Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

'Bowling for Columbine' Teaches How to Prevent Another Va. Tech Massacre

By John Nichols, TheNation.com. Posted April 16, 2007.


Instead of applying for a gun permit in reaction to the Va Tech massacre, you'd be better off renting Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine.

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

In Special Coverage

Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace:
My Depression -- or Ours?
Tom Engelhardt

Democracy and Elections:
GOP Attacks on ACORN Are Based on the Fear of 1.3 Million New Voters

DrugReporter:
As the Violence Soars, Mexico Signals It's Had Enough of America's Stupid War on Drugs
Silja J.A. Talvi

Election 2008:
Too Much Presidential Power -- We've Got to Address the 'Unitary Executive' Question
Dana Nelson

Environment:
Dear Mr. Next President -- Food, Food, Food
Michael Pollan

ForeignPolicy:
Obama Talks Tough About Afghanistan; Here's What He's Really in For
Anand Gopal

Health and Wellness:
McCain's Medicare Cuts Would Mean Hidden Tax Increases for Millions of Americans

Hurricane Katrina:
From the Bayou to Baghdad: Mission Not Accomplished
Amy Goodman

Immigration:
Mexico Braces for Economic Blow; Immigration Adds to Complexity of the Issue
Diego Cevallos

Media and Technology:
John McCain Sows the Seeds of Hatred
Rory O'Connor

Movie Mix:
The "Battle in Seattle" and Beyond
Stuart Townsend

Reproductive Justice and Gender:
Our Next President Will Transform the Supreme Court
Ellen Goodman

Rights and Liberties:
Former McCain Supporter: McCain Is "Unleashing the Monster of American Prejudice"
Amy Goodman

Sex and Relationships:
Why Everyone Loves Hot, Smart Older Women
Vanessa Richmond

War on Iraq:
In Biggest Oil Sale Ever, Iraqi Government to Put 40 Billion Barrels of Reserves Up For Grabs
Terry Macalister, Nicholas Watt

Water:
Can the People Who Live in Coastal Towns Ever Be Safe From Hurricanes?
Lizzy Ratner

More stories by John Nichols

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

There will be plenty of "rapid responses" to the gun rampage on the Virginia Tech campus, which has claimed the lives of as many as 31 students -- making it the deadliest school shotting incident in the history of the United States.

Do not doubt that the National Rifle Association is preparing its "this-had-nothing-to-do-with-guns" press release. The group has no compunctions about living up to its reputation for being beyond shame -- or education -- when it comes to peddling its spin on days when it would be better to simply remain silent. But the NRA will not be alone in responding in a self-serving manner. Many groups on all sides of issues related to guns and violence in America will be busy making their points, just as many in the media will look for one dimensional "explanations" for what the university's president, Charles Steger, has correctly described as "a tragedy... of monumental proportions."

"The university is shocked and indeed horrified," explained Steger, after it became clear that what had happened on his campus Monday was worse the carnage at Columbine High School in 1999 or at the University of Texas in 1966.

The trouble with shock and horror is that it does not often translate into contemplation, let alone serious reflection on the state of a nation in which such an incident can occur -- and, more troublingly, in which no one can suggest that the killings were unimaginable.

The first question, appropriately, is: Why did this happen?

The second question, equally appropriately, is: What should we do about it?

There is is a simple answer to Question No. 1: America is a violent country.

Unfortunately, simple answers lead to simplistic responses. If America can do nothing about its violent streak, the NRA will argue, it is silly to place limits on gun ownership. Better to arm everyone, the argument goes. Or better to allow the "concealed carry" of weapons. Or, well, you get the point -- anything to avoid taking a piece out of the profits of the corporations that manufacture and sell deadly weapons.

By the same token, the notion that banning those weapons will end the violence has become a a tougher sell. Shocking and horrible rampages occur in countries with stricter gun laws than the U.S. No, they do not happen as frequently. But they do happen.

Conversely, in some countries where gun ownership is relatively high, incidents like at Virginia Tech are far less common.

We ought to wrestle with these contradictions and complexities.

But where to begin?

Here is a modest proposal: Instead of adopting a particular line, rent Michael Moore's "Bowling for Columbine."

Of course, there are those who will not be able to see beyond their rage at Moore to recognize the value of this particular film.

