Michael Moore's documentary, "Bowling for Columbine", attempts to expose the truth about gun violence in the United States of America. Although his argument is persuasive, its impact is blunted by his use of logical fallacies, such as hasty generalization, post hoc, and appeal to dubious authority. Moore's film is hugely entertaining, but it's hard to look past the holes in some of its logic. The documentary format obviously doesn't allow every person in the population to speak or express their opinion, but Moore has a few people selected to talk about gun control and leaves the viewer to assume that this is what most others of that believe population. This use of hasty generalizations is a little difficult to notice while watching the film, but once the documentary is over, the viewer may begin to realize that the opinions presented in the film may simply not be the general consensus. For example, Moore interviews a small group of teenagers near a fast-food restaurant and asks them if they believe Canada is a less violent country than the United States. Simply because of this segment...