Gun Fight (2011 TV Movie) User Reviews

Powerful advocacy

[Geoffsj · 5/10 · 15 April 2011]

"Gun Fight" is an excellent example of how a film maker can express a point of view without ever stating it overtly. "Gun Fight" has no narration. But by selection of material, the film manages to articulate a powerful position through the selection of footage and the persons who appear on screen.

In "Gun Fight", the gun owners shown on screen are white paranoids or black thugs. Gun owners are shown in groups, listening to Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin. Those opposed to guns are seen as individuals, thoughtfully expressing their opinions. Gun owners are white and fat, and are associated with neo-Nazism and Confederate symbols. Gun opponents are articulate academics.

Only one attractive and thoughtful advocate for the right to carry a gun legally appears in the film. He is a Virginia Tech graduate student, he receives less than 1 1/2 minutes of screen time and disappears completely from the film before it hits the nine minute mark. After that it's all respectable gun opponents and disreputable gun owners.

It's simple anti-gun propaganda. Those who agree with the film's position will find it moving and thoughtful. Those who disagree won't watch it. No complaints from me -- this is America and people are allowed to state their opinions.

Fake left wing documentary portaying itself as unbiased

[bbv-69237 · 1/10 · 17 February 2021]

This is yet another example of the intolerance of the left towards views of other people that do not agree with their views about any problem. The reason lefties give this a high rating and claim it is unbiased, is because it portrays their views positively, and portrays the opposing views very negatively. The opposing views onj the downsides of attempting gun control in USA, are not portrayed fairly.

As shown is this 'doco', if you disagree and argue with them, they believe you are in favour of the bad things they think they are going to stop by taking their approach to every problem. According to this doco if you do not agree with gun control as advocated, you are in favour of killing people with guns. That is how they see this gun issue - and all others - such as climate control. This doco is liberal ideology pretending to be a balanced view of the issue.

Dont waste your time/money watching this - it is not unbiased or fair.

great doc. that states a point and states it well.

[ash_0777 · 8/10 · 20 April 2011]

This documentary film has but one agenda - to get across that gun laws are too lax in the US. And it does, with flying colours. Watching it, I felt lucky to live in Canada, where, per capita, we have a fraction of the violence. Is it bias? I guess, yes, in the same way Apocalypse Now is bias in stating the Vietnam War was horrible. Or that stating Hitler was evil is Propaganda. This is an intelligent, thought provoking doc. that gets it's point across very well. Was it unbiased? No, but It's a doc that wants to see change happen, and tip towing around the gun control issue, would have no effect. Excellent documentary, worth a long discussion afterwards.

Biased and anti gun narrative

[alphaprime73 · 1/10 · 7 November 2019]

The show says they portray both sides equally. That is false. You can absolutely tell that this documentary favors gun control and the left. The "facts" they give are false and they show anybody who is carrying a gun or who is pro gun as being fat, white, old, uneducated, hillbilly, country or whatever. It's funny how people make a show about guns when they don't even understand them. Fun fact, the majority of the gun population are against the in are a. The NRA has time and time again proven that they will sell off gun rights if it benefits them. The NRA is as much an enemy of the pro gun community as the left.

program presents both sides fairly well

[grafxman · 9/10 · 26 April 2011]

The show presents both ends of a complex issue. For some reason there doesn't seem to be a middle ground. I found it very interesting and extremely ironic that the white NRA guy who always kept a gun at his fingertips inside his house and outside his house had exactly the same outlook on personal safety as the two Philly ghetto dwelling African Americans who also carried guns and kept guns readily available inside and out. A statement by the NRA guy really stands out in my mind: it's better to have a gun and not need it than to need one and not have it. There's a sort of irrefutable common sense logic to that statement.

Frankly I expected another foaming at the mouth anti-gun diatribe but that isn't what this is about. Both ends of the issue are presented by the various adherents. The thing is, if you respect the constitution's second amendment as well as the Supreme Court ruling supporting it then all the anti-gun hysteria seems really pretty dumb. I guess the anti-gun nuts like the Brady bunch just need the money they get to pay for their nice offices and salaries.