Moore's 2002 film remains the best popular exploration of violence and the gun culture in America. And, despite what the film maker's critics would have you believe, it is a remarkably nuanced assessment of the zeitgeist.

Moore's purpose was to offer an explanation for why the Columbine massacre occurred and to examine the broader question of why the U.S. has higher rates of violent crimes than other developed nations.

Moore certainly does not let apologists for the gun industry off the hook. But he does not stop there. "Bowling for Columbine" explores the role that America's mad foreign policies and obscene expenditures on weapons of mass destruction might play in fostering a culture of violence. Most significantly, Moore takes a serious look at the way in which American media, with its obsessive crime coverage, creates a climate of fear in this country -- a climate that actually ends up encouraging violence.

After the movie came out, Mary Corliss wrote in Film Comment: "Moore makes the mind swim with the atrocities and poignancies on display. 'Bowling for Columbine' should be mandatory viewing."

That was true in 2002. It is ever more true today.

Digg!

See more stories tagged with: virginia tech, michael moore, 2nd amendment

John Nichols is The Nation's Washington correspondent.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Very Silly...
Posted by: guybjones on Apr 17, 2007 7:43 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The "culture of violence" theory is naive. I'm not saying raising someone in an abusive household fosters mentally and emotionally healthy growth (look at the life of Richard Ramirez, "the nightstalker," as an example). I'm merely postulating that 1) there are mentally ill people present in society; 2) some of these people will be prone to acts of violence; and 3) no law or ordinance will ever be able to prevent such acts.

The human mind is complex, unpredictable, and yes, largely intangible, even to this day. We are animals, still, despite our lofty aspirations. This is the reality, end of story.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Very Silly... Posted by: ccnygal13
» I beg to differ... Posted by: guybjones
» What's your explanation Posted by: geoff_canuck
» RE: What's your explanation Posted by: Blue Heron
Heterogeneity
Posted by: White middleclass male on Apr 17, 2007 7:53 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I was not surprised to see that the issue of heterogeneity did not come up. The NRA (which I am a member) loves to point out that these type of shooting rarely happen in places like Idaho or the Dakotas which is nearly all white. They just point out the fact that nearly all adults own firearms. You do see more violence in DC NY or NO with their diverse and multicultural populations.

The left is always exalting country's like Norway and Finland for their social programs like universal health care. How diverse are the people in those countries? How does 6'5'' Blue eyed blond haired Sven Jorganson respond when an olive skinned 5'6'' Turkish man named Mohamed wants a piece of his pie (or danish what ever the case may be).

There is nothing you can do about it really as far as America goes. It just pisses me off that no one wants to acknowledge the fact that people get along better with people that look like them than others. This is not exclusive to people that fit the description of my user name either.

Off topic but:
If I am white, They are black/brown/yellow/red
If they are African/Latin/Asian/native American, I am a European American.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Heterogeneity Posted by: Ahimsa
» RE: Heterogeneity Posted by: jaby
» RE: Heterogeneity Posted by: Suburban Dad
» RE: Heterogeneity Posted by: texshelters
» RE: Heterogeneity Posted by: mcubed
» Population density Posted by: suprmark
» RE: Heterogeneity Posted by: jisangNY1
» RE: Heterogeneity Posted by: latin11368
» This kind of comment... Posted by: latin11368
Socialization, Culture, and Gender
Posted by: frosty86 on Apr 17, 2007 8:08 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I was glad that Michael Moore's film addressed the fact that our culture and socialization play a BIG role in influencing our behavior and can enable violence. When there are significant differences among countries in the level of gun-violence and the level of sexual violence, you CANNOT say this is a problem of sick individuals. There is something else going on. It is not human nature or genetic to be violent b/c there are soo many people in the world who aren't violent? Are they somehow able to counterract their genes and their nature? It's all about how we're socialized and what messages we get on a daily basis from the world around us.

Unfortunately, Michael Moore's film never once focused on the issue of gender and masculinity. These school shootings are not "kids killing kids." The perpetrators are overwhelmingly boys and men. Over 95% of all violent crimes are committed by men, so this is a gendered phenomenon. We need to reflect on the messages we are giving young men and women about what it means to be a "real man" or simply to be a man. Given the violence and hyper-masculinity depicted in movies and music videos along with the militarization of our culture, young boys learn that violence and aggression is an appropriate way to handle disagreement and express themselves. And when it comes to sexual violence, women are overwhelmingly the victims of ovewhelmingly male perpetrators.

