Must See Movie...

How sad is this?

Very interesting film. Was caught on the premise when seeing the trailer but unsure as to what the outcome would be for the showing. As it turns out, it was a very good film.

It's simply great fun, a winsome film and an occasionally over-the-top luxury fantasy that never flags.

This film is an anti-gun diatribe against lawful gun owners, while giving real criminals (like gang bangers in Chicago killing themselves and others) a pass.Dr. John Lott has been an outspoken advocate of "More Guns, Less Crime". He is a celebrated criminal justice academic. His books about the failure of gun control have never been refuted.Dr. Lott had spent approximately six hours being interviewed for Under the Gun. Prior to the film's release, however, when Ms. Soechtig was asked whether her film featured any gun-rights experts (anyone besides persons "very strongly tilted towards gun control"), she confirmed that Dr. Lott had been interviewed but his input and information were not being used. "We did a great piece on him. He's the originator of the idea that more guns equal less crime. When we went to include his research in the film, it felt like unnecessary real estate to put in the film…We kept going back to the idea that we wanted to reserve the real estate in the film for the responsible gun owners." As biased and unscrupulous as the "official" response on the exclusion of John Lott may be, it now appears that some Lott footage made it into the film, but was taken out after Michael Bloomberg allegedly insisted on its removal. According to a recent interview with John Cardillo, "They were going to run it, and Bloomberg and Couric had a private screening and after that screening" the Lott footage was deleted.For those that don't know, Michael Bloomberg is a billionaire that wants to ban guns from all law abiding citizens. It now appears that he and Katie Couric conspired to hide the truth about gun controls failures over the years by "massaging the facts". They refused to show both sides of the story, which is what journalists are supposed to do.This documentary is a joke. Do not see it, or you risk encouraging Couric and her crappy producers to create similar trash in the future.

I suppose those who love their guns to the detriment of all other concerns will have quickly given this movie a one-star rating while those who who view our fascination with guns as a sickness to our collective soul will give it ten.I don't know if this counts as a spoiler or not, but the movie is at its best when it portrays the deep grief of those who have lost someone they loved to gun violence in contrast to the rabble-rousing from the NRA as it stokes the furnace of fear it uses to keep its power. In the end, that's where we arrive--at a nation in emotional turmoil between those of us who grieve and those of us who fear. It doesn't speak well of us that its fear that appears to be winning.It's been almost seventeen hours since I saw the film Still disturbing is the surveillance footage from the cameras in the lobby at the theater in Aurora, Colorado. Though out of sight, one hears the popping of gunfire from one of the auditoriums. To understand the result of the noise is to grieve for both the immediate victims there and all of those that will follow as we remain a nation ensnared in the grip of madness.It would be nice to know what future generations will think when they see this movie. Let's hope they've achieved an intelligence and enlightenment that allows them to view us with the scorn we deserve. What a terrible legacy we leave them.At the start of this review I wrote that it's assumed that those who love their guns would give the movie a one-star rating while those who saw it as a film revealing a sickness in our collective soul would give it ten stars. I belong with the latter.

A Documentary is a work of non-fiction meant to document reality and inform. This is a film with several distortions of facts and creative editing to disguise the truth. Facts are highly distorted and taken out of context to support a political agenda. Not only is there no attempt to provide both sides of the argument, there are deliberate distortions of the facts and portrayals of only the fringe elements of those who oppose the point of view of the film-makers. Watchers should do their own research of statements in the piece. However, I wouldn't waste the time with the film, just do your own research.

This IS NOT a documentary; it is a fictional film with a skewed narrative against the 2nd Amendment. The portion where Katie Couric poses the following question: "If there are no background checks for gun purchasers, how do you prevent felons or terrorists from purchasing a gun?" to the Virginia Citizens Defense League has been spliced and diced - replacing their 4+ minute reply with almost 10 seconds of awkward silence. Shameful reporting on Couric's part and completely negates any truth in this film. The only reason to mislead your audience is because your points aren't strong enough to stand on their own. Don't waste your time on this; no critical thinking required, just more "dumbing down" as usual.