Quote:
|
Originally Posted by xtrasyn
´There are way better assignments for me you know, I could also be keeping track of nuclear arsenals. But the nuclear weapons all sit in their silos and do not move - the real and one and only weapon of mass destruction is your AK-47.´
That was the key message for me and the movie did a great job in telling us just that.
|
Well I'd argue that even that message was presented in a rather unfair way - I mean this is pretty much the same argument thats used to support smaller scale gun-control legislation. Consider the scene near the end where the refugee camp is about to be massacred, but instead imagine that most of the people in the camp also had AK-47s, or other firearms. Would the massacre still have occurred? Probably not - the victims would now have a means to defend themselves. So the problem isnt just the availability of guns as such - it's as much to do with the inequal distribution in who posseses guns. And again, this parallels real world arguments about whether (eg) allowing schoolteachers to carry firearms might be a better way of preventing dunblane/columbine type killings than an outright handgun ban which results in only criminals having guns and the potential victims being unarmed. Like the arms-dealing, the issues here are far more complex than the film suggests, and it only gives an emotionally charged version of one side of the argument.
I admit that I'm more likely to judge LoW harshly since its pet ideological positions are generally opposed to mine. There are other films which also treat complex issues in a fairly one-sided manner that I'm going to be more sympathetic towards since I broadly agree with the underlying premises (Batman Begins for example, which was pretty awesome despite all the dull action sequences, while also being one of the most principled films I'd seen for ages).