*DAMN R6 Forum

Just wanted to touch on something from a while back.  Bucc has often said, if the quality of life is better in Europe (as I've stated with support from the UN), why are the suicide rates higher.  He maintains that suicide is an indication of quality of life.  I'd like to disagree and propose that suicide in this case is an indication of spirtuality.  The US is much more religious than most of Europe.  The more religious someone is the more they would fear the damnation that comes with suicide acording to most Christian interpretation.  As Europe doesn't have as much of this, they just have less hesitations about suicide.  They aren't killing themselves because they have a worse quality of life, they are killing themselves because they have some sort of issue and less holding them back from doing it.

Another thing to dispute that suicides are tied with poor quality of life.  Most suicides that I've heard of have more to do with mental illness than social hardship.  As such many of the people committing suicide are in middle class standing with fine quality of life.

These two things together make me strongly question the use of suicide to claim that the US has higher quality of life.

Yes, but if their lack of religion/spirituality leads them to a place where they beleive suicide is their only option, that lack would have subtracted from their quality of life, wouldn't it?

Religion doesn't always contribute to someone quality of life, but it does generally give someone a feeling of belonging or place in this world. Without that, quality of life would degenerate, along with ones mood/happiness level. That's not saying you can't be happy without religion. Just that many religious people are comfortable knowing that there's a why for everything.

Bah, it's probably just because most of the Euros (cough *frenchies* cough) have a definite lack of testicular fortitude. Suicide is a rather vagina way to get out of a shitty situation.

I also dont think that the Europeans have that as many psychological institutions as we do.

You know, I never see the outrage for your bigoted comments, yet when Bander makes them people are all over him.

But Capt.  Religion isn't a technical quality of life factor in such that it would go into a decision of which nation has higher quality of life.  It may indeed make people less prone for depression or whatnot, but it isn't really related to living standards.

My guess it's it's the language barrier.  Ace's bigotism is actually a little funny, whereas Bander's would be more funny to you if you were more familiar with his culture.  Either way, it's not the best attitude for anyone - but that's a subjective judgement.  My guess is that neither Bander nor Ace feel the way they say publicly about EVERY Frenchman or American.  If they do, I've seriously overestimated them both.  It may be true that a majority of each race is just as described though.  

On to the topic - Suicide is, in my belief, almost always an irrational thing to do.  That should be apparent enough to those of us who aren't contemplating it at the moment.  Thus it doesn't really make sense to apply a logical comparison of quality of life, or religous devotion, to someone who is forswearing everything.  Life is immaterial - it doesn't matter any more, so it isn't really a factor.  Maybe there's something about European life that leads more people to think irrationally, but suicide itself is something you can't rationalize.

Not a technical, but it does have a great deal to do with the mood of a person. Same with relationships, breakups, family deaths, etc. I guess it more improves their mood than their quality of life.

While illogical, I would actually say it's pretty ballsy to kill yourself. Either you have complete confidence in an afterlife, you are willing to risk it, or you are so reckless you don't care what happens after you die. If someone committing suicide has actually seriously contemplated these options,<SARCASM> I'm impressed at the amazingly large size of the testicles they must have, since courage is a purely male phenomenon and there is no way that females could ever have any, the fucking whores.</SARCASM>

Killing yourself is spineless, regardless of whatever Race, Religion, or Creed the person is. Suicide is for those who can no longer cope with life's issues so they pick the easy way out and kill themselves.

The only "suicide" that I would ever condone is of the terminally ill who have nothing to live for and have the express support of their extended family.

There are two angles to suicide and courage, firstly there's the fact that you've gotta be pretty brave to actually do it, I'd be too god damn scared to do it, maybe my testicles are just too small. Then the other angle is that if you commit suicide, you've not been brave enough to meet your problems in life face to face...

Back to what Bondo said, I don't think you can generalize that there are more suicides in Europe than in the US, take Sweden, we don't have that many suicides per capita here. Also it has to do with cultures, some cultures accept suicide more than other, for example the Japanese with the feudalistic tradition of commiting Harakiri when you've lost your honor... I'd say the Japanese have a pretty god damn high quality of life generally.

Well, Bucc was the one generalizing Europe as higher before, and it is indeed true that most of the other developed countries have higher suicide rates (but when you add homicides in the US is ahead...that is the chart I got my information for before).  Given there was some discrepincies in what nations were listed.  But yes, the Japanese example is certainly valid.  The near acceptance of suicide makes it much less of a risk.

