Bowling for Columbine!

If we were to ban every product which people misuse, everything from Jack Daniels to Big Macs and motor vehicles would be taken off the market. I wouldn't miss either Jack Daniels or Big Macs, but I don't see why, if there are licenses to drive cars and punishments for hurting people with them, the same shouldn't apply to guns. Requiring insurance coverage would be a good brake on gun-owners possibly...

But at the core of this is the grow-up-and-be-a-responsible-adult problem. I'd be glad to ban any measure, any activity which tends to encourage people to shuck responsibility -- to behave like kids when they're adults. Those activities should be restricted to the privacy of the individual's own property.

Arm bears -- I love it. Yes, definitely welcome. Some people give driver's licenses may be thought of as not deserving them -- there are people I have know that should never be allowed near a firearm. I still believe someone who wants to own a firearm should have to take classes on how to use it including, of course, firearm safety and then be licensed.

Agree with that for sure, Light! The idea of insurance popped into my head because of the way having to pay increasingly insurance premiums ends to encourage people to stay away from trouble on the road...

I guess, liberal though I am, I don't like "nanny" government. We need real coordination by gov of low-cost health insurance nationally. But gun ownership and use, it seems to me, should be largely a non-governmental issue except possibly in uniform licensing -- any restrictions should be a state-by-state matter. Urban states might want to treat gun ownership differently from rural states.

Insurance is like betting, isn't it? You're wagering with the insurance company that you're going to have an accident, that you're going to get sick or that you're going to die. Makes it seem like you're gambling with the Grim Reaper (see Showtimes "Dead Like Me" or HBO's "Six Feet Under.")

Having a strong and effective central government doesn't have to mean it is a nanny government. It depends on what and how the regulation works. I don't see a national licensing of guns no more than we have a national driver's license. I think the states could get government funds for running such a training and licensing program. In California, we have restrictions on what kind of firearms one can keep but only in hand guns. It's the right to carry a concealed weapon which is really debatable.

Yes, no problem with that.

Well, but I'd have a problem concealing my car...

I'm trying to be a deconstructor here, Light, breaking down the actualities into something we can grab a'holt of! There's been a lot of noise but little light when it comes to the gun issue...

Strong, effective central government... I came at that as the accidental administrator of an information program which involved state, feds, and (across the border) provincial and national gov in Canada. It was a program which asked the various govs to be facilitators of information relating to cultural exchange. All agreed that it had to be done. In actuality -- in implementation -- the Canadians were fine (except there was some infighting among the provincial govs). (It also has to be said that they were sometimes very welcoming, occasionally obstructionist and positively snotty!)

The American side supported the program, embraced the possibilities, BUT (BIG BUT) didn't have in place anythingwhich would make information exchange possible at more than glacial pace. (When our intelligence community failed, I knew why.) We have a government, I found, which prides itself on telling people to do something but with little or no talent for making that possible. This experience made me very sensitive to the claims vs. the actual abilities of federal gov. "Strong" is a good word -- strong the way a huge, granddaddy red jellyfish is strong. "Effective" doesn't apply in many cases. (I'm restraining myself here...)

The federal gov in too many cases dictates, does not facilitate. It has fiefdoms; it has a disgraceful amount of protection and collusion from Congress.

The role of federal government is therefore, for me, is a major issue. A great many complications adhere to its functions -- all kinds of sticky issues. Sometime I would love to see some open discussion on how to expose and change this.

I only believe the Feds should step in if the state laws become ridiculously contradictory. Where than threshold is reached is up to the lawmakers and sometimes they are right, sometimes they are wrong. In any case, the constitutionality of state laws ends up being thrown into federal court just like the California recall law is now in the courts.

the japanese watch almost as much tv as americans.
i don't think it's necessarily how much tv we watch, but the content.

i think the the content of our media is not only one of the leading causes of our paranoia but also why americans really don't give a crap about anything other than sports and celebrity gossip.

i was watching a documentary about 9/11 and they were showing clips of the day's news at 9AM, minutes before the attack. the news was... gardening tips, the latin grammys, and the BIG news will michael jordan return?

there's also the politicians who help perpetuate the paranoia. politicians win when the citizens feel unsafe.

we also do have more crime in the US. i believe, in part, because of our revolving door prison system and our failing public schools.

finally i think the american neighborhood as eroded. perhaps as a result of the reasons stated above. just 10 years ago i didn't lock my doors either. all the neighbors were on a first name bases. if one of us got sick, word would get around and the neighbors would come by to see how they were doing. little kids stayed out late around the neighborhood and their parents didn't have to worry. there was a real sense of safety.

Looks like someone told Moore about the website attacking his flick.

Here's his reply:

http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/wackoattacko/

Thanks, Heywood, and Welcome to A2K and the Film/Politics/Gun Lobby category! There's been more made up about Moore than he could possibly make up about guns.

It is true -- alcohol, cars, bad food, et al are misused and that's the downside of freedom. However, we do have a limited freedom and because the forefathers mentioned guns and not cars (!) in the Bill of Rights, it's more difficult to control the fact that they have no other purpose but to wound, maim and kill. They look pretty in a gun case? I don't get the purpose as decor but then, that's just me.