What are the most ANTI-gun movies?

[Gunsby_Blazen]

Richard Poe's analysis of anti gun movies...

According to Richard Poe, author of The Seven Myths of Gun Control, any movie where the villain is able to render the "hero's" gun useless is an anti gun movie. This forces the good guy to defeat the villain without the use of a gun. I think the example that he uses is the movie Preditor II where as in one a gang of tugs approach a man on the subway who pulls his self defense gun on his attackers. the man "poiints it directly at the face of one of his tormentors. But the wouldbe vigilante is so frightened,he cannot hold the gun steady. The Thug laughs out loud and takes the pistol from the man. Only the sudden intervention from some plainclothes police officers ... save the day" (Poe, 103). The author's point is that only police and authorized officials have the capacity to operate a firearm. civilians are not capable of welding such power as we are not competent enough.
What do all of you make of that argument?

Poe, Richard. The Seven Myths of Gun Control. (New York: Three Rivers Press, 2001).

 

[mr.72]

That's a good point. However what we are seeing on this forum are any time a gun is used in any way apart from the ideal, then the movie is "anti-gun".

However it may be very legitimate to portray an average person who suddenly finds themselves both in possession of a gun and in need of one for their defense as incapable of using it. I think if most average normal regular people were threatened and then suddenly had a gun in their hands, they would likely have a major anxiety response and may not be able to shoot the gun.

There's a scene in season 2 of '24' where the moron daughter is on the phone with Jack, she has a gun and the bad guy is coming at her. Jack yells (of course) for her to pull the trigger. She does, but closes her eyes and looks away etc. This to me is perfectly a normal response.

In The Brave One the first time the main character uses her gun she mostly misses, doesn't know how to hold it, shoots through objects rather than finding a clear shot, and is mostly petrified and scared. This again, is normal. The cops in the movie point out the signs of this being a beginner shooter.

These are not anti-gun ideas. They are just normal. Most people don't own a defensive firearm. Most who do own one, do not know how to use it, or lack the training, experience, backbone, willpower, etc. to use one when needed. This leaves only a thin minority of real people who could effectively use a gun in their own self defense. It is no wonder that movies reflect this.

 

[Chuck Spears]

What do all of you make of that argument?

I think that some people get so caught up in their ideas that they think everything they experience has a direct relationship to their cause. They overanalyze and "find" things that don't exist. Or they blow a minute existence into something way out of proportion.

 

[Halo]

The author's point is that only police and authorized officials have the capacity to operate a firearm. civilians are not capable of welding such power as we are not competent enough.
What do all of you make of that argument?

I see this sort of suggestion in TV and film as being, at a more general level, a reflection of the effort to de-masculinize society. Think about all those commercials that portray men as immature and incompetent buffoons, contrasting them with the sophisticated, wise, and "oh, how ever does this poor woman put up with him" wife. Mostly they use this device as a form of humorous play on the stereotypical American man-child, but you also see it every time viewers/readers/audiences are reminded that they shouldn't bother trying to enter the exclusive domain of experts.

Maybe at an even more general level it's about marginalizing the idea of individual initiative, and instead reinforcing the need to defer to "experts" or "authorities". I don't know, I just grew up thinking there was nothing my dad couldn't do for us himself and that's how I formed my concept of masculinity. I think the popular portrayal of the American man depicts him as being more submissive and bumbling than he really is or should be, and I don't think it is entirely accidental.

 

[Checkman]

In American Beauty Chris Cooper uses one of his guns to kill Kevin Spacey's character.

Why? Well for one he is repressing his homosexual traits - which has made him unbalanced and he believes that Spacey is having a relationship with his son. Which aggravates him even more.

The character's (Chris Cooper) handgun collection is on prominant display and the feeling is that it's bad to do so. The character is also retired military and the plot leads you to conclude that part of his problem is that he's a violent, abusive and repressed man because of his military background. The fact that he has a handgun collection only validates this aspect of his character.

