Michael Moore

[Blackeagle]

Plawsworth,

You pretty well have the election methods down. And it is possible to win the oval office without a majority of the populer vote. It's happened twice in the nations history. But you should also note that it has to be a very close election for it to happen. Our whole system is set up to insure representation of all. Note that our Senate/House are set up the way they are to insure small states a voice. All our states have 2 senators, but the House is based on population of a state. The election of POTUS using the electoral collage system is intended, in part, to insure that anyone running for that office can't completly disregard smaller states.

One last thought for you on Bush's election. If Al Gore had carried his home state of Tennesee he would have won! ! Florida's outcome would not have mattered. By failure to carry his home state he lost.

[Alchemy]

Originally posted by PlawsWorth
Well, my class studied the presidental election when Bush got elected. If i'm not mistaking myself USA uses the system that if a state has 2million people and 1,1million votes for President A then president A "wins" that state and if he get most states he becomes the president, right? The somewhat obscene thing about that to me is that a president can win loads of states and still have a majority of people who doesn't support him. I don't know how you guys who live in the USA and who has always lived with the system feels about it. But to me it feels more logical that you would count all the votes in all states and the president who has the largest support from the people wins. If I have mistaken myself in the "who to become a president" system works in the USA, please do feel free to correct me.

Close. When a candidate "wins" a state, then that state's electoral votes go to the candidate. So basically a candidate wins 4 points if they win in Tennessee and 6 points if they wind in Florida, for example. States with higher population are "worth more."

(I feel sad, for I know next to nothing about Sweden's government except that women in your royal family are rumored to be incredibly attractive. You are a parliamentary monarchy, right?)

Anyway, this is one of the ways the US government is set up to balance the power of our states with the power of the people in those states. If it was completely based on population, then the states with the highest population would have a very large influence on the government. Thus areas of the country with a huge population and similar ideals - most of New England, California, places like that - would be able to ignore the needs and interests of the rest of the country.

I don't worry too much about statistical analysis in election matters here; it's not like the average American has any idea what he's voting for or is a good judge of political ability, so at best the electoral system is a means of randomly selecting candidates. Those that actually understand the platforms and know the track record of candidates are drowned out by the people who always vote by party or otherwise don't make informed decisions on individual candidates.

I've always thought a republic was the happy medium between a democracy, where minorities have no voice and decisions take forever, and a dictatorship or oligarchy, which operates incredibly efficiently and gives no preference to the majority, but can easily (and almost always does) collapse into fascism.

Alchemy

[nOv1c3]

Originally posted by Blackeagle
Plawsworth,

One last thought for you on Bush's election. If Al Gore had carried his home state of Tennesee he would have won! ! Florida's outcome would not have mattered. By failure to carry his home state he lost.

LMAO I realy loved that part

[Blackeagle]

I have to agree that not all of Nader's ideas are fiscally possible. In recent years many of his ideas are to extreme to find any acceptance. But he has in his life done more for safty of products sold in this country than anyone else I can think of.

And yes that makes him disliked by some (most?) heads of industry.

His low odds of election to office are, IMO, based more on his lack of carisma (sp) and a total inablity to give a public speach with energy and a forcfullness that can motivate people toward his ideas. He's much more likely to put the audiance to sleep. There have been talanted & high energy speakers elected who have done far less for our country (Clinton?).

Agent for the Amish?????? LOL!

[PlawsWorth]

Originally posted by winewood
Anyone making money off the dead children from a tragedy, yet claiming to be an advocate.. is not there for the kids interests. He laughed all the way to the bank, and booed all the way to liberal la la land.

Your view on his film is to me somewhat hard to understand. Since it appears to me that Moore tried to question the extreme needs of firearms, the easy way young people can get firearms etc. I don't hate or like guns since I have never fired a real firearm. But he is trying in my opionon to make people start re-thinking there need of firearms, the storage of them etc. Having them for protection against thieves etc doesn't seem logical for me, cause if the thief is armed, then you are going to have a gun battle in your own home and you can never know how that ends. Risking your life for your family is a good thing, though a baseball bat and a phone is proberly better. Also investing in better locks etc to ensure the thief doesn't get in the house from the first start. But if you are to have a firearm, having in put in a safe, unloaded with the ammunition/magazine at another place should be quite fundamental. Moore also says he is a member of the NRA and he doesn't want to forbid people right to own a gun, it's more that if your ownly reason is to protect yourself in your home, there are better means of doing it and that the right people should have the firearms and a child between 0-15 should be able to get a firearm easiler than he get's milk.

