Movies about guns

stray dog.jpg

Making gun violence about mental health is a crazy idea.–Jonathan M. Metzl, professor of sociology and psychiatry, and director of the Center for Medicine, Health, and Society, at Vanderbilt University.

Comments seen on Tom Reed’s facebook page:

  • It’s the guns, Tom.
  • Let’s talk about requiring insurance for gun owners.

Two movies dealing with the responsibility of ownership:

  • Stray Dog (野良犬, Nora Inu), a 1949 Japanese crime drama film, directed by Akira Kurosawa starring Toshiro Mifune.
  • Babel, a 2006 drama film directed by Alejandro González Iñárritu written by Guillermo Arriaga.

We are often told that responsible gun owners have certain rights. These movies address the question of responsibility.

Stray Dog–A policeman’s gun is stolen. The policeman considers himself personally responsible for the loss of his weapon. As the stolen gun is used in crimes, the policeman relentlessly works to arrest the thief and recover the stolen gun.

This movie gives one an idea of how seriously firearms are taken in Japan, which helps one to understand why crimes with firearms are rare there. Haruki Murakami’s novel, “1Q84,” is also enlightening. The book’s heroine, Aomame, contemplating suicide, asks her bodyguard to procure a gun. He tells her that it can be done, it is difficult and dangerous, and it would be far better for all if it were never used.

Babel–A Japanese hunter gives his Moroccan guide his hunting rifle. The guide passes the rifle on to his son, who soon is in big trouble. The hunter, back in Tokyo, is eventually questioned by the police.

This movie, Babel, is complicated, but it is clear, that while the hunter may bear no legal responsibility, he has a moral responsibility for his action.

About whungerford

* Contributor at where we discuss the politics, economics, and events of the New New York 23rd Congressional District (Allegany, Cattaraugus, Chautauqua, Chemung, (Eastern) Ontario, Schuyler, Seneca, Steuben,Tioga, Tompkins, and Yates Counties) Please visit and comment on whatever strikes your fancy.
This entry was posted in Congress, Gun Violence, Political, President, Reed's Views, Trump. Bookmark the permalink.

18 Responses to Movies about guns

  1. Rynstone says:

    As of Sat. 5/19 both CNN and CBS had reported that that two firearms had been used in the Texas school shooting were a shotgun and a .38 caliber revolver. It would seem to be an easy thing to find out the caliber and ammunition style for the shotgun. It has also been widely reported that there explosive and incendiary devises also discovered at the school. I have read and heard a molatov cocktail, a CO2 canister and a few “pipe bombs” were found in the shooter’s possession and on the school’s grounds. .

    Some news agencies originally and incorrectly reported an AR15 style gun being used.
    The photo of the accused kid could at first glance look normal and it could also show a teen who has an attitude or anger problem. The problem is that you cannot judge a book by it’s cover or in this case judge a kid by one photo.
    This is clearly not a “gun problem”. We definitely have a cultural problem and it would appear that teens are trying to “one-up” the previous mass murderers.

    There are many ways to kill a large number of people in crowded areas.
    Should we ban all vehicles, materials that could be used to make bombs, including gasoline, kerosene, diesel fuel and fertilizer to name a few.

    Firearms are not the problem. Mal-adjusted people who turn into murderers for the fame and glory of the 24 hour news cycle are the by-product of a cultural problem that may very well lead us to a news media that may be seen as “sensationalizing” these news events and creating more inspired monsters to come forward.

    We will never solve this problem as long as teh media, celebrities and Progressives stop blaming teh 2nd Amendment, the NRA and firearms for this problem. The Root Cause problem must be discovered. Wasting time looking in the wrong direction as we are currently experiencing only prolongs the problem.

    If the parents were made to be accountable for their minor children’s actions things might also improve. Trying to hold millions of individual law abiding firearm owners responsible for the actions of a very small number of mentally disturbed individuals is both wrong and not helpful in solving the real problem.


  2. Rynstone says:

    Thousands of people are injured and killed every year in auto accidents so many states require driving classes before someone can get a driver’s license. Many public high schools offer driver’s education courses. For those with certain traffic violations, driver’s safety courses are required.

    Several thousand kids drown each year, mostly in backyard swimming pools, prompting many areas to offer swimming safety courses. House fires also claim a significant number of lives every year and there are numerous fire safety programs, including some offered in the public schools.