Anyway, I still take great issue with Ace and Sin.  Suicide is mostly a issue of mental illness.  To make fun of those who commit suicide for being cowards you are making fun of those with mental illness.  I find that sickening.

Tasty, I'd say those that kill themselves either think they will go to a good place dispite killing themselves, or they think there is no afterlife, if there is no punishment, then why not end the pain that is life.  The only people that I would see are the ones that believe they go to hell if they commit suicide.  Those would be the heavily religious ones.

Either way, I think it's been confirmed by most of you that, regardless of what your view of those committing suicide is, it doesn't really have much to do with quality of life and can't really be used to make an argument that one country is better than another in quality of life.

Oh, I did not intend for it to sound like all the people who commited suicide were mentally sane.

Well I find it sickening that someone would take their life just because life isn't going well for them. That is an extreme act of cowardice as it is nothing more than sticking your tail between your legs and running from life. There are a lot of people who have real problems and a lot of them don't off themselves because they don't think they can handle it.

Lol that's the funniest thing I have ever heard Bondo. Why do you think so? I would say it is the opposite. The US is only more patriotic but that's obviously something different.

Furthers I think you have to examine which people commit suicide and at which age? I.e. many guys in Austria commit suicide when they are in the Army - not because the Army is that bad - because it gives them a chance to commit suicide.

All in all I would say you can't predict who commits suicide and why simply because suicide is a phenomenon that happens in all classes at almost all ages.

Bye,

Mauti

That is such a stupid statement, suicides are almost always the long term effects of deep depressions, problems in life might trigger the depression but you can't say it's because of cowardice or lack of courage to stand up to your problems.

"The US is much more religious than most of Europe."

um. no. furthermore, the actual worship in europe is very devout, whereas in america, as a whole, it is not.

Just because it is a long term problem doesn't make at any less cowardly. Suicide is taking your life because there is something causing you too much grief or pain. Rather than face that grief or pain head on, you take your life so you don't have to deal with it anymore. That sounds pretty damn cowardly to me.

However, you also generalize America, perhaps in greater amounts than bucc does other places... so i don't think this is much of an issue. Everyone generalizes..
Well, for one most of the people who post on here anymore are american, that may have something to do with it. Also, banders comments are, sadly, more inflammatory imo. Yes Ace makes cracks about the french here and there, similar to the americans being fat thing (which everyone has come to overlook now for the most part) but bander's comments tend to be a bit more offensive, or at least the ones i've seen. Recently he told me to eat shit or something, that wasn't cool.


anyway, generally about suicide, i can see both sides. I used to think suicide was noble and if i wanted to do it, it was my life and my choice. Over time I grew out of it and even though I still believe it is a matter of opinion and choice, it is in some way wrong. By killing yourself and your presence in the world around you, you've taken something away from the people you currently know, and the people you would have known. I won't say it's spineless because I don't believe that's the right way to approach it, and you can't really catagorize the act because everybody has their reasons.. but i see aces reasons for saying it. In america we have relatively good standards of life yet we have a higher suicide rate than that in third world, suffering countries. You would think people there would feel the need to escape the pain more than we would, but I think our socities have made suicide more acceptable somehow. People in other countries feel the need to live on and survive, whereas life and preservation has been devalued in more developed countries/areas such as the US and Europe. We need more work ethic and family values.

Anyone interested in this topic should read foucalt.. really good stuff about suicide.

Cookie, he told you to eat Burger King I think.  But Ace isn't insulting anyone here in particular.  Bander is insulting Americans, you're American, and thus you're more offended than you would be over someone bashing a Frenchman.

Frankly, what is the point of all this?  You're dead.  Who cares if you're a coward or fool or role-model for your actions?  If you kill yourself, that's it.  No more you.  Period.  End of story.  Forget the epilogue, it doesn't matter.  That's why, to a logical person, it seems exceedingly pointless.  For most people, they'll be gone in 70 or so years anyway, what's the rush?

Oh, and to douf - it depends a lot on where you are in USA or Europe.  Here in the Bible Belt we have plenty of evangelical freaks, errrm, I mean devout people. . .whereas parts of Europe can be quite heathen.  (and vice versa)

Specifically, he told me to take my fat ass to burger king and eat shit. and yeah, i mentioned the whole being american thing playing a factor, but i don't think thats the only reason i find bander offensive. I mean sure, the things ace says sometimes would be mildly, at best, offensive to a french person. it's mostly ha ha small testicle jokes or something, things that have existed pre war times (only recently they've been revived). They're as common as europeans sayign americans are fat, or lazy.. something of the like. While these things are mildly nationalistic/xenophobic, whatever, bander kind of goes beyond that, disregarding the fact im american. He's beyond ace's nationalist wisecracks, he's downright militant and severely anti american. if he came on the forums and started talking about how he hated israel, etc.. i'd likely have the same appalled reaction.