Now if I have been unclear in anyway or if I have spelled some wors wrong, please tell me so. And you might see me as a 5year old child who needs everything explained to understand the world. And don't think for a second that i'm against USA in anyway, i'm just curious on how something works in the USA.

[bigben2k]

Originally posted by PlawsWorth
Having them for protection against thieves etc doesn't seem logical for me

I agree with you, but I can smell BillA coming. I'll let ya'll have fun!

Can't sleep, huh?

[Blackeagle]

Strafe's posted link is a real eye opener, as are some of the links within that article it's self. I havn't read all the links offered for confirmation of his articles points, but the ones I have read are also quite informative.

I thought I knew about Moore's inaccuracys before, I was wrong. I'd known his statements about Canada and the Mi. shooting were wrong. But before reading that article and some of it's links I had no idea the film was so much more misleading and even false.

Thank you Strafe for a very good and imformative article. While the man who authored it has a clear axe of his own over Moore's winning a Oscar, his information is pretty well on target. And considering how many alterations of fact his "documentary" contains I understand his flustration. His film is more propaganda than factual.

[Blackeagle]

Plawsworth,

Firearm ownership in this country is widespread indeed. The reasons for owership are quite varied. The I would guess that most are owned for hunting or target shooting as their primary use, with protection a distant second. I base this on myself and everyone else I know who owns a firearm.

The second amendment of our constitution is often refered to as the amendment that gaurantees all the others. It is the final resort aginst despotic goverment abuse.

[PlawsWorth]

Originally posted by Blackeagle
Plawsworth,

Firearm ownership in this country is widespread indeed. The reasons for owership are quite varied. The I would guess that most are owned for hunting or target shooting as their primary use, with protection a distant second. I base this on myself and everyone else I know who owns a firearm.

The second amendment of our constitution is often refered to as the amendment that gaurantees all the others. It is the final resort aginst despotic goverment abuse.

Ok. I don't know enough people to be sure if the majority uses their firearms for "good" things or "bad" things. But could you please tell me how you storage firearms? Cause a swedish police officer told me a fun story about a visit in USA. She was riding with a sheriff who had to magnum .44 revolvers and ammuntion in his weapons belt (is it called that?) and left in at the drivers seat while the exited the car buy some lunch. She asked him how he dared to leave the revolvers so openly, since she would be charged in Sweden and someone might steal them. He explained that no thief would be so foolish to steal a sheriffs weapon when there is a firearm in every glove compartment (wrongly spelled) in every car. That's not true, but there might be a reason for that "joke". If i'm not mistaken you have the right to wear firearms and concealed if you have license? Over here you may never wear firearms at any place execpt your home and shooting range.

Also, if you are to revolt against an "bad/evil" goverment that has gone mad. Let's say the President starts killing civilians for his own fun or something unlikely. Then the people would do an armed revolt if he wasn't removed by legal means. I believe all people with a fair chance, who lives in a country without secret police forces that kill innocent people would revolt. Then what is the use of a law that allows or disallows firearms? Everyone would try get a firearm no matter if it's legal or not since the police isn't doing their work. And if the president controlls his people so cruel that they can't revolt as in Iraq then a law still doesn't matter cause no one will dare to fight the regim? Maybe i'm being very naive, but the more firearms you have the larger the risk of getting seriously injured is right? Cause when it's easy for everyday guys to get a firearm then how easy isn't it for the criminals?

