I think parenting in the U.S. is way out of whack, as is, due to how litigious our society has become, the ability of anyone from outside a family to step in (e.g., teachers, administrators, community leaders, organization organizers, or what have you) and maybe prevent some of this kind of stuff. Instead we’ve got things like zero tolerance laws that end up having kids suspended from school because they were playing with squirt guns, or making model rockets out of potato chip canisters (missiles, you know), or 6-year olds being charged with drug possession for bringing candy to school to share. And while I find those sorts of laws and their enforcement stupid, I can almost understand the need for them – since a school administrator or teacher who disciplines a child with something as simple as detention these days can be sued for any of a variety of things by that child or his/her parents, and probably lose. Personally, I admire any teacher who’s sticking it out in our current society, hoping to make a change. Of course, it’s tough to be a parent too – I mean, kids can now go back and sue you for having spanked them.

But once again, we’ve strayed far from the point I was originally trying to make, which I don’t know if you’ve missed, despite my repeating it, or just don’t agree with. At no time did I say that the two filmmakers shouldn’t be presenting their views, or, for much of what both of them have presented, do I disagree with their conclusions. My point is, was, and will be, that I think they could have made their case MORE powerful by having their films be more balanced. Preaching to the choir, as it were, it doesn’t matter, and you’re clearly a member of the choir. Preaching to those who aren’t members, requires, in my view, showing them both sides of an issue and then showing them why your side makes more sense.

As to the latter part of your comment. Let’s see, yes, GM left many people without jobs when they closed their plant in Flint. On the other hand, having grown up in that area and watched repeated strikes, often violent, by auto workers demanding more benefits and money – when essentially their unskilled laborers were making $20-30 an hour plus medical, dental, vacation, etc. – in the 1960s and 1970s – I can understand the business perspective of deciding to go for a labor market elsewhere, even if GM’s high-handed approach sucked. Are gun makers bad? Debatable. Gun users, in general, I’d say yes. And, obviously, if there were no major suppliers, that would limit access. But gun makers responsible for a troubled kid killing his friends, teachers and himself? Sorry, I don’t find any evidence. It’s like the specious arguments that playing dungeons and dragons makes kids kill or go crazy, or anything else of that nature. You and I grew up with cartoons and games that were just as violent, and so far, neither of us has “gone postal.” And Bush, sorry – from my perspective neither misunderstood nor evil. Stupid, idiotic, a political hack? Yes. Evil? Given some of the things I’ve seen in other parts of the world, he’s not even on the scale.

But, all that’s just my own perspective.