Don't fucking generalize so much, take Sweden, we're one of the most secularized countries in the world. You can't take Sweden into the same generalization as for example Italy.

How can it be cowardly if you're depressed, when you're depressed you lose touch with reality... you really need to read up on depression and suicide, that is such an ignorant opinion.

I'd say that it does take courage to live through mental illness, but that doesn't mean to commit suicide is some particular lack of courage, and as has been mentioned, it is in some way couragous as well.  But Ace, the reason I think your comments are creul and inappropriate are because you don't understand those affected.

I probably understand it more than you guys would think. I was very close to someone who was depressed for a long time. "Clinically" depressed. From all that I have seen, it is something, given willpower, that you can overcome.  You are not forced to live with it, you can get out of it if you have the strength. Thus, for anyone for whom it gets so bad that they must kill themselves, it is an act of cowardice and a sign of total weakness.

All of us here have real problems and stresses we deal with everyday. We get through it because we know it is just something we have to do. Taking the easy way out is just that: an "easy" way to "solve" your problems by not facing them.

Again I must say that that is a totally ignorant statement, being depressed means that you have little to no willpower, that's kind of what being depressed is all about. This is also why you need help to overcome it, sometimes you overcome it over time but it's just the nature of the sickness, it comes and passes even in it's 'heavier' forms. You being a friend to someone who was 'clinically' depressed, doesn't mean that you know everything or even anything about it.

Everyone is more or less stressed in this society and when you become depressed, you lose your grip. It's not about things being easy to solve or not, even lighter problems can lead to depression, someone living a perfectly normal and healthy life with no significant problems can become depressed in one form or another, again, it's the nature of the sickness.

I've posed that question.  And yes, I think it is one of the indications of the quality of life.  


The first thing you base your opinion on is a huge assumption.  I really wouldn't agree with that assumption.  What are you basing that off of?  First of all, Catholics, not Christians have that damnation point of view, and last stats I saw, Europe still had many many more catholics then America.  So where are you basing that.  Remember, this isn't about separation of church and state, but just about the public being spiritual.


As I just said, that's a very specific Catholic point of view.  Not Christian.  


Your next assumption is that the "some sort of issue" isn't an indicator of worse quality of life.  You seem to be using your conclusion to support your conclusion.  

Now add that to you saying they have less holding them back.  Well, maybe the less holding them back isn't their  fear of damnation, but maybe it's just not being happy with their lives?  I mean, we have plenty of non-christians and non-catholics here in America, are their suicide rates that much higher then the christians?

Now that's a number that would lend at least some credibility to your argument.  Most of our nations aren't built upon a church or faith, so if you think that's what it is, look at the USA, and see if there is a great, huge difference between christians and other faiths (or non-faith) groups per capita.  That could sway my opinion some to this assumption at least.


Wow, so many assumptions to work through.  Give me some stats, please.  Not only are you assuming that more are BECAUSE (cause and effect) of mental illness, but, and here's where it gets good.  You think that the middle class guy that off's himself should be satisfied with his quality of life, so much so that it's out of the question that he's not.  That again is using your conclusion to support your conclusion.

You can't say that a middle class man, that off's himself due to his life situation can't do it because he has too good a quality of life to think not.  Only he can say that's why he's doing it.  You are just restating your opinion, and using that to justify your opinion.

Kami, as for cowardice, I understand depression.  I've seen it in my mother, and I've seen it in people that have off'd themselves.  But, first, I think it's an over used term.  I think too many people blame it for their actions (there is a huge difference between being depressed and clinical depression, and the word is used to cover both).  Second, even with depression, it doesn't change the fact that it's cowardly.  That it lacks courage.  

My mother suffers from depression.  But not full out clinical depression, where her judgment is no longer sound.  She's on medication for it, but it's still no excuse for suicide.  If she were to take her own life, I'd say it was cowardly of her too.  

Bucc, having been a Christian, I know that even Protestant churches consider suicide a sin.

Also, quality of life ISN'T subjective.  A middle class person by having money for food, shelter, healthcare, etc. they have a quality of life absolutely higher than those that don't have those things.  You act like quality of life is just an indication of if someone is happy with their life.