[PlawsWorth]

Originally posted by Blackeagle
Plawsworth,

You pretty well have the election methods down. And it is possible to win the oval office without a majority of the populer vote. It's happened twice in the nations history. But you should also note that it has to be a very close election for it to happen. Our whole system is set up to insure representation of all. Note that our Senate/House are set up the way they are to insure small states a voice. All our states have 2 senators, but the House is based on population of a state. The election of POTUS using the electoral collage system is intended, in part, to insure that anyone running for that office can't completly disregard smaller states.

One last thought for you on Bush's election. If Al Gore had carried his home state of Tennesee he would have won! ! Florida's outcome would not have mattered. By failure to carry his home state he lost.

Ok, want to start to thank you for clearifying the election system. But as I have heard, i'm far from shure that it's true though, didn't Gore get more votes than Bush, if you count all the votes in the whole USA?

[PlawsWorth]

Originally posted by Strafe
I'm generally someone who looks at both sides of the story, but all in all, I'm a conservative. I always thought that he was waaay liberal but his documentaries were at least things to think about. His behaivor at the Oscars tho, joke or not, was way out of line. And now I see this report where his documentaries are full of distortions, lies and outright fraud...

http://hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html

Then again, I don't know anything about this Hardy guy either.

I have read some parts of the websites text. To me the whole part about if the movie is documentary or not, doesn't consern me since you can discuss that on and off forever and diffrent people have diffrent views on what a documentary is. The Academy has it's own.

On the part that the NRA has set the date years ahead I feel that it's disrespecting to not being able to respect the victims by changning the date/skipping the visit. As for example radio stations feelt after 11/9 that they didn't want to disrespect the tradegy by playing songs that have lyrics that might be upset people who's in great pain. The text also complains on the way NRA is being portrayed. Well you can't show a 4hour NRA rally and 2hours of demonstrations against firearms in a 2hours long movie. All movies, fictional or not uses clips to symbolises diffrent thing. If you are to show a car chase or a murder hunting observing his victim you go between diffrent angels, diffrent clips. That's how movies works, Moore want to make people react and to start thinking in an diffrent way. He choose to do this by exaggerating to get the reaction needed. I believe.
Then there is talk about how many people that dies by gun homicides in diffrent countries. And counting on how many people there are in the USA and how many nr firearms every citizien owns there is a clear fact that many people dies by gun homicides. I don't know the stats on every country in the world, but I know the nr of people who dies in Europe is very low, but there are very few people owning firearms over here. When it comes to how many people that dies in Canada I can't say without making false guessing. But I can only think that it might have to do on how you store your firearms and what you uses them for and how educated you are on them. I don't know for shure what is the reason/reasons for the gun homicides, but firearms, the way people view upon them etc are things that might be apart of the issue. Moore doesn't have the solution or the proof of what is the exact evil behind all. But he trying to bring the question in to the light so people as us and others can discuss it and do research on it to find solutions so that people who want to own firearms can do that and use them for hunting and other sensible purpouses while people can live safely knowing how to keep the firearms away from their childerns and educating them on the dangers with abuse of firearms. And letting the police etc do protection and helping them by protecting herself by more effective and less dangerous means.

Then there are some complains on however people can trust the movie and anyone that firmly believes that every movie that is a "true" documentary is always true should start thinking. Cause every book, article, movie etc is always to a certain degree a personal work and can never be perfect. There will always be mistakes and you can never make a movie that shows every side of the coin and show it correctly. I'm shure you could have made movie from the oposit side that was just as funny and good. But what I like about Bowling For Columbine is that it in and serious and funny way brings up a subject that people seem to ignore and that concern everyone and that is about the most important thing in our lifes, living. Being able to life safely without the risk of 6year olds getting their hands on weapons that can bring death to innocent people.

Now I have written for so long that part's might have been wrongly spelled and somewhat confusing since I might start an teory and end up forgetting what my though was. Also bear in mind english is my second language.

[Blackeagle]

Yes Gore did get more total votes than Bush. But the differance was less than .5%, not sure of just what the fraction was. But Bush won more electoral votes in the electoral collage, so he is the POTUS. It was only the second time in the nations history this has happened.

Firearms are stored differant ways. Best is a gun safe, they are to heavy for a theif to steal and to time consuming to try and force open for most thieves. They also offer a degree of protection from a fire in the home.

