MovieChat Forums > Goodbye World (2014) Discussion > Are there really anti-gun people...

Are there really anti-gun people...

posted 10 years ago by mpfive0
32 replies | jump to latest

who live in isolated locations like that depicted in this movie, in the deep mountains of northern california, who don't own even a single firearm. And would be upset if even one firearm is brought on their property. I realize, in the movie, a firearm ended up saving a particular character who was anti-gun, which I thought was great, but that is not my point.

My question is, do these people really exist, in the middle of nowhere, miles from any help, with response times from authorities measured in hours. It is simply unimaginable to me, in this day and age, that anyone could be so naive to expect that they would be left alone, to never think they would need to be prepared to defend themselves, when no one else will be there to help.

In my mind, any man, who would choose to live with his wife and small child so far from help, and not have the means to protect them, is no man at all. Or how could a mother, for that matter, not demand that she have the means to protect her family, if the worst type of threat came to their land.

I know in a perfect world, people should be safe to live on their own land, free from the threat of violence, but that is just a fantasy. And to not be prepared for the worst, is just asking to be victimized.

I'm really trying to grasp the thinking that would go into living that way, because it is a completely foreign concept to me. Just doesn't compute. I realize people have their own principles, but principles won't protect your child from predators.

[–] laymonite-2 10 years ago

Regardless of the politics within the film, the bloke had stocked out a 'survival bunker' with medicines, canned food, solar power and a well - did he not consider defence would be an issue?

[–] mpfive0 10 years ago

Exactly!!

My original post doesn't even account for the end of civilization scenario, and only questions the philosophy behind living in isolation and still holding onto your anti-gun beliefs.

But like you said, taking that, the home owner in the film had the foresight to stock all those supplies, but yet was angry with someone bringing a gun on his property. It was ludicrous on his part to think he could keep any of them without a firearm for protection. Which ended up being proven to him very clearly.

I'm just curious to hear from folks who might know anti gun types, who do live in the middle of nowhere, because I sure don't know any. I'd love to find out if they even have any contingency plans for if and when bad guys do come calling, and dialling 911 can not be the only plan. Or do they just rely on wishful thinking.

[–] ThomasJeff 10 years ago

They are probably super difficult to find. They do rely on wishful thinking. Like the guy who thinks he can just "reason" with everyone he encounters by "sharing."

The film didn't show them much about the gravity of an apocalypse. It wasn't a dark movie. Violent crime would be rampant and those soldiers would have just confiscated everything immediately on the first encounter.

You can see such instances in places like Iraq right after the invasion toppled Saddam. You can see it in Somalia when the state failed and broke down law and order.

You can see it in warzones like Syria and Kosovo, people just turn into violent animals and every family is like a military unit looking for food. Back to cavemen hunter-gatherer tactics.

-=-
TSCC, GoT, The X-Files, L&O.

[–] jhk655 10 years ago

I agree. It's like the writers have never read a newspaper in their lives. Those soldiers would have laughed at the girl talking about the 4th amendment and shot her on the spot. Shot them all and just have taken the "Solar powered castle". It's amazing how fast morals go out the window when resources are scarce and people are desperate.

[–] snes4u 10 years ago

You can see it in Detroit.

[–] jhk655 10 years ago

the movie is obviously a naïve, super left winger's idea of what the break-down of society would entail, and it's laughably benign. If that movie was an accurate portrayal of how violent or non-violent people have the potential to be, then my neighbors would end up taking over the whole damn country. Hell, even I own more guns than are shown in that entire movie, and I wouldn't even be considered a gun-nut by anyone's standards, at least around here anyway.

[–] rtlh1982 10 years ago

In a nation of about 318 million, there must be a few pacifist preppers somewhere. In my experience, however, even the most hardcore hippie back-to-nature types usually see the need for a gun for pest control if nothing else.
I agree: planning for a complete breakdown of society without considering the need for self-defense is insane.

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Xadermag 10 years ago

If you ever find a gun that isn't dangerous, get your money back. It's broke.

[–] fifthfreedom 10 years ago

A live tiger is dangerous, a firearm is not. A hard blow to the head with a monkey wrench is very likely to kill you. Do you fear monkey wrenches?

How many millions were slaughtered before the invention of the firearm? People are dangerous.

[–] howhandy 9 years ago

A firearm provides someone who lacks the will to beat someone to death to shoot a person dead...instantly.

That's the difference.

Yes, people are dangerous, but you can't accidentally kill someone with a monkey wrench. It's incredibly easy for someone to accidentally die with a firearm around. Especially since so many people have no education in gun safety.

However, the premise that someone living in the wilderness without a gun to protect themselves is absurd. Even if you're idealistic about people, there are also dangerous animals (or potential meals).

[–] vanzant38 10 years ago

This movie is psychotic fantasy of what a little apocalypse would be like.

The gun thing just blew my mind. LOL.

Two guys with guns take over an entire community. LOL.

