h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Maolmuire, you obviously see 'Bowling For Columbine' as a pack of lies. In equating its methods with the Bush administration's justifications for war, are you conceding that the war was based on lies? Personally, I really cannot see a moral equivalence between making a film that might be considered to be biased and lying to a nation in order to try to justify killing a lot of people.

Much of ‘BFC’ did confirm my pre-existing opinions, but in one crucial area it really enlightened me. I was genuinely surprised by the section in which Moore went to Canada and visited a Canadian gun club. The point explicitly made in that part of the film is that the phenomenally high ratio of deaths by shooting amongst the US population cannot be explained *just* by saying that there are too many guns in circulation in the States, because the level of gun ownership is similarly high in Canada but the level of gun-related violence is much lower. Moore’s conclusion is that the problem in the USA is not gun ownership per se, but something deeper in the American national psyche, which includes the distinctive American attitude to guns.

In less trigger-happy countries, we simply cannot understand why some Americans seem so anxious to defend an aspect of their country’s culture which, the statistics suggest, greatly increases their own chances of meeting a violent end. Why is the ‘liberty’ to shoot and be shot so jealously guarded by people like Charlton Heston? It’s a fascinating question, and I think that ‘Bowling For Columbine’ makes a serious and thoughtful attempt to investigate possible answers.

I didn't equate bfc with the Bush administration's reasons for war, but with people's attitudes towards both which seemed to be inconsistent, and my view is that what is good for the goose is good for the gander.

In looking at gun violence in the States as compared to other nations one question which must be asked (and it almost never is) is to who is involved in the violence? The answer is (almost exclusively) young inner city males who are involved in drug trafficking. I believe that if you subtract this from the equation then you would find the US no more gun-happy than any other nation.

While you're entitled to believe that, the statistics would provide some challenge to the words 'almost exclusively' here. There are more guns per person in America than in any other Western country. More guns = more likelihood of using them. The idea that you can go into a supermarket or a bank and buy a handgun is simply ludicrous. he idea that it is somehow a person's right to do so is an embarrassment to true democracy, which would never see the firing of a gun as a viable solution.

As Moore points out, the level of fear on American TV and in American media results in a heightened sense of paranoia in the audience. Watching American TV in my regular visits there, I'm alarmed by the *worry* that TV tries to instil as a means to selling products. I learned the names of about eight new illnesses just by sitting through ad-breaks. There are medicines on sale for conditions I've never even heard of, never mind felt worried I might have them. The knock-on effect is an audience that doesn't feel they belong unless they have something 'wrong' with them.

While it's on the increase in the UK - to some degree on the basis of security alarms from the USA - we would never allow a medical-based advert to be as alarmist as seems the norm in the US.

"the statistics would provide some challenge to the words 'almost exclusively' here"

Ok, show me.

"the level of fear on American TV and in American media" blah blah blah. Have you watched televison locally recently? Canada gets american stations too you know. Moore's theory is like the rest of the film: rubbish. Or don't you see any american programs on your television?

What I find distasteful is that so-called democracies do exactly what every totalitarian regime does--namely disarm it's own citizens. What a joke. What exactly are they afraid of? I thought the knee-jerk reaction in Britain after Dunblane was just ridiculous. By witholding your right to bear arms a handfull of people *may* have been saved I presume the thinking goes. How about how many would *definitely* be saved by witholding your right to drive a car?

How about the plummeting murder figures since the handgun ban?

But it's not the American programmes so much as the 'news' and advertising that create this sense of worry. In fact that programming itself goes quite significantly in the other direction: while (to generalise) you get a lot more 'glossy' and hugely aspirational shows on American TV, British TV is generally much grimmer and darker. Conversely, its advertising is generally much more upbeat and aspirational than the threatening or foreboding air to American shows.

Moore isn't pushing an original idea here; many volumes have been written on the differences between British and American shows. Moore just happens to be the most high-profile critic at the moment.

Come on, how about the plummeting gun-violence figures in Britain since the handgun ban? Was there even a dip or were honest law-abiding gun owners deprived of their rights merely for the shrt term (and short minded) aim of quieting the media and public *FEAR* after the Dunblane tragedy?

