Jump to content

Sign in to follow this  
News Feeds

Gun Rights go Under The Gun in Documentary as Couric Touts Gun Control

Recommended Posts

Screen-Shot-2016-04-17-at-7.11.55-AM.jpg

 

Under the Gun, a full-length assault on guns and the Second Amendment, er… I mean documentary, premiered on EPIX last night, conveniently during an free preview weekend. As anticipated, it was a screaming endorsement for gun control and a gross demonization of current gun laws that too often go unenforced.

 

As an attempt to grapple with the political debate, the movie mostly fails. As it flits from issue to issue, it says too much that is untrue or misleading in the service of promoting gun control. Pro-gun viewers will find it hard to be convinced by something that tries so little to understand, much less represent, their point of view.

 

The worst mistakes here rise to the level of factual error, and they undermine the film as a whole. There is no law, for example, “
making it illegal to sue gun manufacturers
”; rather, the law lays out the specific circumstances in which such lawsuits are allowed. These include cases stemming from illegal sales and design defects. The law was enacted amidst a wave of lawsuits against companies whose legally sold guns had eventually been used in crimes.

 

And even when the film gets its facts right, it often makes little attempt to explore both sides of an issue. While everyday gun owners and activists make numerous appearances—some flattering and some definitely not—pro-gun experts are sorely lacking. Gun-control advocates are well-represented by folks like Daniel Webster of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Robyn Thomas of the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, and Mark Follman of
Mother Jones
. Viewers are left believing that there are no similarly well-informed researchers and journalists on the right.

 

John Lott—the most well-known researcher on this issue who takes a pro-gun view—
last week that he was interviewed for about four hours for
Under the Gun
. He suspected his comments would be shortened to a few minutes; in fact he doesn’t appear at all. Another strong possibility could have been Florida State University criminologist Gary Kleck, who supports background checks but is
of many anti-gun claims, or Eugene Volokh, a prominent constitutional lawyer who often writes about gun issues.

 

The result is that gun-control proponents peddle well-worn talking points and no one presses them to make a stronger case. A few examples that stand out:

 

  • Various sources dismiss the possibility of gun confiscation, often saying that the Supreme Court has taken it off the table. Personally, I agree that fear of confiscation is an unfortunate roadblock to some promising reforms. But let’s be clear about why people are worried: It has actually happened in places like the UK and Australia; the current president of the United States has
    those measures; and now that Antonin Scalia has passed, the Supreme Court’s 5-4 pro-gun majority is now a 4-4 tie. Betting markets suggest the next president will
    .

  • Congress’s decision in the 1990s to stop the Centers for Disease Control from “advocat[ing] or promot[ing] gun control” is portrayed as a result of a CDC-funded study whose results the NRA didn’t like. The
    of the agency against gun ownership is not explored.

  • Follman of
    Mother Jones
    reports that his magazine was unable to find any mass shootings that were stopped by armed citizens. Volokh
    on that.

 

There are smaller issues, too. The filmmakers offer a confusing description of how the background-check system works, for example, with narration about the current system (which requires checks only at licensed dealers) accompanied by on-screen text concerning a proposed reform (universal background checks).

 

They also miss an opportunity to drive home how badly the attempt to expand background checks flopped in 2013. As they note, one bill would have required background checks on all sales; what they don’t mention is that the legislation was
before it fizzled out. The compromise that failed to pass (the “Manchin-Toomey” amendment) would have applied only to advertised sales and gun shows, not to transfers among family, acquaintances, etc.

 

Under the Gun
is at its best when it offers emotionally jarring portraits of Americans whose lives have been wracked by gun violence; it is at its worst when it tries to sort out what can be done to reduce such violence. A good argument presents a serious challenge to those who disagree, but to the well-informed gun-rights supporter, much of
Under the Gun
is merely grating.

 

The post Gun Rights go Under The Gun in Documentary as Couric Touts Gun Control appeared first on Bearing Arms.

 

Continue reading...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information

Your Privacy Is Important To Us Learn More: Privacy Policy