Can we please stop depoliticizing these events by chalking them up to individual weirdos who snap one day and actually focus on how our larger culture plays a role??

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» 180 degrees Posted by: Iconoclast421
A field day for the gun nut lobby
Posted by: xbj on Apr 17, 2007 8:14 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Led by Rivero over at whatreallyhappened.com... AS IF arming everyone in society like the Wild West would stop something like this. These retarded morons NEVER ask themselves what would have happened in that classroom if everyone had been armed, from the teacher to every student... NOTHING WOULD HAVE CHANGED, in the free-for-all panic that followed, they would have all SHOT EACH OTHER. If anything, the carnage would have happened QUICKER. "One Tin Soldier" rides away. NOT. Only in the freakin' movies.

Already the morons are yelling "More guns!!! More guns!!! GUNS would have prevented this!"

Yeah, until the first armed teacher goes postal on her class and takes out every single student.

Gun nuts never think, not for a single second. What do you expect of idiots that think owning an arsenal is going to stand up to a government tank and ATF SWAT team at the front door? Did their arsenal save Waco, Gun Nuts? Did their arsenal save Ruby Ridge? Or more your speed, Jonestown?

On the contrary, when the government brings a tank to your next door neighbor to take out THEIR moronic arsenal, you're just liable to lose a couple of kids and family members in the shootout if you can't get the hell out and away from the firefight in time.

Gun nuts are probably the stupidest most suicidal people on earth, and the real pity is they really see themselves as "survivalists." Pawns for a multi-billion dollar industry that is backed by the elite for the sole purpose of having an idiot populace KILL EACH OTHER so they won't have to.

Good luck when that tank shows up at your front door, and trust me; it WILL.

Friggin' morons. Is de-arming society the answer then?

Duh. De-arming these nuts means that when the tank comes, everyone at least survives.

But no, that's too logical for gun NUTS. They all need to go out in the wilderness WITH THEIR GUNS and live in caves... caves can stand up to tanks. Until an ATF shoulder-fired bunker buster improves the overall intelligence of the human race.

And Charlton Heston? Don't get me STARTED on that tired-out old whore...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» obi-wan Posted by: funknjunk
» RE: obi-wan Posted by: xbj
» RE: A field day for the nutty gun grabbers Posted by: apophenia_monkey
» RE: A field day for the nutty gun grabbers Posted by: apophenia_monkey
» LEEEEROOOOOY JEEEEENNNNNNKIIIINSSSS! Posted by: apophenia_monkey
» This Exchange Posted by: apophenia_monkey
» RE: This Exchange Posted by: xbj
» RE: This Exchange Posted by: apophenia_monkey
» RE: This Exchange Posted by: xbj
» RE: This Exchange Posted by: apophenia_monkey
» RE: This Exchange Posted by: xbj
» Problem with Bans Posted by: timebomb734
» RE: Problem with Bans Posted by: xbj
» Hitler was for gun control Posted by: Iconoclast421
» RE: i meant 2000 (nm) Posted by: blaine s
dick
Posted by: rtmyth on Apr 17, 2007 8:27 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Not to worry. The NRA has already issued the solution; students should be armed on campuses.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» One single weapon Posted by: YogiBear
Using the same tactics?
Posted by: dbatterman on Apr 17, 2007 8:55 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Most of the above comments have had very insightful things to say. But we should avoid indulging in the same broad-stroked generalizations that the NRA engages in. (see xbj's comments above.) I hope the irony of advocating violence against "Gun Nuts" isn't lost on them.
(And if the "nuts" were de-armed when the tank arrived, they still wouldn't survive. Tell that to the unarmed people who have been killed in Iraq.)
There are a million ways to look at this tradgedy, and the article did a good job of not pointing the finger at one scapegoat but recommending a movie which takes a broader view. It's easy to point and scream "NRA BAD! GUN CONTROL GOOD!" but it doesn't change anything in the real world.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Using the same tactics? Posted by: yellow
» RE: Using the same tactics? Posted by: dll932
» RE: Using the same tactics? Posted by: dll932
» RE: Using the same tactics? Posted by: dll932
» RE: Using the same tactics? Posted by: dll932
Follow up by reading Going Postal by Mark Ames
Posted by: J- on Apr 17, 2007 9:01 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Before this becomes a a guns/no guns yelling match, read Going Postal by Mark Ames, after you watch Bowling for Columbine, of course.

