Just saw "Bowling For Columbine" today in Barrie, Ontario, Canada. It's a pretty heavy movie. It makes some very good points, and at the same time engages in some rather manipulative tactics to do it. Michael Moore put together a very powerful film, but he compromised himself a bit here and there, in order to score points...

For instance: I know any number of Canadians who lock their houses, although I don't doubt that Americans are more inclined to do so. His Canadian interviews were pretty selective. Moore gave the impression that virtually no Canadian locks his house. Simply not true. It is true that Canada has a far lower per capita crime rate than the USA, however, as he pointed out also.

Moore deliberately maneuvered Charlton Heston into a very unpleasant position in a rather sneaky manner, and he was an invited guest in Heston's home at the time. I actually felt a little sorry for Heston, although I've always tended to sharply disagree with his politics...about guns and in general.

At the same time, I could understand Moore's legitimate concerns, and what he was trying to achieve. He just did it in a rather sneaky manner, I thought, under the circumstances.

The burning question Moore was trying to get answered was: Why is there such a high incidence of gun-related violence (per capita) in the USA? Why is it worse in the USA than in other developed countries.

He was implying that it is because guns are too easily available (perhaps)...and the media is sensationalist (absolutely true!), causing people to be extra paranoid in the USA (absolutely true), and there is a strong tradition of using guns in the USA (also true).

So, all of those things may be taken into account as factors...but...there are a hell of a lot of guns in Canada too...and very little gun-related violence. So what's the story on that?

I think the key is this: The USA is a society where every key decision made comes down to MONEY. If you've got enough of it, you're okay. If you don't...you're in deep trouble. It's a "survival" based society. People in survival mode are very easily turned to violence when they doubt their capacity to survive a situation.

Now why does Canada have a national health insurance plan to pay for people's medical treatment? Because it's profitable???? NO. Because it's advantageous in social and human terms...and that outweighs the significance of dollar profit.

There is terrible poverty in the USA in many places, alongside tremendous wealth. The gap between rich and poor is growing wider all the time, and there's very little social safety net. A succession of neoconservative American governments have mostly made the situation steadily worse, specially since the Reagan era. The inner cities have been more or less abandoned. That is not trimming of over fat government, it's abdication of government!

What you have is an increasingly desperate underclass, a beleagured and frightened middle class fleeing to featureless suburbs and gated communities, and an upper class that keeps getting richer and more isolated from the troubles of the lower and middle classes...allied with a media that feeds people paranoia on a daily basis...just to make a profit!

That's a recipe for social decay, oligarchy, and the destruction of democracy...all so the rich can get richer. That's what's happening.

Ally it with a culture that celebrates a long tradition of bearing arms and using guns...and you've got a recipe for disaster.

A society that respects nothing at all except the buying power of the dollar finally respects nothing at all, period.

You don't base a sane social policy on making profits for a few players at the top, you base a sane social policy on making a better life for everybody.

That isn't being done in the USA.

Moore focused on that too. He should have focused on it more, rather than taking cheap shots at guys in gun clubs, many of whom are not the nut cases whom liberals (and I've been accused of being a "liberal" enough times) imagine when they imagine gun owners.

The people on both sides of this issue could benefit from recognizing the humanity and intelligence of the people on the other side and not merely dismissing them as stereotypical dimwits.

There is one other factor too...a national government that customarily resolves its own problems by violence should hardly be surprised when its citizenry themselves start doing the same on the home turf. Set a lousy, irresponsible example at the top, and it will be followed.

And right there lies the most crucial difference between the USA and CAnada...or most other modern developed nations in the present era. It is not considered acceptable in Canada to settle issues through violence. It has long been standard behaviour for the USA to do that on the broad stage of the World...just as if the USA was Wild Bill Hickock stalking the streets of Tombstone.

Moore touched on those matters too, but I think he took some cheap shots at what he presented as the stereotypical "gun owner". That's easy to do, but it doesn't prove much.

People love having someone to look down on, and it's as easy for liberals to fall into that moral superiority trap as it is for conservatives.

- LH