A second method is a gun cabinet. This is also lockable, but pretty easy to force open, more for display than securtity.

Third method would involve a hidden lockable storage area built right into a wall. Still most often not as good as a safe, although some are just as good. This could even be a room just for the storage of the firearms in the case of some collectors. This is by far the rarist method used, IMO.

Last and least secure some just store them in a cabinet or closet in the home with the gun inside a case to protect it from damage. I've been in a home where the guns were in a gun "rack" right out in the open, where they could be taken down with ease, no locks ect. at all.

Ammo in my home at least is very seldom with the firearm. They only come togather for near term use. I don't own a handgun which are most often the one someone would keep loaded for defense.

A friend of mine has several handguns. Only one is loaded in the home. But it is inside a specially made steel holding box. The box has a number on "keys" to depress to open it. Pushed in the wrong order the box won't open. And they have to be held down as you dipress them in order. And they are to far apart for a childs hand to reach them all. The idea is that his gun is quickly available to him, and no one else, in case of sudden need. For anyone wanting to keep a loaded firearm in the home this is the best option I've seen. There may be better ones, but I don't know of them.

Most states have no laws mandating how a firearm should be stored. But to leave them ready to hand, and with ammo close by is a huge risk, IMO.

Hope this helps.

edit: My nick on the net is taken from one of my guns. A Benelli Super Black Eagle, a shotgun that I use for both target (trap, skeet & sporting clays) and hunting. When I first got a puter I spent a good deal of time on hunting & shooting sites. Many at those type sites use such nicks. I've just never changed it.

[PlawsWorth]

Originally posted by bigben2k
I agree with you, but I can smell BillA coming. I'll let ya'll have fun!

Can't sleep, huh?

It's hard sleeping when you are both a film-maker, intrested in firearms, "fan" and very curious on USA and it's history and legal systems and way of life. I would sacrifce my left ear to be able to share my thoughts and beliefs and to recieve all of yours from brain to brain, but now since that way of communication isn't possible I have to spend loads of time rebooting my Brain 1.0 O/S so I can start thinking in english and english grammar so that I don't get to much misunderstood. Anyway after a long day at a firestation and to much writing I have to get some sleep now....man I hear the icq voice all the time "Incoming mail" even before I have been able to finish my replies I get a mail about someone that has answered. I'll return tomorrow with some more crazy ideas....

[winewood]

Plawsworth. Alchemy really did spend alot of time writing an elegant and informed response to your statement on our election system. Please re-read it again. It contains more answers, and surely will answer your question if you search it. Remember. Our system of government is a Republic. Not a Democracy.

Having them for protection against thieves etc doesn't seem logical for me, cause if the thief is armed, then you are going to have a gun battle in your own home and you can never know how that ends. Risking your life for your family is a good thing, though a baseball bat and a phone is proberly better. Also investing in better locks etc to ensure the thief doesn't get in the house from the first start.

Plawsworth, if a thief is armed you will always know how it ends. With the thief in control, and your lives of your family at his whim. A baseball bat and phone ensures that any resistance will be me with force.. the guns, and due to the phone the police will know where to find the bodies. Locks?? No. A theif that wants something and has a gun will get past it. Locks dont stop people with guns. At least not in my neighborhood.
I own a gun.. and the only thing more useless is an unloaded gun. If a thief breaks in and your gun is the the safe with a lock on it. How can it serve its purpose? Responsible gun owners keep thier guns in a safe place but don't handicap themselves and defeat its purpose. You shouldn't make gun laws for the majority based on the stupidity of the few.

Blackeagle wrote of the gun lock case with the buttons.. that is the best way imo as well.

[PlawsWorth]

Originally posted by Blackeagle
Yes Gore did get more total votes than Bush. But the differance was less than .5%, not sure of just what the fraction was. But Bush won more electoral votes in the electoral collage, so he is the POTUS. It was only the second time in the nations history this has happened.

Firearms are stored differant ways. Best is a gun safe, they are to heavy for a theif to steal and to time consuming to try and force open for most thieves. They also offer a degree of protection from a fire in the home.

