaction to Tragedy.
In BFC, they were showing the clip of the Columbine student crying saying, "They came in and shot everyone...” Moore then cuts to Heston proclaiming his signature line. Then AFTER Heston says the line, while holding the gun above his head in the clip, Moore adds in, "Just ten days after the Columbine killings...” While saying this, the film cuts to a NRA billboard of Heston and then to the Denver convention where everyone is applauding and Heston begins his speech. Notice the order of events?
Columbine Student >>> Heston: "From My Cold Dead Hands" >>> Moore: "Just 10 days after..." >>> START of Denver convention with audience giving standing ovation.

But according to the "Truth" website the order of events happened like this:
Weeping children outside Columbine >>> Cut to Charlton Heston holding a musket and proclaiming "I have only five words for you..." >>> Cut to billboard advertising the meeting, while Moore intones "Just ten days after the Columbine killings..." >>> Cut to Heston (supposedly) continuing speech... "I have a message from the Mayor..."

Notice the slight change? The website claims that Moore cuts to Heston (supposedly) continuing his speech. That is just a blatant lie. Again, Moore shows the "Cold Dead Hands" clip, then goes to the billboard while he says "Just 10 days after...” and then to the START OF THE CONVENTION with the audience giving Heston a standing ovation. He does NOT cut right to Heston saying, "I have a message from the Mayor". The crowd sits down and Heston says, "Good morning, thank you for coming. And thank you for showing courage..." Moore then cuts to the father carrying the "My Son Daniel Would Expect Me To Be Here Today" sign (with other "Shame On The NRA" signs in the background), and then Moore cuts to the "message from the Mayor line". How could Moore "cut to Heston (supposedly) continuing his speech"? He showed the very beginning of the convention! I have read the entire transcript from Heston's speech, and I don't think Moore cut anything out or re-edited anything that put Heston's speech out of context. What was Moore supposed to do? Show the entire convention in a two-hour film? BFC is an anti-gun film. Of course Moore is going to use clips that support his opinion. The website's biggest criticism of this part was that Moore suggested that the "Cold Dead Hands" line was given at the Denver convention, which simply is not true. Remember, Moore didn't cut to the middle of the convention, he showed the start of it, and he showed it AFTER the "Cold Dead Hands" clip. Under the assumption that it was the same event, does it make any sense to show a clip from the supposed middle of his speech, and then cut to the beginning of the convention? I saw this film two times before hearing about this site, and I never once thought he was implying it was the same event. Go watch the DVD right now and tell me if I'm wrong.

The clip of Heston proclaiming, "From my cold, dead hands" was like showing Arnold Schwarzenegger saying, "I'll be back". If you showed Arnold saying that, everyone would know you were talking about "The Terminator". If you show a clip of Heston saying his trademark line, everyone knows you're referring to the NRA, and that's exactly what Moore did as a segway to the NRA segment of the film. And you cannot pretend that the NRA does not endorse that sentiment, because it's a trademark of the NRA. The "Truth" website says that Heston said that while receiving a musket in Charlotte, making it sound like this was a one-time occurrence. Here are some other examples of Heston's famous, "Cold Dead Hands" reference just to prove that it is a frequent saying among the NRA. From a pro-Heston webpage:

- "Heston, 79, whose movie credits included "The Ten Commandments," "Ben Hur" and "Planet of the Apes," was famous as the voice of the pro-gun National Rifle Association where his trademark phrase was that his gun would only be taken "from my cold, dead hands."
http://www.medaloffreedom.com/CharltonHeston.htm

- From CBSNews.com: "Heston, winning applause at Monday's NRA rally in New Hampshire, with his trademark anti-gun control slogan: "From my cold, dead hands."
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/08/09/entertainment/main518219.shtml
 

Point 3. Animated sequence equating NRA with KKK.
- Ok, this part was purely for comedic value. Did anyone watch this and take it 100% seriously? Any arguments about this segment are just ridiculous.
 

Point 4. Shooting at Buell Elementary School in Michigan.
- The website says, "Bowling depicts the juvenile shooter who killed Kayla Rolland as a sympathetic youngster, from a struggling family, who just found a gun in his uncle's house and took it to school." It then goes on to tell us that the boy who shot Kayla was the "class thug" and had been in trouble before. That's the whole point! The "Truth" website falls into the same trap that most people do, and only supports Moore's point even more. Why did it happen? The website goes on to say:
"Fact: The uncle's house was the family business -- the neighborhood crack-house. The gun was stolen and was purchased by the uncle in exchange for drugs. The shooter's father was already serving a prison term for theft and drug offenses. A few weeks later police busted the shooter's grandmother and aunt for narcotics sales. After police hauled the family away, the neighbors applauded the officers. This was not a nice but misunderstood family."