Annette Benning is going into the house to kill Kevin Spacey with her Smith and Wesson auto, but is beaten to the punch by Cooper's character. She stops when she hears the gunshot. Not what I call a positive portrayl of private citizens who won firearms.

It's an anti-gun movie which engages in everyday cliches of gun owners.It isn't original at all.

The movie was filmed in the fall of 1998 at the end of the Clinton era. Remember the summer of 1998? All those school shootings? Also there was that comedian/actor (Phil Hartmann?) who was shot and killed by his wife while sleeping in his bed. She used a handgun that was legally owned by them. The media was all over that inccident as well. They've been somewhat forgotten because of what happened at Colombine in April 1999.And even though the movie was written before those shootings you know darn well that the political and social climate of the time had influence on the filmakers. Plus movies are often rewritten even as the script is being filmed. Who can say that certain aspects of the story weren't added on set?

The irony of this is that I understand Steven Spielburg is a gun collector and he produced American Beauty.

That's Hollyweird for you. So while American Beauty might be a well written and acted movie and recieved many many academy awards it was anti-gun and anti-gunowners.

 

[mr.72]

So while American Beauty might be a well written and acted movie and recieved many many academy awards it was anti-gun and anti-gunowners.

I see. Unless gun owners are depicted according to our ideals, the movie is anti-gun or anti-gun-owner?

 

[hirundo82]

Insofar as anti-gun is concerned, there's the usual lineup, but one thing to possibly pay more attention to are the more crypto-anti gun movies. A perfect example IMO is SWAT.

SWAT, in addition to it just being an awful movie, it suggested that all that would be needed to spark a huge riot is a criminal saying that he'd pay $25 million for someone to bust him out. It seemed the entire demographic of people of lower economic status came out of the woodwork with all kinds of fantastic ordnance. RPG-7s, suppressed Barrett M107's, SMGs, assault rifles, explosives, and so on. I wish this type of firepower was this accessible, especially to people of lower economic status. It would be moar affordable for me.

That sort of firepower is probably available on the streets of any city worldwide for those who know where to look. What most people don’t understand is that passing laws isn’t going to change that.

So is Demolition Man (Stallone and Snipes) pro gun or anti gun?

Anti at least for us commoners (look at banner over right shoulder).

"Runaway Jury" with John Cusack and Gene Hackman.

I never even paid enough attention to that to note that the plot was changed from the book's plot, which was about a tobacco company lawsuit.

Why on earth would they change the plot of a very good book, except if they wanted to make an overt anti-gun message?

Anti-gun propaganda is the only reason I can think of to change it. I do find it very interesting that the movie, about a firearms manufacturer being sued for crimes committed with their products, came out less than six months before the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act came up for a vote (the legislation was defeated that time after the Dems tacked on an AWB extension).

 

[Checkman]

mr.72

So while American Beauty might be a well written and acted movie and recieved many many academy awards it was anti-gun and anti-gunowners.
I see. Unless gun owners are depicted according to our ideals, the movie is anti-gun or anti-gun-owner?

You consider it to be pro gunowner? My ideals have nothing to do with it. It was anti. It's depiction was negative. It depicted people who are involved with firearms to be unbalanced in one way or another. Bennings character was anal and depressed and having an affair.

Coopers character....... well I already described Coopers character.

People who have no experience with firearms or gunowners will find their ideas (i.e. sterotypes) either reinforced or if undecided sent a certain way. At least for awhile. And it sure isn't pro gunownership. The movie was fairly strong in that area. I wouldn't consider it to be neutral.

Didn't say that I didn't like the movie, but I think one would have to be fairly myopic to think the movie didn't have a political and sociological point to make.

The character are very clearly drawn. And I consider the depictions in American Beauty to be far different then what you described in The Brave One and 24. Your observations there are dead on.

Would it surpise you if I told you that there are several movies which I enjoy , but they differ from my political viewpoints.Or that there are actors who I like, but politically I can't stand them.