    So, what about the issue of gun safety? Doesn’t it make sense that if safety really was the key issue that there wouldn’t be more gun safety programs offered for kids and adults?

    Every spring as daytime temperatures begin to climb, so do the chances that someone’s loved one will experience a drowning.
    The national average was almost 3,600 unintentional drowning deaths annually from 2005 through 2014, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. That’s almost 10 deaths a day.

    To prevent drownings, especially among children, communities across the country have chosen to promote the ABC’s of Drowning Prevention. Those are adult supervision, barriers to prevent access to swimming pools, classes — both swimming and CPR — and devices. The list of devices includes life jackets, rescue aids and cellphones.

    Similar steps have been taken to encourage fire safety. The Red Cross, for instance, encourages us to install smoke alarms…

    The lack of gun safety programs is just another indication that the entire liberal argument for more gun control really has nothing to do about firearm safety and keeping people safer but rather it has everything to do with the agenda to eventually eliminate all private firearm ownership in the United States.

    A good read of an FBI report regarding armed citizens;


  3. josephurban says:

    I wonder why the NRA did not allow honest citizens to carry guns at this years executive session? I wonder why Congress does not allow honest citizens to carry guns into the Capitol Building? I wonder why the White House does not allow honest citizens to carry AR-15s into the White House on the tours?
    Seems to me that the main political proponents of the “right” to carry weapons for some reason prevent honest citizens from carrying out that “right” when their own lives might be endangered. Are they cowards or hypocrites…or both?

    Liked by 1 person

  4. Rynstone says:

    I honestly believe that the Democrats actually want school shootings to further their cause of disarming Americans. I think that we should remove all of the armed guards at the Federal buildings, State buildings and County Court houses and County Office buildings until we secure our schools with armed security guards.
    Listen to Nancy Pelosi, She makes very little sense and has no grasp of the current gun laws or current solutions.


  5. josephurban says:

    Ryn Says:” I honestly believe that the Democrats actually want school shootings to further their cause of disarming Americans.”
    Therein lies the problem. The lack of logic. People who want background checks , according to Ryn, actually want MORE school shootings. The people who want to keep guns out of hands of the mentally disturbed, according to Ryn, really want more school shootings. The people who want to end the gun show loopholes, which allow ANYONE to buy a gun, according to Ryn, are really in favor of more school shootings. There is really no response to such an inflammatory and obviously wrong position. …..
    Regarding the Pelosi tape, she outlines three ideas. More money for school security, more thorough background checks, and training for people who purchase guns. Is there something wrong with that?


  6. Rynstone says:

    Joesephurban, Cheryl Chumley writing in the in the Washing Times states it perfectly regarding the Bill of Rights, the US Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.
    Unfortunately, Progressives will never agree with this.


  7. josephurban says:

    Ryn. What a very strange position to take. That the 2nd Amendment is a “god-given right”.That there is some kind of divine imperative to possess weapons. (No where is god mentioned in the Constitution, by the way).Was this one of the “lost commandments”? Really?Can you point to any book of any of the major religions (Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism) which mentions guns? Which book of the Bible talks about god giving people the right to AR-15s? I admit I am not an expert on all religions so perhaps you could refer me to some some specific verses in some of the holy books in which god talks about guns . Does god agree with a 3 day waiting period or does she mandate firearm safety training? I can’t wait for the evidence!

    Liked by 1 person

  8. whungerford says:

    Maybe Ryn. is thinking of the Declaration of Independence, which promises certain unenumerated, unalienable rights endowed by the “Creator.” Owning an AR-15 along with life and liberty might have been included. Then too, owning an AR-15 could be important to the “pursuit of happiness.” In any case, the Creator’s intentions might be in conflict with current legislation or court decisions.

    Liked by 1 person

  9. josephurban says:

    The US government is based on the Constitution, not the Declaration of Independence. After all, the god given rights to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” was written by primarily by Thomas Jefferson, a slaveowner . So much for “liberty” as a god given right.


  10. Rynstone says:

    Josephurban, The Declaration of Independence is most definitely a Founding Document that sets the stage for the Constitution which came several years later.

