Being a first year student at the London School of Economics and Political Science at an exciting time, after the “liberation” of Iraq and George Bush’s greatly disaproved visit to London which has recently been declared the world’s city facing the greatest risk of a terrorist attack, I decided it was time to watch Michael Moore’s “Bowling for Columbine”. The movie caused me to reflect on the unique and dangerous political and social status quo which we are experiencing. Americans, who like the Brits or the French love figures and statistics, should be reflecting on the simple fact that there are over 11 000 gun murders a year in the US (only just above 60 in most European countries) and there were aproximately 3000 people killed in the course of the September 11th tragedy. Why worry about protecting public interest by demilitarizing countries when the greatest threat to public interest for the United States comes from within its own borders. I am surprised at making such a comment myself. This considering that I supported the idea of an intervention in Iraq, to remove Sadam Hussein, even though I am in complete disagreement with the means this was achieved i.e. A unilateral strike force unfortunately but inevitably giving an image of a neo-colonialist invasion. But enough about Iraq and more about Bowling for Columbine and Bush’s visit to London. These were supposed to be the main focus of this email, which by now I regard as a means to express the contradicting feelings I have about America and the perception of America, rather than a structured essay on a particular issue.Having learnt that one perspective or source of information is not enough to acquire a realistic understanding of a subject, I decided to go to the NRA website and read the endless critics on Michael More’s film. Many of these I disagreed with but with some I did agree. For example it is true that Michael More was biased in his chosing and cutting of the scenes throughout the film, but can he really be blamed for this? I think that the underlying essential message which he tries to explain is that America and Americans lives with fear. Furthermore, the strong figure of Charlton Heston can be replaced by one which is weak and vulnerable like the the principles of the 2nd Amendmant of the American constitution. I believe that considering the United States defence budget, a “well-regulated militia” constituted by normal citizens is NOT necessary for the security of the United State. As the NRA slogan goes “Guns don’t kill people. People kill people”. Well why give guns to people who intend to kill at the first “justifiable” opportunity?? (I would like to point out that fear should not be a justification)I would like to end this simply by saying that I believe that anti-americanism in Europe is as damaging to our european societies in the long run as is the sale of guns to people in the American society, one where the media develops a culture of fear. Bush, who is the democratically elected representative of the United States (I aknowledge the fact that to say that he is democratically elected is debatable, but lets face it, he is no Sadam Hussein), should be welcomed in London. It is only by keeping America close that Europe will be able to influence it and hopefully de-radicalize its policies. Protesters in London who carry banners of a swastika with Bush and Blair’s names written on it are ignorant and do not realise the historical meaning of the tragic significance of such a symbol. Unlike in this email’s organization, political debates, ideology and conflicts should not be confused and mixed up when protesting.