Wednesday, August 18, 2004

Lies, Hollywood and a Recent Movie

The Wifey and I rented a movie last weekend that I had been wanting to see for a while, Runaway Jury.

I was rather anticipatory about this, as I knew it to be an adaptation of Grisham's book of the same name, with the notable change being the subject of the tort party involved, notably the "Gun Industry" replacing "Big Tobacco."

I watched the whole thing and tried to remain quiet throughout, and managed quite nicely to do it, or nearly so.

It was interesting to see some of the reactions that my wife had to some of the more absurd portions and suppositions that were presented in the movie, she is a furriner after all. This is especially so, for me anyway, seeing as she was, when we met, a complete hoplophobe. Damn Krauts.

Enough time with me has cured her of that damn annoying habit of condemning a gun or its purpose. She now views them with the same passion as, say, an automobile. The Krauts do understand the machine, afterall. It has become a utility piece with her and the fluttering and rush of epinephrine at the sight of one has gone the way of the Dodo bird.

It seems a bit odd to me, convincing someone about the legalities of the personal firearm. The film's court scene with a Veep from fictitious Blacksburg Firearms relies on the witness protesting grandly on some sort of feeble notion about "Second Amendment rights" or something about how they "just sell a legal product to the public." This is so thin as to be unbelievable. I am surprised that the producers even allowed the movie to be released in that form.

I mean, what is it about a firearm that needs to be made legal in order to have it, or manufacture it or distribute it. Mankind has been making them since we could figure out how to thrown a damn rock! Why is it that modern man somehow needs permission from the larger collective to make, handle or own one? It just amazes me that some would seem so apologetic about it by claiming that it is not a banned product. By that measure, we could handle the "problem" of "gun violence" by just banning all of them, right? Ridiculous.

Tellingly, the crux of the interest of the Left's (that would be almost ALL of Hollywood, BTW) position on gun's and gun culture is explained rather clearly by Jeremy Peavin's character, a special counsel to the the Plaintiff, as he admits, "I believe in a world without guns."

It can be explained in no plainer terms, I think. That is that, as they say. I can buy that argument. It is, at the very least, an honest one. Instead of DiFi trying to contort the issue, she should just come to terms with what her, and her ilk's, position really encompasses. It is not at all realistic, however.

The story is linked to several people who have crossed paths by way of gun-wielding psychopaths. The blame gets put on the guns, as usually happens, and not the perps of the crime. A couple of people go out of their way to influence the jury (John Cusack is actually quite good in his role) as they have traveled around to different cities trying the exact same trick on bogus negligence suits.

On a more personal note, I can not believe that if something like this were to really happen (a roving juror in search of personal vindication), and the judge were to find out about it, there would be Hell to pay. The movie makes NOTHING of this fact, or the patent lack of morality in such an action. It would seem that the producers think it OK to play dirty with the Gun Industry, they sell an eeevilll product, ya know? Sounds just like a Donk to me. One rule for me, another for you.

Molon Labe!


Blogger Smitty said...

Did you see the story about that kid who tried to buy a gun company and melt down the inventory because he was injured in a shooting?

10:51 PM  
Blogger theirritablearchitect said...

If Smitty comes back to this, all I can say is, thanks, my first official comment.

I did find that story, but found it hard to get the real scoop on what happened. It seems that no one wanted to actually write a story about the facts, just that a kid was shot and how tragic the situation was.

True enough, but upon finally getting the facts half straight, all I can say is, the jury needs a lobotomy!

The gist of the suit was that it was Bryco Arms who was at fault for not providing a safety design such that the gun could have been unloaded while engaged and it was therefore unsafe, since those were the claims of the babysitter, who was left with the boy, and apparently was the responsible party to the negligent discharge to the boy's head.

My main complaint about the jury's decision stems from the basic ignorance of the mechanism. Does a Kia have the same quality of construction and safety features of a Mercedes? No. It is built to be a usable car that is cost effective. Same with that particular gun. The thing came with an instruction book and was left to someone who obviously had little or no training with it.

Don't leave the car keys where they can be had by the teenager, right?


9:15 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home