    The sources and interpretation of the Declaration have been the subject of much scholarly inquiry. The Declaration justified the independence of the United States by listing colonial grievances against King George III and by asserting certain natural and legal rights, including a right of revolution. Having served its original purpose in announcing independence, references to the text of the Declaration were few in the following years. Abraham Lincoln made it the centerpiece of his policies and his rhetoric, as in the Gettysburg Address of 1863. Since then, it has become a well-known statement on human rights, particularly its second sentence:

    “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”.

    This has been called “one of the best-known sentences in the English language”, containing “the most potent and consequential words in American history”. The passage came to represent a moral standard to which the United States should strive. This view was notably promoted by Lincoln, who considered the Declaration to be the foundation of his political philosophy and argued that it is a statement of principles through which the United States Constitution should be interpreted.

    The word “God” and “Creator” are both used in the Declaration of Independence.


  11. josephurban says:

    Ryn. It is proper form to use quotations and identify sources. Otherwise we assume you are using your own words. Your last post was lifted entirely from a Wikipedia article. You should have referenced it. (

    From the very same article you copied and pasted comes this analysis:
    The Declaration was given little attention in the years immediately following the American Revolution, having served its original purpose in announcing the independence of the United States.[139] Early celebrations of Independence Day largely ignored the Declaration, as did early histories of the Revolution. The act of declaring independence was considered important, whereas the text announcing that act attracted little attention.[140] The Declaration was rarely mentioned during the debates about the United States Constitution, and its language was not incorporated into that document.[141] George Mason’s draft of the Virginia Declaration of Rights was more influential, and its language was echoed in state constitutions and state bills of rights more often than Jefferson’s words.[142] “In none of these documents”, wrote Pauline Maier, “is there any evidence whatsoever that the Declaration of Independence lived in men’s minds as a classic statement of American political principles.”[143]…

    So the idea that rights are “god-given” was soon forgotten once the Revolution was underway. And the Constitution does not refer to god in any way. In fact, the first three words of the Constitution are: We, the people….
    Governments are established to decide what rights we have, like it or not. There is no divine imperative. I challenged you to show me where in any holy books it talks about god giving us rights to guns, as the editorial you cited by Chumley claims……..still waiting…


  12. Rynstone says:

    Josephurban, I just do not have the time you do to research and properly frame all of my comment. I wish you could have taken a college semester on the Constitution at the George Wythe University in Slat Lake before they closed in 2016.

    The Constitution does not give the Government the “Right” to decide which “Rights” we have. The Constitution specifically tasks the Government with the Duty and Responsibility to defend and protect the Rights wen have in the Bill Of Rights.

    “It was the continuing job of the Constitution and the government it had created to draw these disparate interests together, to create a common ground and, at the same time, to protect the fundamental rights of all the people.”

    We are most definitely going to have to agree to disagree on this issue


  13. josephurban says:

    Ryn. I accept your point that , since I am retired, I have more time to do quality research to back up my points.
    I have never taken a semester at George Wythe University. On their website I can say it looks like an interesting school. You should note that it is not accredited by any organization dealing with higher education. That may or may not indicate anything, but it seems strange that a university would not be accredited.
    That said, I did teach Government for about 20 years at the high school level. Every class I taught we read and talked about the entire Constitution. Some of the language is legalistic and confusing, while some is pretty straightforward. I say this only to indicate that I have a very thorough understanding of the words and basis of the document. That does not mean that I am always correct in my interpretation, however.
    One thing is clear to me. There was a conscious decision NOT to include references to god or a supreme being and not to attempt to suggest that our system of government is somehow “sacred”. Hence the first three words: “We, the People…” as the sole creators of the government.

    Liked by 1 person

  14. Rynstone says:

    Another recent very good article from the NY Times worth reading


  15. josephurban says:

    Ryn. Gun statistics refer inky to licensed gun sellers..

    “…Professors at Northeastern and Harvard universities conducted a gun survey in 2015 that isn’t yet published. The national survey of 4,000 non-institutionalized adults found that 22 percent of the people who purchased guns — at gun shows, stores or elsewhere — underwent no background check, said Matthew Miller, professor of Health Sciences and Epidemiology at Northeastern University and co-director of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center.

    When researchers excluded purchases between family and friends, that number dropped to 15 percent, which equates to approximately 5 million gun owners whose most recent purchase did not involve a background check….”

    Until we have a federal law requiring background checks for EVERY gun sale we will continue to allow gang members, felons, wife beaters, etc. to purchase guns legally.


  16. josephurban says:

    “inky” should be “only” in my last post.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.