BTW, I really think it's silly to attempt now to blame American gun related statistics on the news and advertising.

So Maolmuire what do you reckon is it easier to shoot someone dead if you can walk into a shop and buy a gun or not?

In the UK it is possible to get hold of a fire arm if you wish but it is pretty hard, I reckon it makes it harder for people to shoot others as a result of this. Our gun crime rates bear this out.

Yes, Mal, that would be silly.

Blaming the high gun crime and high death rate caused by shootings on just the TV medium would be silly when its clearly the hig rate of gun ownership *aswell*.

Detaild later childrens lives to help improve now

one love

They might if there was a dip after the handgun ban but if there was one I never heard of it. The gun violence figures stayed the same pretty much didn't they? So, from practical experience we can easily see that your theorising is mistaken.

I haven't actually checked the gun-violence figures for Britain pre and post Dunblane, but I'm betting they are pretty much the same despite the handgun ban. Any takers?

hat is a disingenous argument...

The point I was making had nothing really to do with the ban and everything to do with general gun ownership.

Only a very tiny percentage of people in the UK ever owned handguns, the banning was largely irrelevant in the grand scheme of things, what I am saying is that in Britain hardly anybody ownes or could own a gun, and our gun crime rate is virtually nill.

For the record we have innercity drug problems just as acute as in the US, yet still about 100 gun deaths a year as opposed to about 10,000. Population 60 million to 280 million. As americans say "Do the math".

Thosands of gun owners were deprived of their rights. No corresponding dip in crime rates. YOU do the math.

Depriving law-abiding gun owners of their guns does not bring a dip in crime rates. The Australians did more or less the same thing as I recall they banned a 'class' of guns (rifles? I can't remember off hand) but guess what? I'm willing to bet their crime rates didn't dip either.

"in Britain hardly anybody ownes or could own a gun," except of course for virtually every farmer and hunter. But I guess it's just a matter of time before the easily swayed public are pannicked into 'fixing' that 'problem' too.

"about 100 gun deaths a year as opposed to about 10,000. Population 60 million to 280 million. As americans say "Do the math"."

Have a look here:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2656875.stm

Some highlights:

"According to a recent UN study, England and Wales have the highest crime rate and worst record for "very serious" offences of the 18 industrial countries surveyed."

"You are now six times more likely to be mugged in London than New York. Why? Because as common law appreciated, not only does an armed individual have the ability to protect himself or herself but criminals are less likely to attack them. They help keep the peace. A study found American burglars fear armed home-owners more than the police. As a result burglaries are much rarer and only 13% occur when people are at home, in contrast to 53% in England."

" Much is made of the higher American rate for murder. That is true and has been for some time. But as the Office of Health Economics in London found, not weapons availability, but "particular cultural factors" are to blame."

"When guns were available in England they were seldom used in crime. A government study for 1890-1892 found an average of one handgun homicide a year in a population of 30 million. But murder rates for both countries are now changing. In 1981 the American rate was 8.7 times the English rate, in 1995 it was 5.7 times the English rate, and by last year it was 3.5 times. With American rates described as "in startling free-fall" and British rates as of October 2002 the highest for 100 years the two are on a path to converge."

"According to Glanville Williams in his Textbook of Criminal Law, self-defence is "now stated in such mitigated terms as to cast doubt on whether it still forms part of the law".

I never heard of Mr. Williams, so cannot vouch for his veracity, however I have heard of British police advising citizens how to adopt a 'non-threatening posture' while being robbed. Wasn't there a case over there recently of a farmer using his shotgun to protect his family and property and being sent to gaol for the impertinence and presumption of self defense?

"Wasn't there a case over there recently of a farmer using his shotgun to protect his family and property and being sent to gaol for the impertinence and presumption of self defense?"

For someone who so abhors Moores *alleged* misrepresentation of the truth that is a pretty bad one MM. You have demonstrated a clear ability to use the Beeb website so I think it is unlikely that you can be that unfimiliar with the case but still here you go...

Tony Martin was convicted of murder after shooting in the back a fleeing 17 year old robber. The forensic evidence suggested that he had lain in wait for the burgarlars and taken the opportunity to exact revenge. Martin had in the past previously expressed views that Gypsies should be put in a field and gunned down with mchine guns. He also had had his gun licence taken away for mis-use. After appeal his sentance was reduced to manslaughter.

