Clutch

Are you seriously suggesting that Moore's point is that "you can wander into a bank, open up any old account and get yourself a gun"? I notice you say "most people" would not get their gun directly from the bank. Isn't this exactly what I addressed already? So what if they glossed the three day wait -- how does that misrepresent the point?

Does this bank give away guns as a feature of doing business there? Yes.

Is this bank also a registered gun dealership? In the absence of any suggestion to the contrary, yes.

Does this bank have guns on hand? Ditto.

Is it possible to pick up your gun directly at the bank? Ditto, and given the implicature of your "most people", yes.

Is there any remotely plausible reason to think that Moore was displaying anything more extensive than the positive answers to these questions? None; at least, none that's been offered here.

There's nothing dodgy about the scene, never mind "dreadfully dishonest".

Abel Stable

Oh there's definitely something dodgy about that scene. When I first saw the movie, I had the impression that you walk into the bank, open an account, and leave with a rifle (kept in a vault in the bank). I was working at a movie theater and all my cowokers had that same impression too, not to mention (I think) everyone else I discussed the movie with. Moore walks in, signs up, and leaves smiling, raising a gun. That's his point w/ the scene- that he can just walk into a bank and leave with a gun. Of course that's not how it works, so he just took the premise and staged it- telling us that the event was real & it really happened. That's not dishonest? His other movies are full of him unexpectedly barging in on people at work, and I assumed they were authentic. More like fucking around with your audience and misrepresenting facts.

Michaelson

Okay, I had a quick look for some more info. This is where I'm getting my info for this post: http://www.cwob.com/movies/oscars2003/bfc.html if you want to check it out.

The site that I quoted which says "most people" pick up their guns at a firearm store does so because any customer has the option of picking up their gun at the bank, or at a firearm store. However, there is no store of guns at the bank, rather they have to be ordered and shipped in. The waiting period for background checks alone is usually around two weeks.

But in the film, Moore walks in to the bank, asks for the account where you get the free gun, fills out a few forms, briefly ridicules the questions on the form, comments on how quick and easy the process is, takes his gun from from the woman behind the counter and asks her if she thinks it's a bit dangerous handing out guns at banks.

First off: if guns aren't held at the bank, how could the scene have been shot if it were not staged.

Secondly: Moore gives the impression that it's his first visit to this bank, he wanders in. He asks about the free gun, and gets one from behind the counter on that very same day. These being the facts presented, it is clearly implied that the bank hands these guns out without performing anything like extensive background checks, yes.

In reality, it would appear, the bank actually has quite strict restrictions when it comes to the handling and handing out of guns.

Are you for real? You think it's no big deal when handing out firearms if you gloss over a mandatory waiting period? Moore shows a bank that hands out guns with no waiting period? You don't think this is a misrepresetation of the facts?

[quote]Does this bank give away guns as a feature of doing business there? Yes. [quote]Well, they give them away, but not for free.

Yep, I guess they are.

Oh... did the film give you that impression? Funny, because it seems they don't.

Sure.

Bullshit.

Did Moore's piece give the impression that guns were held on the premises? Plainly wrongly, it would seem, it did.

Did Moore give the impression that the process for picking up the guns was a breeze, and that with no prior consultation you could walk into the bank and walk out with a gun? Clearly

Does this suggest that it is unlikely that any background check is performed, or that any that are are probably innadequate? Yes.

Does this suggest that a bank irresponsibly hands out guns? Yes.

Given there is no suggestion of illegality, does this suggest that the US must have irresponsible gun regulations? Yes.

I think it's great that you can reduce Moore's meaning to a few pretty bland statements, one of which is wrong. But to suggest this is the only interpretation is pretty rich. And given the multiplicity of interpretations of such a scene, it is dreadfully dishonest to present something in a documentary that suggests at least minimal objectivity (in that the audience assume he just films what happens), when in fact he sets it up to film beforehand.

Why would he set it up, if it weren't to change the meaning?

Michaelson

That's a nice cross-post.

Clutch

Let's see, guys -- the bank orders the gun for you to pick up there, but it never has any on the premises? There's a subtle distinction...

As for the rest, it's hard to see what your argument is, beyond calling my points "bland". The points I summarized are what I took the scene to be about. They are, in aggregate, exactly what the movie is illuminating. It never occurred to me to think that Moore's secret point was that the requirements for getting a gun from the bank are lower than at a gun shop! But that seems to be your beef: he glossed the waiting period.

He got a gun from a bank! Banks, guns... this striking you as strange? It's the natural interpretation of the whole scene: what's it say about America that a bank offers you a gun, and lets you take possession of it in the bank itself? Relative to this obvious point, the scene is clearly above board. You seem determined to carve up Moore's intentions in such a way as to make the scene "dreadfully dishonest"; but you're bending over backwards to do it.

Michaelson

It's not a subtle distinction at all. You asked for proof the scene was staged, no? Well, either the scene was staged, or, Moore went into the bank, the people behind the counter were so impressed by his presence that they absent mindedly waved the two week waiting period and gave him the gun of his choosing. It is more convoluted than that even, because they don't keep guns on the premises, they order them in special for every customer. So, I guess what you're saying is that they gave him a gun that someone else had ordered two weeks before him, which was luckily enough the same make as the one Moore ordered. All because super-celebrity Moore's presence was just so overwhelming.

Given that Abel Stable and all his coworkers attest to being given the impression from the film that this particular bank allowed you to walk in, open an account, and walk out with a gun, do you think maybe there are other aspects of the scene that may be taken into account when determining whether or not it was representative? You're looking at this with tunnel vision.

Sure, the scene was representative in so much as it showed this bank was a firearm dealer and had an offer involving guns. The scene was also representative in terms (I assume) of presenting actual workers in the store. Michael Moore's physical presence was also accurately represented. That doesn't make it representative overall. In terms of meaning that can be extrapolated from the scene that Moore fabricated, it is wildly misleading.

And I ask again, why would Moore stage such a scene unless it was to serve his own agenda?

Deacon

Two week, three day waiting period, blah blah. Moore got the gun from the bank. How do we know this? Because:

1. A bank employee informs him that they keep the guns at the bank.

2. Same bank employee informs him that the bank is able to do this because they are a licensed gun dealer.

3. Moore is shown being brought the gun he is later seen walking out of the bank with.

Sorry it was so misleading for some. Later I'll explain the plot to Mission: Impossible.

Deacon

Why would a bank be giving out rifles for opening an account? That was the point of the scene.

Bookman

Is this really necessary?

Bookman

AdamWho

I read the articles criticing Moores honesty and I know for certain that one thing Moore said is lie.

I have been to the Lockheed Plant just south of Littleton many times and I can tell you with absolute certainty that they do not make nuclear missles.

Not only that, but many of the people working at the facility had children at Columbine and felt really offended by Moore's lies in the movie.