Also, as someone already posted, suicide rates are lower in third world countries where they have horrible quality of life.

All I'm saying is that there is little to no correlation between quality of life and suicide, and the various arguments made here show that there are so many other issues that you can't consider suicide rates are a support for the US having better quality of life.

No, we didn't all provide documented stats on everything, but get a life and post elsewhere if you want those.  I noticed many others here making claims with no support, yet I don't see you posting like this in response to them.  Just get a fucking life already.

Ace, you have a friend that suffers from depression.  Whoop de fucking do, I have a...me, who suffered from depression as a result of my anxiety disorder (which I'm medicated for).  I know what it is like.  I've never been suicidal per se but I know what it is like to be so low that you think about whether you want to live.  What I find problem is the concept that life is a battle that you must fight and to give up the fight is cowardly.  Life isn't a battle, it is just life...it ends.  It is no more or less cowardly to have it end at one point or another for one reason or another.  The only thing bravery and cowardly apply to is life.  It is brave to fight a war, it is cowardly to not stand up for what you believe.  It isn't cowardly to kill yourself.

Suicide is not considered a mortal sin by the Baptist Church, or the Church of Jesus Christ, the two I attended as a child.  They still hold funerals, still bless the spirit and send it to heaven (in their words).  I've also been to the funeral of a Lutheran suicide.  It was in the church.  If it was a mortal sin (as Catholics believe), the priest can't give rights, and the body can't be buried in holy ground.  The Catholics believe it is a mortal sin, one that cannot be forgiven.  So, what you know doesn't jive with what I know.


It is subjective.  Quite subjective.  I can have money, food, shelter, and feel that my government is oppressive, that I'm not given enough freedoms or liberty.  You and I could have exactly the same income, house, etc, and I can feel completely differently about the quality of life.  Hell, look at you, you find the overall quality of life better in Canada, no matter how much you make.  Go fucking figure.  It so very much is subjective, when it involves the choice we make.  And suicide is a choice.


In a word.  SUBJECTIVE. They could very well feel that their quality of life isn't bad enough to kill themselves over.  

How many third world countries have you been to Bondo?  Are you telling me the people aren't happy?  Can't be happy?  Or that their happiness doesn't reflect upon quality of life?  Because you seem to be measuring quality of life only as food, shelter and money.  If that were the case, how could the USA with it's GNP not rank highest?


I've seen no argument here that shows they aren't connected.  I've just seen you repeating your opinion in support of your opinion on it.  You started this thread as a challenge to my position, so challenge it, don't just keep calling it wrong.  Show some proof.


LOL.  You didn't provide anything.  Just get a fucking education.  Learn about cause and effect and the scientific method, please.  Hell, I even point out to you the statistics that really make sense in YOUR argument.

Why am I directing my comments only at you?  Get over yourself.  I posted to both you and Kami, the only two that are really posting in opposition to my stance (which is where this all started).  

Even Mauti told you how off base you were on the Americans being more religious then Europeans comment.  Bondo, learn to admit when you have something wrong, it would make this the friendlier place you claim to want it to be.

I think one problem is that you're looking at different measures of quality of life.  There's satisfaction - the subjective feeling a person has about their life.  There's also the statistic, which takes into account GNP (monetary issues) as well as health care, job availability, and the like.  

Congratulations, you're both right.  (gasps)

Bucc, I never said what type of sin suicide was, just that it was a sin in all Christian faiths that I know of.

Once again, you mix quality of life and enjoyment of life which are two distinct thing.  Like I said, quality of life is a measure of the tangible comfort provided at the mean income.  And Canada at the mean income has higher quality of life than does the US.  So says the UN which is the most difinitive source for this comparison.

And Bucc, if you actually would get over YOURSELF and read this thread, there are many reasonable arguments against using suicide rates as a measure of quality of life.  And while Mauti said my claim about religion in Europe was wrong, Kami said it wasn't...and remember I didn't make an absolute statement about Europe.  So why should I admit I'm wrong when I've not been shown that my statement is wrong.

The thing about religion and such is that in the US, you have to say that you are a believing christian to even have a chance of being voted for senator, let alone for president. In Europe no one would ask a question revolving what philosophy they followed. It's just not relevant here.

Oh and I'm sure that we have a lot of religious people in the catholic countries to the south but up in the north, there are not a lot of people going to church. Just as I believe that there are more christians in the American bible belt and fewer up on the east or west coast...

