First, this is not an independent film made by the victim and a plucky young filmmaker. It's a propaganda piece backed by big money from the Brady anti-gun campaign, pushed by Oprah, and fast tracked to Sundance and other indie film festivals and outlets.
Second, the basic thesis is wrong from start to finish. True, it's incredibly horrible that the shooting occurred. But the film (and the filmmakers) are on an agenda of disarming honest gun owners in a the hope that it will prevent further attacks. The filmmaker, the subject of the film, and the producer are very active (in the film, and in their daily lives...check out the Facebook page for this film) in trying to disarm people with concealed carry permits from carrying on college campuses AND ANYWHERE. This would create gun-free zones, which is exactly what armed lunatics look for. Look at it this way: when a maniac starts shooting, you call the police. That is, you call men with guns and hope they show up quickly. But even the quickest police response time is too short to stop most mass shootings. Your chances of survival are much better with embedded honest citizens with guns....People who have passed background tests, and have taken classes and passed tests in safety and tactics.
Third, the film falls short even if you buy the basic premise promised in the IMDb storyline (written by the film's producer). It says "The winning combination of Colin's passion, charisma and optimism has commanded the attention of the American public...." Colin is passionate, but he is not charismatic or optimistic. He comes off as a sullen, self-righteous opportunist who admits he had no career plans after college other than "professional victim" and chose to ride that train.
The film slants undercover "operations", tugs on the heart strings in the most contrived ways, and is not the objective piece of news it is presented as. (The IMDb categories picked by the producer are "documentary" and "news".)
"Living for 32" is a well-funded, calculated piece of propaganda that is being false by passing itself off as "indie cinema" and being presented in indie cinema venues. Its only goal is to disarm honest Americans. None of its ideas will disarm the criminally insane, because criminals do not obey laws.
If someone wants to make a real "news" piece on gun violence, they should examine what makes psychos tick, what part society has in producing them, and how they can be detected and helped before they "go off." Banning full-capacity magazines will not stop killers. Banning GUNS will not stop killers. They'll still get guns, and even if they can't get guns, they'll find other ways to kill. Look at the common mass machete murders in gun-free Japan, the huge uptick in stabbings since the UK banned guns or the common bombings elsewhere in the world.
All in all "Living for 32" deserves zero stars. I had to give it one star to be able to post, but that was being generous.
Second, the basic thesis is wrong from start to finish. True, it's incredibly horrible that the shooting occurred. But the film (and the filmmakers) are on an agenda of disarming honest gun owners in a the hope that it will prevent further attacks. The filmmaker, the subject of the film, and the producer are very active (in the film, and in their daily lives...check out the Facebook page for this film) in trying to disarm people with concealed carry permits from carrying on college campuses AND ANYWHERE. This would create gun-free zones, which is exactly what armed lunatics look for. Look at it this way: when a maniac starts shooting, you call the police. That is, you call men with guns and hope they show up quickly. But even the quickest police response time is too short to stop most mass shootings. Your chances of survival are much better with embedded honest citizens with guns....People who have passed background tests, and have taken classes and passed tests in safety and tactics.
Third, the film falls short even if you buy the basic premise promised in the IMDb storyline (written by the film's producer). It says "The winning combination of Colin's passion, charisma and optimism has commanded the attention of the American public...." Colin is passionate, but he is not charismatic or optimistic. He comes off as a sullen, self-righteous opportunist who admits he had no career plans after college other than "professional victim" and chose to ride that train.
The film slants undercover "operations", tugs on the heart strings in the most contrived ways, and is not the objective piece of news it is presented as. (The IMDb categories picked by the producer are "documentary" and "news".)
"Living for 32" is a well-funded, calculated piece of propaganda that is being false by passing itself off as "indie cinema" and being presented in indie cinema venues. Its only goal is to disarm honest Americans. None of its ideas will disarm the criminally insane, because criminals do not obey laws.
If someone wants to make a real "news" piece on gun violence, they should examine what makes psychos tick, what part society has in producing them, and how they can be detected and helped before they "go off." Banning full-capacity magazines will not stop killers. Banning GUNS will not stop killers. They'll still get guns, and even if they can't get guns, they'll find other ways to kill. Look at the common mass machete murders in gun-free Japan, the huge uptick in stabbings since the UK banned guns or the common bombings elsewhere in the world.
All in all "Living for 32" deserves zero stars. I had to give it one star to be able to post, but that was being generous.