These responses made me laugh a lot.
There's an inherent appreciation for firearms in the US, because it's written into their constitution which guarantees the right to arms. Unlike some other countries, there is (barring liberal viewpoints) nothing wrong with gun ownership or possession in the US. In many other countries where gun ownership is illegal there's a negative stigma to the possession of a gun for the average citizen. This has, in my opinion, nothing to do with the merits of gun ownership but rather the innate assumption in these places that only two people have guns: law enforcement and criminals. In a society where gun ownership is illegal, there's nothing wrong with having that perspective- or having the feeling that you don't need a gun to protect yourself. The statistical probability is that you and the next person will both not have guns, and as such there's a legitimate the assumption that your own abilities to defend yourself will be enough since there is this void of an outside influence (in this specific case guns) and then in the off cases where weapons are present the subsequent assumption is that law enforcement can do the trick. However in the US that's simply not the case. There is no stigma that having a gun is anything beyond your constitutional rights.
The true apples and oranges comparison being made here is that where you live (in this example Melbourne, though for many posters or thread readers it will vary) guns have this negative stigma that I explained, and in America they do not.
Personally, I am all for the legality of firearms. I do not live in the United States, and where I live beyond hunting licenses guns are illegal to possess and the steps for legalized possession are difficult and arduous- and the process follows strict guidelines. That being said, I also live in a metropolis where crime is fairly prevalent. Shootings have been much more frequent recently, and while it can be argued that if everyone owned a gun it could go much worse (untrained shooters fire at a gunman under the guise of self defense and stray bullets hit randoms, for example) I feel confident that those who aren't capable of using that weapon either a. wouldn't or b. wouldn't have it on their person.
In the US, it's not like people just walk the street packing a hidden gun- or moreso, most people don't. Those that do, at least to my knowledge, require a permit/license to carry a concealed weapon. Otherwise, they must keep it out in the open. I'd argue that if you have a gun visible to a criminal, they won't screw with you. If they were going to, no measure of self defense would act as a deterrent to them- because they already are aware that their actions could lead to their death and they've accepted that outcome as a possibility and tried to *beep* around anyways. In that specific instance, the argument of gun merits are moot, the outcome is predetermined by the criminal's mindset and intentions- and ultimately, I'd like the opportunity to try and draw and fire first.
I found this thread comedic, as like pretty much any internet venue for discussion, it devolved into a "my way of life is better than yours" argument, which is always worth a cheap laugh. Guns aren't for everybody, and neither is each individual's perception about guns. Ultimately, crime will occur regardless of firearms (crime predates guns, don't ya know) and I do believe they are ultimately a decent deterrent (as shown above in my "I see his gun, I won't *beep* with that guy example).
As to the topic of the post, there is an obligation of due diligence that the premise of the plot's legal argument is based on. The legal case, as far as I understood the movie's intentions, was that the gun manufacturer (by nature of their products being potential instruments to cause bodily harm) has a responsibility to monitor the sales of their product to some degree. They aren't expected to monitor the sales of each gun, but the premise was that one distributor moving mass quantities of automatic weapons *should* have triggered some alarm bells. The fact that they didn't look into it at all (but rather rewarded the seller for his sales acumen) is intended to show that their intention was to make more money, independent of any due diligence required in the sales of their product. I don't know the legal merits of that case, but ultimately since this type of court case doesn't happen often and rarely rules against the gun companies, it's a fair argument to be made that the plot is decently farfetched. That being said, I really liked this movie. I thought they took a powderkeg of a topic and made a good movie out of it. I felt that the liberal side of me was pleased at how they approached the case and its conclusion, while the conservative in me didn't really feel betrayed, as I felt the film decently portrayed the factual nature of "this isn't really the fault of the gun company"- even though ultimately the verdict in the end was against them.
To conclude this wall of text I end with my most lasting thought of this discussion- "doesenglandexist" is a woman who's comfortable shooting a .357, and that's a pretty big turnon. All the (fire)power to you.
reply
share