Hmm...
I guess I fail to see how the term "quality of life" must be applied solely to someone's tangible possessions and income.  Perhaps I'm mistaken, but I always thought the quality of someone's life was a matter of subjective opinion, and not something that a numerical value can be slapped onto based on how much money they make every year, or whether they drive a Honda Civic or a Lamborghini.  I know that when I state that the quality of my life is excellent, it's certainly not because I'm rich (because I'm not), and if I had all the money in the world I don't feel I would necessarily have a higher quality of life.  Can a rich person not feel they have a poor quality of life?  Why not?

I guess it's all in how you define "quality of life"...and my definition is definitely not the same as yours.

Another thing.  If your idea of someone's quality of life is exclusively dependent on their wealth and possessions, wouldn't that render your initial argument incorrect?  If that's your idea of "quality of life", wouldn't the US have the highest quality of life based on its GNP, as Bucc suggested in an earlier post?  Your definition doesn't sit well with the arguments you based this entire thread upon.  Either you have severe holes in your logic, or perhaps you changed your definition of the term midway through the thread for some reason.

I hate to assume (and Bucc, by all means correct me if I'm wrong), but it seems as though Bucc's interpretation of "quality of life" varies from your own in the same way mine does...wouldn't, then, the challenge of Bucc's opinion that caused you to start this thread be pretty much moot?  If you have differing ideas about what the very thing you are arguing about even means, I seriously doubt you are going to achieve much of anything here.

Suppose for a moment, Bondo, that the term "quality of life" was directly determined by someone's satisfaction with their life, instead of by their paycheck.  Would you still disagree that suicide can be result of a poor quality of life?  If yes, I'd love to hear your reasoning.

No, you didn't say which type, you just gave the definition of a mortal sin (being damned to hell for all time).  So, like I said, it's Catholics that have that real fear (if they are devout and agree with the church), not Christians.  Christians believe that suicide can be forgiven (meaning they will not burn in hell).  Sorry if you didn't know the difference between a sin and a mortal sin.  But you sure projected Christians to believe they were going to burn in hell for all time because of suicide, and that just isn't correct.


And again I say that enjoyment of life is a subset of quality of life.  That liberties are important, but still subjective.  You can keep spouting a UN report all you want, since it absolutely has no bearing on what I am saying.  This whole thing started when I said I don't agree with that rag, because it didn't take into account the subjective nature.  So for you to keep pulling that as your evidence is ridiculous, to say the least.


Actually, Kami has only spoken about Sweden, and now Northern Europe.  Not all of Europe.  Or, are you changing the rules again and saying that's what you meant when you said "Europe"?  When you take Europe as a whole, they are very religious people.  Man, think about including East Europe even.  WOW.

You, are still a dumbass Bondo.  Like I said, if you want to find some proof (and it is you accusing me of being wrong in this tread) of religions effect on it, look at one nation.  You are trying to compare many nations, with many differences, and attribute the difference to one source.  You'll never, ever be able to prove anything that way.  Scientific Method.  You have to eliminate the other variables.

This is the same reason that your UN "less homicide with strict gun control" stats don't apply.  Because you are looking at countries that have so many differences in them, and ignoring the ones that just don't fit your reasoning.  To see if strict gun control really works, there have to be no other variables.  So, look at countries that have changed the laws, in either direction, and look at rates in those countries for both before and after.  That's what I did.  And guess what, I showed studies where violent crime (homicide, rape, etc) went up in the countries and states that banned or had strict controls, and down in states (no information on countries could be found) that had more liberal gun laws (i.e. more people could carry them in public).  Those are telling stats.  

Again Bondo, you just try to find facts and stats that support your conclusion, you don't use them to actually develop your conclusion.  Typical for you.

Bucc, you just can't defend the American gun laws, they're rediculous imo. Also I agree to that there are many other variables such as the American culture, which seems to have many aspects based on fear...

Also on the quality of life topic, I'd say you should talk about the median citizen and not about the average.

<sarcasim>thanks for that completely unjaded point of view Kami</sarcasim>

What you really don't get Kami is I'm not telling you the USA is a better place for you.  If you are happy where you are at, that's great for you.  You should be there.  I'm not trying to convince you this is a better place.

You though, keep taking jabs at America.  You sure seem to be saying Sweden is a better place.  You don't like guns, great, live some place that doesn't have them.  Great, you do.  I think guns are ok.  Great, I live some place that does have them.  

