Edited sentence: As the film charges, using footage to support its claims, Moore also omits any of the heavily-attended union protests against the layoffs, arguing that only a few picketers bothered to show up.Manufacturing Dissent also makes the case that in place of laws that control guns, as in every other industrialized country, the elaborate "cultural climate and history" argument in Bowling for Columbine, which compare the US and Canada, obscures the simple fact that Canada does have a similar number of guns per capita, but most of these are single-shot rifles used for hunting purposes: handguns, the cause of most gun-related deaths in the US, are actually quite heavily controlled in Canada.Moore had to specifically stage it to make it look as if he opened the account and received the gun the same day from the bank itself.The film also points out, using interviews with the bank tellers featured in the film, that the infamous bank scene from Bowling for Columbine, where Moore gets a gun for opening an account, actually took 30 days to set up (including a background check) and fails to mention that the gun vault was 300 miles away and ships to a licensed gun dealer.The one substantial exchange between Melynk and Moore has him denying charges that one of his companies bought and sold stock from companies he rails against in his films, such as Haliburton, even a simple tax records search calls into question his claims of innocence