Filmmaker Michael Elder is opposed to Michael Moore's message in 'Bowling for Columbine' (i.e. there are too many guns in America). but he borrows many of Moore's techniques to tell his story: find enough people who support your thesis, play it to the hilt, and presto! you have a film. Elder uses examples of unarmed people who have been violated by gun-toters, and shows us they could have extricated themselves safely if they had been armed. This may or may not be true, but from that general premise, Elder jumps to a specific conclusion: because you never know when a bad person is going to come into your life with a gun, every red-blooded American man and woman should be armed and therefore dangerous. That's how you fight crime in America. As a Canadian, where rigid gun controls are supported by most, I kept asking the same question that many millions of people in this and other countries always ask: why do Americans find it so necessary to arm themselves with enough weaponry to launch a third world war? What causes this 'siege' mentality? Why does the National Rifle Association remain one of the most powerful lobbies in Washington, one that routinely pays off politicians to ensure that America remains a gun-loving country? There are many 'whys' that come out of this film, but there aren't many answers. Root causes of crime and criminality are only superficially explored; finding out why America is such a violent country in the first place isn't on Elder's agenda. He's more occupied with 'liberty,' 'freedom,' and all things directly connected to one's constitutional right to bear arms -- everywhere, at all times, if I understand Elder correctly. This is a disturbing movie. Gun-loving Americans would probably not understand why someone would say that.

Okay, okay. Before you dismiss me as some gun-toting right-wing zealot for my 8/10 rating, hear me out. I don't own a gun. I've never fired a gun. I don't even think I've actually held a real gun. For years gun control and strict licensing sounded pretty reasonable to me. What do guns do other than kill people?I had gradually softened on that viewpoint, but it wasn't until I watched MICHAEL & ME that I completely understood true spirit of the pro-gun argument. I was literally enthralled by Larry Elder's line of reasoning and the stories from everyday Americans he shared. He hammers home the point that as much as we might wish the need for guns as self defense didn't exist, it does. Just ask the rape victim Elder interviewed.Because of its title (referring to Michael Moore) and its pre-2004 election release date, MICHAEL & ME has basically be lumped together with a host of anti-Moore films designed to counter FAHRENHEIT 9/11. But Elder's work isn't really about Moore. Moore, whose views on the subject are shared by millions, is merely used as the embodiment of anti-gun arguments that Elder seeks to answer. Not everyone will agree with those answers, but it never hurt anyone to learn both sides of the story.

Many of those who object to Elder's position engage in the same sort of logical fallacy that most anti-gunners rely on. The fact there are sensible restrictions on the sort of explosives you can own is NOT relevant to the debate about letting private citizens carry defensive handguns. The fact that you can't own a nuclear bomb doesn't mean everyone who agrees with that logical policy is pro gun-control. An analogy--if you agree that you can't yell FIRE in a crowded theater, you're for restrictions on free speech. No one really thinks that! What Elder is getting at is the simple fact that crime is only more likely to happen when law abiding citizens are prevented from carrying defensive weapons. Gun control punishes everyone and prevents wide swaths of people from carrying defensive weapons in a futile effort to keep a small percentage of the population from getting access to guns. Access that they get anyway, despite our best efforts. The bad guys are going to get guns whether we want them to or not; there's no benefit to society from preventing trained, licensed, law-abiding citizens from carrying defensive handguns. Every state that's allowed private citizens to defend themselves has seen crime go down, not up. As Elder proves, criminals certainly prefer you to be unarmed.

Firebrand Libertarian television and radio talk show host Larry Elder takes on filmmaker Michael Moore over guns, gun owners, and armed self-defense in his documentary, "Michael & Me," an unflinching, unabashedly pro-Second Amendment, pro-self defense film that proves the folly of gun control laws and the illogic of paranoia about an armed citizenry.In his 2002 "documentary," "Bowling for Columbine," Michael Moore posited that the reason there's so much violent crime in America is because there are too many guns in America. Elder confronts Moore himself with this and more. But more than anything, Elder conclusively shows that in places where guns are available to average citizens, violent crime is lower. Who believes that? Cops, lawyers, professors, gun dealers... and average Americans of all races and walks. I've read that the conservative estimate on annual defensive gun uses -- incidents where a firearm is used to prevent a crime -- is about 100,000. It's this figure Elder presents.Larry Elder interviews a number of people in his film, including people who have used a firearm in self-defense, Second Amendment supporters, and a woman who was savagely raped and insists that if she had been armed, she would not have been attacked. Elder questions the effectiveness of registration, the sanity of bans on "assault weapons" and "Saturday Night Specials," and breaks down what the word "militia" in the Second Amendment means.Included is an animation of a humorous, fictitious Larry Elder/Michael Moore interview where Elder's tough questions cause Moore to literally sweat off pounds and flip out. Elder does manage to get a few words with the real Michael Moore, who claims that Larry Elder refuses to debate him. Elder invites him on that evening's radio show. No, Michael Moore didn't take Larry Elder up on the offer.People on both sides of the Second Amendment will benefit from a viewing of "Michael & Me." If you're pro-gun, "Michael & Me" will likely reaffirm your beliefs; if you're anti-gun, it will likely lead you to question whether you've been given the facts about an armed citizenry.