Tell me what the fuck is wrong with that stance?  It's you and Bondo that are on the kick about why Europe is better.  And, like I've always said, if that's what you think, you should live there.  But you should not try to convince me it's better, because I HAVE LIVED THERE, and I like America better.  It's subjective.  I find liberty more important then you.  Great.  You find social welfare more important then me.  Fantastic.  None of it is ridiculous, as you claim gun laws are.  The only thing that is ridiculous is you and Bondo trying to tell others Europe is better.

That's been my point all along.

By the way, I want to add how disappointing it is for me to see such a closed minded and ignorant statement by you Kami.  That's as closed minded and dismissive as it gets.

It is my experience that the American culture has many aspects based on fear, I guess you could say the source of that opinion is Mr. Moore mostly, but that does not make it incorrect even though I guess he might be a bit radical on some other matters. I like trying to see things objectively, of course it's hard to do so for anyone but I try atleast, and I don't think that liberty should be about the right to own a gun. Because absolute liberty is anarchy.

I'd be glad to live in the US because I think it's a great country, I just point out the flaws I see.

So, you form your opinions based only upon the opinions of others.  No first hand knowledge or experience of your own?

So, what fears are my life based upon?  Let me know?  I really want to know what it is that I'm afraid of.


There was absolutely nothing objective about your former statement about US gun laws.  Completely closed minded.

Absolute liberty may (and I don't agree completely) be anarchy, but liberty was one of the cornerstones of this society.  People forget that.  Many, most even, of the people that immigrated to the USA from the 15th century on, did so for the liberty.  Be it religious, governmental, or any other oppression.  This country was built on the doctrine of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.  Other countries have different feelings on it, and that's really good for them.  There should be diversity in it.  But I'm for a country with more liberties.  And will fight to keep the spirit of those liberties alive and kicking.  And that includes guns, along with many, many other things.

I guess you're right, I shouldn't just rely on what Moore says, I'll read up on it a bit more and answer later when I'm a bit more enlightened. You should go see bowling for columbine if you haven't already, you might not agree with it but I'm sure you'll find it interesting.

Just because a country was founded on something doesn't mean it has to follow it to death, for example, Sweden was founded as a kingdom closely connected to Christianity, look what it is today.

Call me crazy, call me a coward, call me whatever, but I see suicide as a perfectly acceptable and viable manner of escape.  I don't excuse someone for committing suicide, as often it puts a great burden on others, but I don't see it as cowardly either... simply unorthodox, I suppose.

More importantly, you should visit and see for yourself.

Michael Moore is a local boy for me.  His first big movie was all about Flint (Roger & Me).  He chose to follow around a guy foreclosing on properties, show a woman that sells and eats rabbits.  Basically, to show things in the most extreme light possible.  Not the average or mean, but the most extreme cases.  

Further, he's pretty much a socialist.  His beef with Roger Smith centered on the fact that GM didn't concentrate on creating jobs (in Flint) but used it's profits to purchase other companies (which it grew, but which Moore ignored).  He also failed to mention that an 18 year old kid, without a high-school diploma made more working for GM as a UAW employee, sweeping the floor, then the entry level designer with a college degree (still the case, btw).

I was here when he filmed Roger & Me, so I saw it first hand for what it was like here.  And how slanted his view was.  Sure, mines slanted too, but I'm not advertising Flint as the new mecca either.

So, I take that, and the snippets I read from "Bowling for Columbine", and decided it just wasn't worth the time.  Like I said before, showing gun related deaths across different countries only incites a visceral, emotional reaction.  It doesn't mean that much alone.  You have to look at more then just that.  You have to look at areas that have change the laws, in both directions, and see what happened.  Like violent crime rising pretty universally where guns were restricted/banned.  Live violent crime and gun related deaths being much lower where CCW permits are handed out liberally.  Moore ignores those facts, and plays for the theatrics of it.  

Also, his editing of Charlton Heston in the movie makes him sound as bad as that liberal girl from PY's sound-bite.  

So no, I treat Michael Moore like I do Rush Limbaugh.  They both fall into the same category as far as I'm concerned.  

The movie doesn't just show that the gun laws are to blame, I still think you should see it, I think it concludes to more than just the gun part... I see myself as a pretty social liberal for the record. Average Swede :)

Kami, I don't know if the movie blames guns or not, I've just seen some snippets from it.  What I was trying to say is that I've seen Moore twist the perspective to just bring out worst of the other point of view all too often in the past.  

Asking me to see that is like asking you to watch a documentary by Rush Limbaugh.  I don't know about you, but I can only take either one of those guys in small doses.