And I agree, even though I'm going to hear about it, that this didn't really have anything to with guns. Remember, it could have just as easily been a rented truck full of fertilizer and diesel fuel.

Furthermore, I'd like to point out that comparisons to Columbine should be on an environmental and sociological level, and not from a physical security standpoint. Securing a single building is much easier to do, and to respond to incidents in, than a 2600 acre campus.

Please, above all, don't resort to name calling or yelling. That's not going to help. Real discourse is what is needed, and back to my earlier statement, blaming inanimate objects, while easy, will never solve anything. Things we should be talking about are a failure or lack of a public mental health infrastructure, the dominance of athletics within the academic environments or possibly the effect of media on society in general.

Read Mark Ames book, Going Postal, and then see if it's still a black and white issue.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Stop Calling ME Nuts !
Posted by: alaskagrrl on Apr 17, 2007 9:13 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Obviously you have a are uncomfortable around weapons. Sorry, but I am not. I live in Alaska where bears can jump out from behind a bush and kill me. So I carry a gun. I even had to use it once for a moose attack (they kill more people here than bears).

If I hadn’t had that weapon, I would be dead. Don’t assume anything about my judgment, I am a professional wilderness guide with unassailable credentials.

Sometimes, what you need is a handy weapon. Sorta like those poor students in VA.

If I were there, I could have laid down cover fire while at least some of the students escaped. Even with his bullet proof vest I would have likely ended the catastrophe with a head shot. That’s because I know how to handle my weapon.

In Alaska we have no concealed permit laws. We simply have a right to arm ourselves. NOT from the government, such assumption is foolish. We arm ourselves against Criminals. Even little old ladies carry arms in their purses, and you know what ?

Criminals pause....

I have to ask the Gun Control People this question: When confronted what are you supposed to do to protect yourself ? Dial 911 ? Give me a break....

That’s takes a lot of faith. I have more faith in my trained hand and weapon. Are you folks so generous that you would sacrifice your own lives for the presumed ‘greater good’ that comes from an unarmed society ?

That last question is best answered when you are facing death. Or better yet, when your child is facing death. Then imagine yourself with a gun.

Would you use it -- or would you roll over and die for your beliefs ?

Be honest.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Stop Calling ME Nuts ! Posted by: EncinoM
» RE: Stop Calling ME Nuts ! Posted by: texshelters
» You ignorant Slut... Posted by: alaskagrrl
» RE: You ignorant Slut... Posted by: argos
» RE: Stop Calling ME Nuts ! Posted by: JMorse
» RE: Stop Calling ME Nuts ! Posted by: sweetlou
» RE: Stop Calling ME Nuts ! Posted by: suprmark
» Oh right, my bad.... Posted by: supercrisp
» RE: Oh right, my bad.... Posted by: YogiBear
» RE: Stop Calling ME Nuts ! Posted by: Rathan47
Between a Rock and a Hard Place...
Posted by: CatDad on Apr 17, 2007 9:21 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Right wants to solve the school shooting problem with the same strategy that are using in Iraq....The “solution” to the carnage in Iraq and stopping American troops deaths is to send in “more” troops....The “solution” to the school shooting problem is “more” guns....

The media/entertainment industry will not pull back from violent shows/movies/games....they're too profitable. This nation is saturated with guns and with Tim McVeigh we already know what will happen if people perceive that their guns are going to be taken away. The Dems have so compromised themselves on economic issues that they jump all over themselves (like Kerry) to show that they love guns too.

The best we can do is work on intervention and school safety/lockdown strategies. The Right Wing has basically won on the issue of gun ownership. Congratulations guys...hope you’re happy.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: This problem... Posted by: blaine s
Gun don't kill...blah blah blah
Posted by: texshelters on Apr 17, 2007 9:34 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Dear Public:

The logic of the radical gun lobby is without parellel. So let's look at it.