Again, let's ask the tough question, "Why?” The website dismisses the family as drug dealers, and an overall menace to the local neighbourhood. So what influence do you think that might have on a young boy? Do you think that the little boy came out of the womb packing heat? Or do you think that he was possibly a product of his environment, an environment that was for the most part missing a mother figure as she bused to work 40 miles away at Dick Clarke's restaurant?
 

Point 6 International Comparisons
The website states: "After an email tip, I finally found a way to compute precisely 11,127. Ignore the FBI; use Nat'l Center for Health Statistics figures. These are based on doctors' death certificates rather than police investigation. Then -- to their gun homicide figures, add the figure for legally-justified homicides: self-defense and police use against criminals. Presto, you have exactly Moore's 11,127. I can see no other way for him to get it."

- Again, the website makes a luke-warm point and implies that Moore is just a liar. The site tries to dismiss Moore's statistics by saying, "These are based on doctors' death certificates rather than police investigation." I don't know about you, but I'm pretty confident in a doctor's ability to tell whether someone has been killed by a gunshot. It then again tries to dismiss Moore's stats by saying that Moore included justified homicides, self-defense, and police use. Well... yeah. They're still gun murders!
If you click on the websites link where it says, "Here's why he doesn't talk rates" you get more irrelevant comparisons.

http://www.hardylaw.net/rates.html

- This page talks about rates compared to other countries. It then gives irrelevant figures for deaths from things such as cancer, kidney disease, etc. For example, 549,838 people died in 1999 from cancer. The figures listed are intended to show use that the supposed gun control problem suggested by Moore isn't really that bad. Here's what it says, "the minute you get into rates it starts to become apparent that gun homicides are a very low probability event wherever you are. Phrased otherwise, the odds are enormously in favor of you or I dying of heart attack, stroke, or cancer, no matter what country we live in." So because you're more likely to die from cancer there suddenly isn't a gun issue? Cancer is a terrible disease that has claimed many lives, but the last time I checked we were trying to cure it.
 

Conclusion:
The Truth about BFC webpage is so obviously anti-Moore, and yet because it's on the internet everyone believes it? There are many things which are open to interpretation, which would seem to be the root of the controversy. However, this guy obviously has a chip on his shoulder. I mean how objective do you think someone is when they snidely say in their rebuttal to Moore, "Nice try, Mike"? Did anyone bother to go to his home page? If you did you'd read this from the author, David T. Hardy:
"My work now largely focuses on firearms and first and second amendment issues -- rights to free speech and to bear arms. Some of my scribblings can be found on the World Wide Web--"
http://www.hardylaw.net/
Is it really surprising that someone who embraces the right to bear arms didn't like BFC? The author had a few legitimate points, while he stretched for others. One of the best points was the end of the film where Charlton Heston is waking away from Moore, and the camera is behind Moore showing Heston leaving. It then cuts in front of Moore as he holds the picture of the little girl. There clearly were not two cameras on the narrow stairway, which would lead one to believe that Moore recorded that separately, possibly after Heston had already walked away. I myself had wondered about that after the first time I saw the film. I am not saying that Moore did not add dramatic or comedic flare to the film, of course he did. He is a mainstream filmmaker who is trying to reach as wide an audience as possible. If you took out all the humour and dramatic flare, BFC (along with Moore's other work) wouldn't be nearly as popular, and therefore his message would reach less people.

This is a debate with different sides. Of course the pro-gun side is going to hate BFC, while the anti-gun side loves it. Does Moore carefully choose what you see and what you don't? Of course he does! Do you think the government doesn't do the same thing? Do you think politicians don't do the same thing? Do you think tobacco industries don't do the same thing?

 I enjoyed BFC and as you may have guessed, I am anti-gun ownership. Regardless of what is pure fact in BFC, I think it's an excellent film, which raises many important issues. Issues that many people would rather not talk about, and there's one thing you cannot deny about BFC. It gets people talking.

I wrote this page because I have begun to see some anti-BFC sentiments based solely on this webpage made by David T. Hardy. For some reason, some people have immediately believed everything on his website as the gospel truth, while many of his qualms with BFC are pure speculation, or an exaggeration of the TRUTH.

Tim Dudley
Toronto, Canada