For example I like Henry Fonda, Gregory Peck, George Clooney, Kirk Douglas and Micheal Douglas. Own many of those actors movies and many of their films are among my favorites.


Doesn't mean I can't enjoy them, but it also dosen't mean that I am unaware of the viewpoints they and often their films are promoting.

Why do you have an issue with me describing American Beauty as anti-gun and anti-gunowner? If it's one of your favorites I'm not trying to offend. If that's how you read my post I apologize.

 

[Curly]

TAB posted:
Just a thought... most movies would be over pretty fast, if every one had a gun. "hey look, this guy is trying to kill me" BANG! "ok now what do we do for the next hour and 29 mins?"

+1
Case in point... Cujo.
Eh? rabid dog, bang, show's over!

 

[Oana]

I see. Unless gun owners are depicted according to our ideals, the movie is anti-gun or anti-gun-owner?

Not necessarily. There's a time and place for portrayals of less-than-ideal gun owners. However, it's become the norm, not the exception. Generally speaking, modern movies tend to be anti-gun - whether by reason of an anti-gun writer/director or simple ignorance or stereotypes. By "anti-gun" I mean a movie where the general "vibe" is that gun owners or guns are evil, dangerous, stupid, backwards, cruel, or otherwise causing harm to society.

For instance, look at how lots of early movies portrayed black people. Were the producers, writers, and directors of those movies always trying to be "anti-black", or trying to put them down? Sometimes yes, sometimes no. But the stereotypes were there, and they took them and accepted them, leaving black actors and actresses high and dry when it came to fully developed, positive roles.

And then there are those movies where you know someone was anti-gun, simply because of the vitriol shown towards gun owners in the storyline.

 

[Chuck Spears]

Why does every movie have to fall under "pro" or "anti?" It can be neither. Not every story that involves a gun is meant to be a commentary on gun ownership or control. I think it is a little silly to expect movies to portray everyone with a gun to be perfectly sane and responsible. That's just unrealistic. A gun is just a plot item. Love them or hate them, guns get a response and hold peoples attention.

 

[Chuck Spears]

Not necessarily. There's a time and place for portrayals of less-than-ideal gun owners. However, it's become the norm, not the exception. Generally speaking, modern movies tend to be anti-gun - whether by reason of an anti-gun writer/director or simple ignorance or stereotypes. By "anti-gun" I mean a movie where the general "vibe" is that gun owners or guns are evil, dangerous, stupid, backwards, cruel, or otherwise causing harm to society.

For instance, look at how lots of early movies portrayed black people. Were the producers, writers, and directors of those movies always trying to be "anti-black", or trying to put them down? Sometimes yes, sometimes no. But the stereotypes were there, and they took them and accepted them, leaving black actors and actresses high and dry when it came to fully developed, positive roles.

And then there are those movies where you know someone was anti-gun, simply because of the vitriol shown towards gun owners in the storyline.

You bring up an interesting point with minorities in film. Interchange the use of minority characters in for the use of guns in our discussion. If you went by the rules that many people on here demand, there would never be a minority character that was evil or did something bad. They would always be the hero and be perfect in everything they did. Is that reasonable? Of course not. So then why should we think that guns should always be portrayed in the way we want to see them? Many movies do have a pretty direct anti-gun agenda. But plenty of others have heroes that save the day only bc of their guns and their ability to use them. Like I said above, it's just a plot device and not always a political commentary piece.

 

[mgregg85]

I hated having to watch "American President" in high school. What a pile of garbage.

 

[spuscg]

in high school it was required to watch bowling for columbine in health, i filled the study guide with sarcastic remarks and outright jokes, i think i wrote on definitons Michael Moore: dumbass Charlton Heston: The man

 

[spuscg]

schools make us watch the stupidest stuff.
one teacher actually had farrenheit 911 on because they were told they needed a documentary, the teacher turned it off and was like "thats supposed to be a documentary?"

i had just been laughing through the 30 minuites they did show.
me and my friend were watching the moore/heston meeting in columbine and were like hey his shirt changed it was 2 different interviews re edited!