A second method is a gun cabinet. This is also lockable, but pretty easy to force open, more for display than securtity.

Third method would involve a hidden lockable storage area built right into a wall. Still most often not as good as a safe, although some are just as good. This is by far the rarist method used, IMO.

Last and least secure some just store them in a cabinet or closet in the home with the gun inside a case to protect it from damage.

Ammo in my home at least is very seldom with the firearm. They only come togather for near term use. I don't own a handgun which are most often the one someone would keep loaded for defense.

A friend of mine has several handguns. Only one is loaded in the home. But it is inside a specially made steel holding box. The box has a number on "keys" to depress to open it. Pushed in the wrong order the box won't open. And they have to be held down as you dipress them in order. And they are to far apart for a childs hand to reach them all. The idea is that his gun is quickly available to him, and no one else, in case of sudden need. For anyone wanting to keep a loaded firearm in the home this is the best option I've seen. There may be better ones, but I don't know of them.

Hope this helps.

I'm going to bed now, but just a quick question, how old does you have to be to able to buy a pistol and what are the requirements? In Sweden you have to be 18 years old and have a firearms license that cost 40$ and have practiced at a local shooting range with a pistol of the same caliber for at leat 6months, so basically when you are 18years old you join a shooting range club and with the help of some instructor you train with a small .22 pistol fore some time and when you have done that you show your firearms license and buy, let's say a H&K USP Match for 750$.

[winewood]

HK USP match are WELL over $750 US.. almost double that. I know. I have one. But good selection on guns if you get one.

[Blackeagle]

To buy yourself it's 18 in most states. I started shooting at about 8 or 9 as a boy. My father taught us young so we'd know to treat guns with respect, and handle them safly. But for a number of years we were only allowed to handle them under his supervision of course. We were not allowed to hunt until we had proven we could handle a gun safly at all times and stoot it accuratly as well.

This is not unusual in this country, I taught both my daughters at about 12. One shoots target with me, the other has no interest.

[gmat]

Originally posted by winewood
So you are saying in your French way that anyone intelligent will not listen to R. Nader if they are in the "west"?

WTH ? did you read me ?
I said: "Nader [...] seems quite intelligent and open. That ensures him not to be heard by a vast majority, and that's true in any major western country"
I did not say: "anyone intelligent will not listen to R. Nader if they are in the "west""
Seeing how you read things, no wonder you don't understand what i tried to say in other posts...

Originally posted by winewood

I don't appreciate the comments of western stupidity if they don't agree with a canidate of your choosing gmat. And you call westerners arrogant....

Dude, westerners are everyone from Russia to USA, including most EU countries. And we *are* arrogant. And in this specific moment the USA are particularly arrogant...

"western stupidity if they don't agree with a canidate of your choosing gmat."
Which candidate of my choosing ? When did i say someone is stupid ? Hello ? YOU said : "if I said that the intelligent people were in the minority in France right now" -> YOU are saying the French are stupid.

So please keep your insults.

[airspirit]

To buy a rifle, you need to be 18. To buy a pistol, you need to be 21. Possession of said weapons varies from state to state, where in some a 12 year old can walk around with a shotgun publicly, and in some a 45 year old would have to have a permit to do the same thing. Pretty much, though, if kids are getting guns, they are either given to them by family, or they are stolen. If they are given by the family, it is their responsibility to make sure the kid doesn't fsck up. If they are stolen, then the kid most likely is already screwing up, so odds are the gun will be put to bad uses.

The first gun I owned was homemade, and I made it when I was in junior high out of pipe and metal stock. It shot rifle rounds nearly as accurately as my dad's rifle. It took me all of an hour to make it. I finally scrapped it when I started to notice the threads on the cap wearing a bit. I didn't want to lose an eye, hehe.

If guns are outlawed, those that want them can still get them ... and odds are that anyone breaking the law to possess one isn't going to be doing it for a good reason (see above).

[Alchemy]

Originally posted by PlawsWorth
Risking your life for your family is a good thing, though a baseball bat and a phone is proberly better.