1. Guns don't kill people, people do...but how many people can you really kill more than one person at a time with a kitchen knife. Guns make it really easy to kill.

2. Cars kill people, why not ban cars. It's easier in many states to get a gun than a car, and guns were designed for one thing, to kill. Cars were not designed to kill. Should we ban penicillin because some people are alergic to it?

3. Doctors cause more accidental deaths than guns, so ban doctors. Maybe doctors do cause more "accidental deaths", but few doctors cause intential death. All gun deaths are intentional.

4. If you criminalize guns, only criminals will have guns. So, we should allow anyone to have crack because if we ban crack, only crackheads will use crack. Did anyone say we should fully ban guns? Perhaps we should have background and personality checks before letting everyone and anyone have a gun. Perhaps an automatic weapon isn't needed to stop an intruder or hunt deer. Why not ban the manufacture and sale of these weapons?

5. More guns, less crime. Having more guns has not been proven to reduce crime. There are many more factors that have been shown to reduce crime, and it's not gun ownership. It's inaccurate statistic like this that prevent us from dealing with gun violence in our society.

6. Why do places with stricter gun laws have more gun violence? BECAUSE THE LAWS WERE PASSED DUE TO THE HIGH RATE OF GUN VIOLENCE! Gun laws don't cause gun violence, they are a reaction to the violence.

The paranoia and cowardous of the "guns at any cost" crowd is astounding. The same set of Bush/Limbaugh lies are used to scare people into the belief that 1) there are people out there who want to take away all of your guns, and 2) you will actually be safer with a gun.

I don't care if individuals have guns. However, can't we enact common sense safe guards to prevent massacres like the one at Va. Tech?

Culture, psychology, political climate, and economics all have to do with gun violence. Keep guns out of the hands of criminals, the mentally unstable, and the anti-social personalities, and ban multi-shot weapons only created to kill en masse, and that would be a good start. Sure, guns don't kill people, but it makes it easier for people like Cho Seung-Hui to kill dozens of people before being stopped.

Should massacres like this be the price we pay to defend the second amendment at all costs? Or should we accept things the way they are, throw up our hands and say, "shoot away".

Joe Tex

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» A couple of points... Posted by: dbatterman
» RE: A couple of points... Posted by: psychochurch
» Gun shows Posted by: texshelters
» RE: Gun shows Posted by: dbatterman
» The issue is not about guns..... Posted by: psychochurch
» RE: The issue is not about guns..... Posted by: psychochurch
» RE: Gun don't kill...blah blah blah Posted by: Iconoclast421
You wrote this exploitative essay before the bodies were even cold.
Posted by: alterpa123 on Apr 17, 2007 9:42 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Do not doubt that the National Rifle Association is preparing its "this-had-nothing-to-do-with-guns" press release. The group has no compunctions about living up to its reputation for being beyond shame -- or education -- when it comes to peddling its spin on days when it would be better to simply remain silent. But the NRA will not be alone in responding in a self-serving manner."

Pot meet kettle.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» STATEMENT BY THE NRA Posted by: ateo
» RE: STATEMENT BY THE NRA Posted by: texshelters
Time to get rid of most semiautomatics -- and especially ammo
Posted by: Moonray on Apr 17, 2007 9:49 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm an Army vet and no pacifist, but the writing is on the wall: We need to get rid of the vast majority of semiautomatic weapons and -- most importantly -- the ammunition.

Most gun owners should be allowed to own only revolvers and single-shot rifles and shotguns, and a few rounds of ammo for self-protection, with tough penalties for owning more. Target shooting would have to take place in gun clubs.

Metal detectors should be installed in virtually all public places.

Those tough guys who claim they would never give up their guns would change their tune fast if the first few violators received stiff jail terms. Enough is enough.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» I AGREE Posted by: HistArch
If gun control works....
Posted by: PJH67 on Apr 17, 2007 10:00 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If gun control works, then how come Washington, D.C. remained one of the most dangerous cities in the U.S. even after they banned gun ownership?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: If gun control works.... Posted by: sweetlou
» RE: If gun control works.... Posted by: sweetlou
» RE: If gun control works.... Posted by: sweetlou
» RE: If gun control works.... Posted by: sweetlou
» RE: If gun control works.... Posted by: sweetlou
» RE: If gun control works.... Posted by: sweetlou