 

[Freelance Tax Collector]

That sort of firepower is probably available on the streets of any city worldwide for those who know where to look. What most people don’t understand is that passing laws isn’t going to change that.

I don't know, Barretts with suppressors? They might exist, but I'd say you're more likely to find 'em on your Boardwalks and Park Places rather than your Mediterranean and Baltic avenues.

Bottom line is SWAT was just a bad, terrible movie.

 

[RNDMEVIL]

I am a fan of Doctor Who, but the show is profoundly anti-gun, anti-weapon, anti-violence, anti-self-defense.

Depends on the writer of that particular episode. In some episodes The Doctor is handing out weapons and giving tactical advice. In others it turns into an obnoxious "anti" screed. The more frothing at the mouth episodes are mostly written by a newer writer that may not be getting much more work on the show from what I understand.

 

[Oana]

You bring up an interesting point with minorities in film. Interchange the use of minority characters in for the use of guns in our discussion. If you went by the rules that many people on here demand, there would never be a minority character that was evil or did something bad. They would always be the hero and be perfect in everything they did. Is that reasonable? Of course not. So then why should we think that guns should always be portrayed in the way we want to see them? Many movies do have a pretty direct anti-gun agenda. But plenty of others have heroes that save the day only bc of their guns and their ability to use them. Like I said above, it's just a plot device and not always a political commentary piece.

Exactly. But today, we're still stuck in the stereotype era (as far as guns go). So a particular movie may not be anti-gun on its lonesome, but it *is* anti-gun in the context of our times. Make any sense?

Also - a lot of film heroes ain't what they used to be. Maybe that's what scares some people - seeing "good guys" with guns who could be violent criminals themselves? Food for thought.

 

[Golden Hound]

I'd guess that most cop shows like THE SHIELD are fairly anti-gun...in that the only people you ever see with guns are either cops or criminals. A lot of shows follow this formula and it is very troubling, both because of the fact that non-LEO civilians have just as much of a right to protect themselves, and also because police can be corrupt and evil just like criminals.

 

[mr.72]

You consider it to be pro gunowner? My ideals have nothing to do with it. It was anti. It's depiction was negative. It depicted people who are involved with firearms to be unbalanced in one way or another. Bennings character was anal and depressed and having an affair.

Coopers character....... well I already described Coopers character.

Yes but it never implied or expressed the concept that the guns were in any way related to their being unbalanced. I think that's the main difference.

You know how we say "guns don't kill people, people kill people". Well then, this movie is not anti-gun, since it's not the guns that are doing the bad deeds, but the people. The people would be unbalanced whether they had the gun or not.

And FWIW neither of these characters in the show acquired guns as a result of being unbalanced or in effort to inflict harm on another person. One of them was a collector, the other was a woman encouraged to shoot as a form of stress relief (hobbyist I guess). It was only after they became irrational that they sought tools at hand to harm other people.

Anyway I'd say this show is "gun neutral".

People who have no experience with firearms or gunowners will find their ideas (i.e. sterotypes) either reinforced or if undecided sent a certain way. At least for awhile. And it sure isn't pro gunownership. The movie was fairly strong in that area. I wouldn't consider it to be neutral.

The stereotypes are not of gun owners. The stereotypes are of neo-nazi homophobes and of anal retentive cheating spouses. That's the difference. I don't think anyone with a normal viewpoint, being gun owners or not, would have even come away thinking "ooh, if only they hadn't had GUNS!". The guns are pretty much irrelevant in the plot of this movie. They just serve the purpose of raising the suspense throughout the whole film of "who did it".

Didn't say that I didn't like the movie, but I think one would have to be fairly myopic to think the movie didn't have a political and sociological point to make.

Certainly they were making a point about society, but not one about guns.

Why do you have an issue with me describing American Beauty as anti-gun and anti-gunowner? If it's one of your favorites I'm not trying to offend. If that's how you read my post I apologize.