Seems more dangerous to me to use a blunt weapon. At least with a gun you can confront with someone and scare them off. If you use a club, it's much more likely that the criminal will overpower you or use a better weapon himself.

Also investing in better locks etc to ensure the thief doesn't get in the house from the first start.

This seems a bit like the "instead of having abortions, use better birth control" argument. Locks don't keep everyone out. I see nothing wrong, in theory, of having a second level of defense.

But if you are to have a firearm, having in put in a safe, unloaded with the ammunition/magazine at another place should be quite fundamental.

It certainly seems like common sense, but the problem with this is that it prevents the use of the weapon as protection. Though I do think all guns should be locked up somehow.

Moore also says he is a member of the NRA and he doesn't want to forbid people right to own a gun, it's more that if your ownly reason is to protect yourself in your home, there are better means of doing it and that the right people should have the firearms and a child between 0-15 should be able to get a firearm easiler than he get's milk.

If the gun owner is an idiot, then yes. Unfortunately, some of them are idiots, and people die. I think the best remedy is some sort of government-required training for handguns. If it's much harder to get handguns, we could at least expect far fewer accidents.

Alchemy

[Alchemy]

Originally posted by PlawsWorth
He explained that no thief would be so foolish to steal a sheriffs weapon when there is a firearm in every glove compartment (wrongly spelled) in every car.

This is more an example of police incompetence than any sort of collective US opinion on gun ownership. I think everyone knows if you leave a gun somewhere visible it will probably be stolen.

If i'm not mistaken you have the right to wear firearms and concealed if you have license?

That's a state's jurisdiction. In most states, you can carry a concealed weapon with a permit. There are usually places you cannot carry these, such as hospitals, malls, and other very public areas, even with a permit. There are some states that only issue permits to people with a stated need for a gun, such as bail bondsmen or bodyguards. There are some states you can keep a gun in your glovebox and others where you cannot. I have heard of some cities that outlaw concealed weapons entirely and others that outlaw all handguns.

Some people have been trying to get around the "concealed weapon" law by using holsters that skirt the legal definition of holser and having the gun unloaded and magazine located in a way that it may be easily loaded and ready to fire. I'm not sure what the courts have said on that, and last I heard about such events was about a year ago.

So far as I know, guns are legal to own and keep in one's home in every state in the US, subject to some restrictions.

Also, if you are to revolt against an "bad/evil" goverment that has gone mad. . . .

I think that was the original intent, and seemed like a good idea in the 1780s. But America is already disarmed. Look at our military, for God's sake. If Bush suddenly declared himself dictator and the Army went with him, the 50 million handguns in this country wouldn't make a damn difference. If people honestly wanted the American populace to be armed to the point where they could revolt if necessary, they'd be lobbying for the right to bear tanks, RPGs, bombers, thermonuclear warheads, etc. Actually, I'll bet people are serious about that.

It's a good idea in theory to have the public armed to prevent fascism. But not in practice. Since we've not had an overthrow* in this country since King George tried to make us pay more taxes than we cared for, it's difficult for most of us to contemplate what it takes to actually overthrow a government.

Alchemy

*The Civil War was a secession, or more accurately a group of states fighting against the Federal government - one government against another. The Ruby Ridge incident and similar ones were something less than overthrows.

[Alchemy]

Originally posted by PlawsWorth
[b]I have read some parts of the websites text. To me the whole part about if the movie is documentary or not, doesn't consern me since you can discuss that on and off forever and diffrent people have diffrent views on what a documentary is. The Academy has it's own. [/q]

Well, the problem is that most filmmakers try very had to make informative films about very boring things, and they can't possibly compete with a piece that is entertaining and provocative but not educational.

But then again, I can't argue with the Academy. I'm a huge fan of domestic and international film (sadly, I've never seen a Swedish movie), but didn't bother to watch the Oscars.

As for the statistics on gun deaths, that was the part of the movie Moore lost me. He gave raw numbers on gun deaths, when even the worst journalist should know it means nothing unless it's per capita.

*Of course* Germany has fewer gun deaths than the US. We outnumber then almost ten times over. Tell me what percentage of people die of guns, because only that number is useful. It's not like that would be *less* shocking to me.