""You are now six times more likely to be mugged in London than New York. Why? Because as common law appreciated, not only does an armed individual have the ability to protect himself or herself but criminals are less likely to attack them. They help keep the peace."

So you are saying it is better to be 6 times more likely to be mugged than 10-30 times more likely to be shot dead?
Not me, when asked the question your money or your life I know the answer, mayhap that is a British thing eh?

Also BTW crime is on the down in the UK, despite our "Lack" of weapons http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/3667065.stm
gun crime is actually down by 7.4% in London. I think your arguments are spurious at best to be honest. Exactly what you lambast Moore for in fact.

Also might the greater risk of muggin and burglary have something do to with police numbers :-

http://www.economist.com/world/europe/displayStory.cfm?story_id=2447123

Rather than gun ownership?

I think a very valid point made in BFC was that Canadians per capita own as many guns as US-ians. The main difference being *why* Canadians buy their guns. Which is mostly for hunting. It isn't this big fearful 'personal protection' thing that often makes people in the USA buy their guns.

The point Jimster and others have made is also very valid (imo). About the amazing 'fear culture' happening in the US which shows itself everywhere, including in television adverts. The use of fear to sell products is rife there. And I even remember this when I was living in Canada fifteen years ago (much of our television comes from US stations).

I think the most important point of BFC was about the US 'fear culture'. At least this is what struck me most about the film.

az

" Much is made of the higher American rate for murder. That is true and has been for some time. But as the Office of Health Economics in London found, not weapons availability, but "particular cultural factors" are to blame."

From you're own post Mal:

It seems you are slowly catching up.

Farmers do own shotguns in the UK and largely use them for the purpose they are licensed for. The Guns restricted by the law were a certain calibre of weapon others are available.

Lets abandon the Math and concentrate on human lives here. Its hard to kill someone with an air rifle.

Here's a headline I doubt you will ever see: "school girl mows down class mates with BB gun"

What about liberty, which is another of your pet subjects, well you have the lovely patriot act, but still think that guns will keep you safe from federal infringements on your civil liberties.

How about we ditch the "reported" crime rate statistics, because they reflect peoples confidence in the police and their willingness to report crime just as much as actual crime rates. However a body on the slab with bullets in it cant really be miscounted can it.

How many guns did David Koresh have in his compound? Did they save him. Did they keep the federal government out of his home?

Did the armed stand-off contribute to the decision of the paramilitary forces surrounding the home he was in, along with several women and children, to use overwhelming fire power including amongst other methods of attack...fire! To say that the deaths of the innocent people in that building was not down to the craven lust for power that USasians personify in guns and the ready availabiltity of them to both Koresh and the para-militaries is nothing but a self deluding lie.

one love

Bye all. This is getting worse than WWWA.

un

"What I find distasteful is that so-called democracies do exactly what every totalitarian regime does--namely disarm it's own citizens. What a joke. What exactly are they afraid of?"

Why is it some intrinsic constituent part of "Democracy" that citizens should be armed? You consent to democratic rule unless you do not like, in which case you reserve the right to violently overtrow the state? Does not sound like Liberal Democracy to me.

Sorry you feel you have to leave Count, dont think there is any anti Americanism par se here. Just anti the American pro-gun lobby view from me anyhow.

Sorry that should obviously been "some USasians".

Apologies for any offence caused.

"Why is it some intrinsic constituent part of "Democracy" that citizens should be armed?"

It always has been intrinsic to democracy from the Greeks onward, indeed it's usually how democracy is established in the first place. Only in countries where the regime fears the people are the people disarmed. Let's take a country with a relatively low murder rate like say... (completely at random I assure you) England. What exactly is the rationale for disarming the people? For hundreds of years firarms were relatively common place. Is it to bring down the crime level? Not really, I think we can agree on that. Is it because Britons simply are afraid of their neighbours being armed?

Re David Koresh: Yes, mishandled from the start.
Re farmer with shotgun: no, I really couldn't recall the details, I just had a memory of someone shooting an intruder. I work shifts and that was one of those stories that I mostly missed.