[Malum Prohibitum]

I watched Dog Eat Dog, a film that showed up on Netflix with Nicolas Cage and William Defoe.

Decent flick, but I am not posting to recommend you watch it.

I am posting to describe a huge cultural change the movie demonstrates in the viewpoint toward carrying weapons.

Spoiler alert.

Continued below.

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

There is a scene in the movie that takes place in Ohio. Now, some of you who have been around the forums for a while might remember that Ohio suffered some turmoil over changing its laws. There was one case in which police officers detained a man while pointing AR15s at him, and he sued. His gun had been noticed at a gas station, and they pulled him over down the road.

In the movie, a criminal with a large revolver shoved in the back of his pants is shopping in a grocery store. His outer garment is covering it, but a store employee notices it when the garment raises, inadvertently exposing the revolver.

The employee, worried, goes around the corner and dials 911.

The cops pull up.

The employee meets them outside to explain that the man is carrying a concealed handgun. The two Cleveland PD officers are shrugging and say, "So?"

The vast cultural change initiated by GCO has made its way even to Hollywood!

That is one large cultural change.

 

[DonT]

That's good to hear about.

 

[mrhutch]

I don't know, in the context described it sounds more to me like a snarky commentary that only criminals have guns and the law is pandering to psychos. but I haven't seen the movie for full context.

 

[68908]

That is truly shocking for that to happen in a major Hollywood flick and it was actually allowed to stay in the final cut of the movie. I'm being honest. I'm shocked.

That is really great. Let's hope this continues in movies into the future.

So many Americans tend to get their attitudes from Hollywood flicks these days.

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

I don't know, in the context described it sounds more to me like a snarky commentary that only criminals have guns and the law is pandering to psychos. but I haven't seen the movie for full context.

It can be viewed that way, I suppose, but could you imagine this being depicted in a movie a decade ago? I can't. Gun? Cops would have been all panicky to respond and do something now, now, now! A decade ago they would not look at him and wait for something more, "So . . .?"

That is what I mean by a cultural shift. I realize that the police officers have mostly come along years ago, but I expected it would take Hollywood longer to catch up.

 

[Wegahe]

It can be viewed that way, I suppose, but could you imagine this being depicted in a movie a decade ago? I can't. Gun? Cops would have been all panicky to respond and do something now, now, now! A decade ago they would not look at him and wait for something more, "So . . .?"

That is what I mean by a cultural shift. I realize that the police officers have mostly come along years ago, but I expected it would take Hollywood longer to catch up.

I can't wait until the movie about the "licensed gun nut" with a so called arsenal loads up his guns and goes on a nation wide killing spree with every kind of weapon you can imagine. While the subject movie fades away in the long run there will be many spin offs of the one I describe. Hollywood is just that way. There are no good guys with guns except the police who always seem to be the Sylvester Stallone (Cobra) rampaging type going full bore war in the streets.

 

[Siege]

Without the rest of the movie as context, that sounds more anti-gun to me, trying to make out as if pro-carry laws result in situations where the police are unwilling or unable to do anything about the criminal with a gun.

After all, as the watcher of the movie, you know the guy is a criminal, and the response from the police paints laws like those we have in Georgia as being irresponsible and tying the hands of the police from doing their jobs.

Because, as we all know, only cops and criminals carry guns, and if it weren't for the stupid pro-carry laws preventing the police from detaining this obvious criminal, he'd have gone to jail and no one else would have been hurt.

 

[moe mensale]

Without the rest of the movie as context, that sounds more anti-gun to me, trying to make out as if pro-carry laws result in situations where the police are unwilling or unable to do anything about the criminal with a gun.

After all, as the watcher of the movie, you know the guy is a criminal, and the response from the police paints laws like those we have in Georgia as being irresponsible and tying the hands of the police from doing their jobs.

Not having seen the movie I'll posit that 1) the clerk didn't know the guy was a criminal and 2) neither did the cops.