Moore doesn't have the solution or the proof of what is the exact evil behind all. But he trying to bring the question in to the light so people as us and others can discuss it . . .

He was. In fact, I'm almost sure he had good intentions. He's a bit of a nutcase, I think, and he has the journalistic integrity (and demeanor) of a stand-up comedian. But I think he is sincere, and a good filmmaker. He had a very clever idea and he was very persuasive in displaying it.

His problem is that he does not do research and he manipulates facts to tell a better story. I haven't forgiven Disney for doing so in its early nature shows (like making about 5 billion people think very seriously that lemmings run off cliffs) and I won't forgive Moore either.

Alchemy

[Skulemate]

Originally posted by Alchemy
As for the statistics on gun deaths, that was the part of the movie Moore lost me. He gave raw numbers on gun deaths, when even the worst journalist should know it means nothing unless it's per capita.

I seem to remember that even on a per capita basis the US rate was higher than Canada's by an order of magnitude or so.

[Blackeagle]

Crime stats are really a whole differant area.

Yes the US has a pretty high number of muders per year. Even when taken as per capita. But are the guns the reason for this? IF so then why do the Swiss have such extremely low numbers of murders? Many Swiss have their fully auto armed forces weapons in their homes, yet very low homicide rates. Britian has some of the most restrictive gun laws in all the world, but a higher murder rate than the Swiss, why?

Could it be it has more to do with the overall context of the society where the murders happen? The enviroment a person is in has a huge effect on a individual, and how he will react.

Sadly the US murder rate is high. But not just firearms murders. Murder with a knife, ball bat, pipe, auto, poisons .......... or guns are all criminal acts. And where premeditated murders are concerned the killer would just use a differant method if unable to get a gun. Murders commited in the heat of the moment, or acts of rage, might be reduced if a gun were not in the home. But on the other had a butcher knife is also deadly.

I really got into this subject some time back, and was surprised at some of the stats I found. In the end what I have come to beleive is that the enviroment in which a person is living and was raised in has more to due with tendencies toward violence than any other factor.

[PlawsWorth]

Originally posted by Alchemy
Close. When a candidate "wins" a state, then that state's electoral votes go to the candidate. So basically a candidate wins 4 points if they win in Tennessee and 6 points if they wind in Florida, for example. States with higher population are "worth more."

(I feel sad, for I know next to nothing about Sweden's government except that women in your royal family are rumored to be incredibly attractive. You are a parliamentary monarchy, right?)

Anyway, this is one of the ways the US government is set up to balance the power of our states with the power of the people in those states. If it was completely based on population, then the states with the highest population would have a very large influence on the government. Thus areas of the country with a huge population and similar ideals - most of New England, California, places like that - would be able to ignore the needs and interests of the rest of the country.

I don't worry too much about statistical analysis in election matters here; it's not like the average American has any idea what he's voting for or is a good judge of political ability, so at best the electoral system is a means of randomly selecting candidates. Those that actually understand the platforms and know the track record of candidates are drowned out by the people who always vote by party or otherwise don't make informed decisions on individual candidates.

I've always thought a republic was the happy medium between a democracy, where minorities have no voice and decisions take forever, and a dictatorship or oligarchy, which operates incredibly efficiently and gives no preference to the majority, but can easily (and almost always does) collapse into fascism.

Alchemy

"it's not like the average American has any idea what he's voting for" this is exactly, if you are to exaggerate, what many Europeans think about americans, you seems abit careless some times. Though, I myself get very angry over other people's views, I always respect them. But what can be both fun and very annoying is when you watch american movies and the swedish or scandinavian person are super blonde and speak german with an danish accent or when comedians say that we have the highest succide rate in the world. Which is very far from the truth, I don't remember the exact numbers, but we have a very "normal" succide rate. I don't ask every hollywood filmmaker to know everything about all the countries in the world. But sometimes you start to question yourself if they been on dope when writing the script. When you see a american character in a swedish movie, they are often played by a real american and they don't speak english with canadian accent. Anyway, that was just a thought I wanted to share.