Poll Suggestion: IMDb Poll Board: Gun Control

indeed, I agree we should listen to both sides of an argument

Yes, and acknowledge that there may even be more than two sides of an argument.

>the right of the people to be secure in their homes, persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, the right not to be deprived without due process of law,

@jeorj_euler I am not an expert on the subject, I just watch movies and series, but I think Waco might be a good example of your point of view. They had guns to defend themselves against an invasion. They lost, nevertheless. I don't remember right, this incident was a long time ago.

Right, very close, but the problem with David Koresh is that he was alleged to have being doing some other things that were violent toward the folks (including minors) inhabiting the compound under his almost absolute control, and whatever unlawful aspect of that is the kind of stuff to be reflected on a warrant issued based on reliable evidence. My view is more along the lines that no free person should be in the position of having to hide out in an isolated homestead in the first place, simply them for desiring to be armed. (Again, Koresh had other motives, seemingly sinister ones.)

I don't understand the "gun culture" thing. In the United States, and other civilized places that are or were "frontiers", it ought not be unusual for a home owner to be in possession of dozens of weapons, it ought not be unusual for drivers of vehicles on public ways to be have several weapons in those vehicles, it ought not be unusual for a high school to have an armory (and a shooting range), and it ought not be unusual for somebody sleeping under a bridge to have pistol tucked away in coat or a rifle slung over the shoulder. That is, even if none of those people ever need the weapons to address a violent aggression, and even if most of them are unsuitable to be called into service of republic (or in service of reasonable revolution). I do find that the existences of home owners' associations and public housing projects may present some interesting questions in those regards, though. I also, know that I've no right to try to force my way, and probably cannot succeed with force alone.

There is also the matter of mentally ill folks, and I believe there has to be some kind of actual proof of the presence of a condition of mind that strongly implies hazard to humanity in order for action to be taken against their liberty, be the action temporary, indefinite or permanent. I understand that courts of law might rightly need the ability to assign sentences like probation (rather than death or imprisonment) to violent convicts, but I've never appreciated making innocent people responsible for enforcing the nuanced terms of a violent convict's privilege to roam free among people who have never been convicted of a violent crime. Which is why the identities of all violent convicts ought to be highly publicized, so that the people can make their own determinations about how to associate with the convicts. This notion of running a person identity through the secretive special databases of the "Stasi" seems like it could be a backdoor for the republic to violate other rights of the people.

Perhaps my view is so nuanced and "manifesto"-like that cannot ever reasonably expect for a movie to be made about it, but I suspect most genuine supporters of the right of the people to keep and bear arms would at least understand the general gist. Always, we must remember that the matter extends beyond just one particular "right" or liberty. I find that lot of opponents of gun control tend to not pay enough attention to the whole Bill of Rights, or the Constitution overall, in the United States.

Perhaps another example would be the Warsaw Ghetto. THey had guns to defend themselves. Eventually they were all destroyed, but at least they offered a little resistance...

Come to think of it now, I could begrudgingly present Panther for consideration. "All power to all people." Just like with other groups of other colors, they were imperfect, naive, vulnerable and accordingly defeated by federal law enforcement, whether the "feds" did it lawfully or unlawfully, morally or immorally, fairly or unfairly. If understand correctly, the Jewish Defense League is one of the few defense-style group identity organizations that were never or at least rarely severely audited (eviscerated) by law enforcement agencies. An intricate history is not highly publicized, and only a few documentaries have been made.

Hi, Breumaster. Could you explain your references please? When considering the matters of firearm-enhanced tragedy in Crash, I think of only two character arcs: the one between Farhad and Shereen, and the one between Hanson and Peter. While these serve as cautionary messages and social commentary, there isn't really a connection to gun control or the absence of it. As for One Eight Seven, I don't recall the significance of firearm wielding/operation to the plot, but pacifism is vaguely a notion there. Do all of your suggestions pertain to pacifism? (Or "pass the fists", what have you.)

(Well, I seem to have had forgotten the ending of One Eight Seven, with the Russian roulette and all, but I'm ever curious about the message there.)

In 'Crash' gun control happens on a very human level. The daughter saw that her father is simply mad about the burglary and predicted that he could harm someone. So she saved him from getting guilty by obtaining him the blanks. She took control over the situation by caring and loving him. Wasn't he lucky at the end? That could be understood as a kind of gun control.

In '187' Garfield showed the gang around Cesar, that these macho gun games are b*llsh*t. In the last scene one of his members got it. The former story has brought them to that inevitable point. The speech at the end says clearly that things like this shouldn't happen. Maybe it's a little pacifism swinging with. But pacifism is not bad.

Which is your favorite movie or documentary on the subjects Pacifism, Disarmament, Gun Infatuation or Gun Culture?

Jeorj, this includes nearly everything around the subject.

By the way, pacifism is great, not bad at all. I just cannot stand to see it conflated with the presence or absence of firearms, and I was curious as to which of the criteria set forth by the creator of this thread was most represented by certain movies referenced above. If it wouldn't inconvenience you, Breumaster, could you also refresh me on Born on the Fourth of July? I've not seen it in decades. Plus, there may be other people curious about that one too. One more thing, the whole context of this poll  is gun control by the force of law, which is the most common meaning anyway, so personal decisions or family decisions concerning armament and disarmament kind of muddle the question.

