Thank you for your recent response to my article, entitled ?More Lott, Less Moore.? I take it from your characterization of me as a ?dumb-ass,? a ?gun-toting bigot,? and a ?hair-triggered lunatic,? that you didn?t enjoy the column very much. Thankfully, since your letter was over 1000 words long (and since you sent it twice), I was able to zero in (pun intended) on your specific points of contention.
In your letter, you cite my ?mischaracterization? of the thesis of Bowling for Columbine as the main flaw in my editorial. I think that was why you called me a ?dumb-ass? and accused me of never having seen the movie. For the record, I saw it twice, but I admit that I watched the movie with Samuel Adams (Cream Stout the first time, Summer Ale the second). My choice of company may have slightly altered my perceptions of some of the movie?s content, especially towards the end of the film. Sorry about that, Timmy.
Nonetheless, it should be clear to anyone with an IQ over room temperature that Michael Moore spent the first half of his film trying to link two images in the minds of his viewers. The first image was an America obsessed with guns. The second image was an America overwhelmed by crime. In fact, the description on the cover box at Blockbuster says the movie ?takes aim (the pun is Blockbuster?s, not mine) at America?s love affair with guns and violence.? So, if you didn?t catch the link between guns and violence in the film (not necessarily, but perhaps because you?re a dumb-ass), it?s right there on the cover in black and white.
In your previous love letter, you made a big deal out of the few moments in the second half of the film where Moore offers a few sentences admitting that the ?more guns, more crime? thesis may be overly simplistic. Those comments revolved around the prevalence of guns in Canada. I am pleased that you noticed that Moore did contradict the thesis he worked so hard to establish in the first half of the movie. But that brief contradiction should be used as a criticism of Moore, not as a criticism of me. Clearly, I am correct in asserting that Moore?s point in making the film is to tie guns and violence together in an attempt to advance the gun control agenda.