As you've probably gathered from previous posts, I'm a gun owner and I support the Second Amendment. There are, of course, times when I wonder if that's a mistake. It's hard to justify gun ownership after a mass murder like Columbine or Luby's takes place. Not to say that people don't cite all sorts of reasons for ownership after a tragedy like that, it's just that the anti-gunners have an advantage, because they can play up the emotional aspects of the situation. ("What are you, a monster?! You still support guns after THIS?!")

Regardless, I watched Bowling For Columbine with an open mind, and it was very entertaining. The problem was, Moore's narrative seemed unfocused, and it tended to wander. I wasn't sure at times what point he was making. I knew, though, that he'd eventually blame guns for all our ills. He did.

He pointed out that plenty of other countries have the same cultural influences as ours--bloody movies and video games, inciteful music like Marilyn Manson, histories of violence--yet the murder rate in these other countries is tiny. What's the difference between those countries and the U.S.? Well, guns, of course.

But then Moore seems to contradict himself. He visits Canada, interviews a bunch of natives, and points out that, even though they have plenty of guns, they don't shoot each other very often.

What?

Wait, doesn't that disprove his point? Lots of gun, but very little gun-related crime.

You lost me, Mike.