In Born on the Fourth of July, it shows how America treated it's Vietnam veterans after coming home. The director Oliver Stone is one who always puts the finger into the wound and then rubs and rubs.

This time he took a book that Ron Kovic, a former Vietnam veteran wrote, as basis. Ron Kovic accidently killed a comrade in friendly fire. He was down about it, but his superior in the warfields wouldn't notice, what he said. A little later he got fired in the back while combat actions and turned to paraplegic.

From this point the movies shows how hard these men repent to have been on the front. The movie shows how Kovic struggles with himself after and how his world view changes. Things that even his parents don't get. That is a real story, dramatised maybe, but true.

>how America treated it's Vietnam veterans after coming home

Rambo 1

@jeorj_euler​ 

For the question of firearms, best ask your own youth at schools. They don't want each dumb suc**r to have guns. There were several complaints and open protests in the last decade, because there were too many school shootings. When you say that guns don't kill people, because people kill people - that's right. But a firearm makes it easy to turn dumb people to murder - and there are many dumb people. The problem with the dumb people is, that they often kill people wich are highly above their IQ. Intelligent people should better make it more difficult for dumbos to get weapons. It makes me shivering when I think that nearly everyone can get a weapon in the US easily. When not legal, then illegal. To get illegal weapons is very hard in Germany. I count that to the hard weapon regulations. A fortune. I would even demand a psychological certificate on people who like to buy a gun. And the psychologist better should be very sure about the persons. If there happens a shooting about a false decision of him, I'd take him his certificate to not keep him working in that sector. But that's just my 2 pence. That doens't mean there should be no guns. We see in the case of the Ukraine that we had far too pink glasses about Russia. No one would have expected what happened. But weapons should only be left in caring and calm hands.

In the United States, the laws, be them restrictive or lax in regards to the possession of firearms, have generally made no difference in question of safety versus freedom, for school students or anybody else. We don't really have a way to explain why the frequency of instances of large massacres have been higher since the Columbine one than before. It's a phenomenon of changing culture. We understand that if there were no weapons, then nobody would be able to use them to commit crimes. We also understand that it is impossible make sure than an intelligent evil person cannot do a great deal of damage regardless of how dangerous of weapons he or she can acquire. The idea that most of the notorious massacres were committed by low-intellect people is absurd. Almost assuredly the number of people murdered by high-intellect people vastly exceeds that of the contrary. Of course, this speaks to the question of how we define intellect. You have to remember that everybody is prone to some degree of self-delusion. Being delusional doesn't equate to being foolish or unintelligent. Consider a small fact about intelligent people, that they much more susceptible to a thing known as confirmation bias than are less intelligent people. An intelligent person, unless they are very unusual within being highly intelligent, will frequently deliberately interpret new data or new information in such a way to promote his or her preexisting beliefs, conclusions or estimations. Whereas less intelligent are obviously vulnerable to basically following "authority" and likewise appeals to authority, going along to get along, without really bothering to be critical thinkers. Anyway, this is part of why smart people may shy away from trying to change each other minds and instead focus on manipulating "average" people. Thus the situation sometimes plays out like a very sick, twisted, insidious game. Another matter that factors into it is how much actually costs to do social research, along with the ethical ramifications of going too far with it.

@jeorj_euler​ 

Who is "we"? Me surely not. I have another understanding, learned by my life. Never needed a weapon. And it's surely not my fault that we face dangerous times with Russia. It's Russia's fault. I'm sure you can't fix the "bias" by facts. Just assertions. A normal, empathic, intelligent person won't need a gun, except there are dumbos around who have guns.

Well, I've never needed a weapon (so I've most of the time estimated whether correctly or incorrectly), but that doesn't mean that I ought not have one. There is a common talking point that I cannot help but reproduce here: "I would rather have the weapon and not need it than need the weapon and not have it." The phrase is more than talking point, it is the truth. What is Russia's fault? Sounds like a bit of an oversimplification of a conflict extending decades back. (I mean, maybe the North Atlantic Treaty Organization is at fault, or perhaps the Central Intelligence Agency instead, or the Obama administration. I must be a traitor for even daring to question the Western European narrative.) Some biases can be fixed by facts, but not all facts are ever actually known or knowable. A normal, empathetic, intelligent person may or may not need a firearm, and almost certainly not, if he or she has an entire army at his or her disposal. (Empaths are fictional, by the way.) There are always people who have weapons, "dumbo" or not, irresponsible or not. Also, I very subtly meant "we" as in we the people of the United States.

@jeorj_euler​ 

So you talk for all people in the US? Isn't that a little simplified? 

And, well, there is also the Imperial "we", which quite possibly at some point everybody reading this conversation realizes. I admit, when I was writing the the post, I actually consciously reviewed and edited some of the first person pronouns. Imagine something much worse, such as replacing that intimate pronoun with God. Haha. So, right, I don't seriously claim to intimately or absolutely know (let alone understand) the understandings held persons other than myself. Nevertheless, many folks (not necessarily most) understand what I do. It's nothing remotely close to, say, Elon Musk's work, but even a great understanding of engineering-driven natural sciences doesn't necessarily translate into likewise for "soft", art-like (occasionally intuition-driven) sciences like psychology, sociology, pedagogy, statecraft and economics.

@jaf_ismael​ 👍added.