I don't know if it's one of my favorite movies but I did think it was very good the first time I saw it. I just think it's misguided to view every film through the lens of "gun zealot" where you are looking for ways it can be considered either pro- or anti-gun. This one is neither. It's anti-have-a-nervous-breakdown, it's anti-let-your-life-get-screwed-up, it's anti-be-a-neo-nazi-repressed-homosexual.

It's no more anti-gun than it is anti-Firebird, anti-free weights, or anti-pot. All of these other items are used as plot devices to aid in telling of the story like the guns are.

 

[Superlite27]

I am still a little confused about The Brave One.

I believe Jodi Foster is an anti-gunner, and I think she may have tried to make a movie casting guns in a bad light. However, I think they actually misfired and made it look favorable.

 

[308win]

The Brave One is definitely anti gun IMHO; it is also anti self defense, anti personal accountability/responsibility; it is just anti period if you believe in anything other than the nanny state. In the end the heroine is vested with the same antisocial characteristics as the BS's whose actions frame the plot. Terrance Howard is a good actor though.

 

[Halo]

The Brave One is definitely anti gun IMHO; it is also anti self defense, anti personal accountability/responsibility; it is just anti period if you believe in anything other than the nanny state. In the end the heroine is vested with the same antisocial characteristics as the BS's whose actions frame the plot. Terrance Howard is a good actor though.

It seems like these movies always portray self-defense as inevitably twisting you into a vigilante no better than the criminals who attack you. It's that tired old anti idea that a dead or beat-up victim is morally superior to one who actually defends themselves. Such an unnatural philosophy to adhere to....

 

[mr.72]

Whether you like the portrayal or not, The Brave One makes an accurate, poignant and natural case of what happens when someone is shocked by being victimized and becomes acutely aware of their own vulnerability, and then finds that a gun suddenly erases much of that vulnerability.

Even though it is not wise nor born of self-control, vengeance is a natural emotion and would be the normal response for a person like this.

I think what The Brave One shows is how even someone wickedly left-wing, head-in-the-sand, and intuitively anti-gun can be made to realize the value of guns in the hands of the righteous in society.

Of course we'd all like it better if JF's character had become a gun owner 10 years before this attack occurred, and had sought awareness and self defense training. But then we'd have no movie because the characters would have never gone into that tunnel to begin with, would have never had the dog off of the leash, and even if they did find themselves surrounded by vicious punks they would have been fully able to defend themselves. There's no need for a hit-the-rails vigilante response when the crime is met by an armed citizen the first time.

I think overall this movie is very pro-gun. In fact it was one of the things that helped encourage me to go out and buy a gun, and I assure you that 9 out of 10 people who see it will have a similar reaction. "I don't want to end up like that! If she'd had a gun before then this all would have not happened! I need a gun!"

However the movie is not about guns. It's about the sense of vulnerability that comes on like a flood when you have been victimized, and how a traumatic event can cause you to completely flip to the other side of the scale and take justice into your own hands. That both sides of this character coin are present in each one of us is the point of the movie.

And by the way, I also thought this was a very good movie.

Since I've seen probably 10,000 movies, I figure I should be able to think of one that's pro-gun or anti-gun. Frankly I am having a hard time coming up with more movies that are anti-gun than those that are pro-gun, if you are on a level playing field.

But if you think anything other than portraying saintly people with perfect execution of the four rules open-carrying all the time is "anti-gun" then there's no way to even become a consumer of film entertainment.

 

[Halo]

Whether you like the portrayal or not, The Brave One makes an accurate, poignant and natural case of what happens when someone is shocked by being victimized and becomes acutely aware of their own vulnerability, and then finds that a gun suddenly erases much of that vulnerability.

I disagree on this one point. People are victimized every day but we don't have hordes of scorned victims taking justice into their own hands. I therefore wouldn't agree that it is an accurate portrayal of what happens when someone is victimized. It is a portrayal of an unlikelihood for the sake of drama.