[–] Losturtle 10 years ago

The perspective on display here only exists in America where there is apparently crime and terror thrust upon every single family in the country on a daily basis. The rest of the world calls it paranoia and directs you to "facts" (let's be honest, you guys aren't going to believe anything anyone says) and "statistics" that tell you how low the threat of violence is in countries with stronger firearms laws. The rest of the world doesn't try and attack groups of people for their belief that violence is stupid (idiotic, i know) BEFORE they've even said anything. (they call that one "insecurity") They also don't insinuate that people can "ask" for trouble. I'll direct you to a scenario where you'd obviously blame the provocatively-dressed woman for being raped rather than the garbage who did it. (ties in nicely with "insecurity", it's called being "defensive")

There are people who love guns who are totally cool and responsible and then there are people who aren't. I'm not a fan of guns but I don't think they should be illegal, they have legitimate value to society in a number of ways but we can't allow for a system that gives criminals and morons the same rights as legitimate and cautious owners or makes things just as easy. It sucks that people in America are apparently so black and white. You either hate guns nonsensically or love them nonsensically. No one seems to be able to reflect on themselves or strive for self-improvement or greater perspective, you just say how wrong people who have a different perspective are whilst using inaccurate facts to call them factually inaccurate. Believing something does not make it factual. Referencing blogs or right/left wing news sites does not make it factual. Hard data and research is the only factual information you have, use it instead.

[–] himiyio 10 years ago

That is because the gun more than anything is a symbol.

it is not so much that it shoots and can kill, or be used to gain power,
but rather is such a dangerous item, that even with the best intention it can
bring about disastrous consequence.

There are so many incidents of well-adjusted parents, who diligently
educate their children, but when these kids snoop (and they do, heck
even we did it as kids) and they find the one gun the parents own,
they sometimes accidentally blow their faces off.

Likewise, for older kids, even with the best intentions, and under lock
and key, there are a few real life incidents, where in a moment of angst,
they break into it and use it as a channel for their emotions.

So while it is very true that guns don't kill people, people kill people,
just the very option that 1. there is a gun 2. is accessible, though difficult,
can lead to some very scary outcomes.

[–] dan-nolen 10 years ago

Hi---this is really just a short reply to Losturtle. I agree with a good bit of what you say---but here is a fact. Regardless of the endless end runs the government attempts to make around the Constitution and the Bill of Rights----the 2nd Amendment is STILL the law of the land. Remove all the hype and politics---and pro-gunners still have an absolutely LEGALLY defensible position provided by the Constitution (Bill of Rights) where the gun ahem..."control" crowd don't have anything like that to support their views. They use left polarized judges and leftist politicians to defeat the 2nd Amendment. Those are facts, not just opinions. I am not a right winger either---I am a Constitutionalist. Only in America can a Constitutionalist be considered a radical!

Best,

-Dan

[–] martaug7 10 years ago

Poor losturtle, A firearm is just a tool, it has no inherent good or evil.
You speak of facts?

Fact: Mexico has very strict gun control(the country has 1 gun store) yet very high firearm murder rates

Fact: Sweden has lots of guns, and low firearm murder rates

Fact: As every study done in the states proves, as more citizens become armed, murder and crime DECREASE.

Fact: Brazil has a low rate or firearm ownership(only 8 firearms per 100 citizens) but a high firearm murder rate.

Fact: Denmark has fairly good access to firearms but very low firearm murder rates.

Fact: Germany has good firearm ownership(30 firearms per 100 citizens) but very low firearm murder rates.

New Zealand has good ownership(22+ firearms per 100 citizens) yet low murder rates.

We don't have a firearm problem in the states, we have a cultural & racial problem here.
According to an FBI report approx. 1 million people in the US are responsible for >80% of ALL violent crimes committed.

Check the FBI data yourself and the CIA worldbook and Heck even a left wing anti gun site gunpolicy,org The raw numbers tell the real truthnot what they try to spin.

[–] arrow72 10 years ago

Would like to reply to this.

Citing Mexico as an example? Yes the country has strict control, but what does that matter when every cartel member has a gun, rifle or ICBM? Gun control works when put in place before guns are everywhere.

"Every study in the states prove" ; do you have any links? I've been unable to find any such studies. Maybe because I don't live in the states. I found one scientific study that concluded the opposite (with limitations)

Brazil would be a fair example, but most of the gun related violence happens in areas of extreme poverty. Where the law does not go, and the gun makes right.(There are extremely few killings in central Rio, compared to the favelas)

The rest of your examples fair, and picked straight from the web. Here is some of the list ;

United States 97.0

Sweden 31.6
Norway 31.3
France 31.2
Canada 30.8
Austria 30.4
Germany 30.3
Iceland 30.3

3 years ago, a right-wing extremist killed a cousin (? fathers brothers daugher..) along with 76 others. Mostly children and youths. We have very strict gun laws, and gun related violence is extremely low. Did this event make us vie for more guns? No, we made even stricter laws. To this day, even our police patrol unarmed unless otherwise instructed. And yet I feel very safe.

I understand that this movie seems irrational in the states. In most of Europe, I think it would be a possible scenario.

[–] cesca_the_munchkin 9 years ago

Yeah, I agree with the above poster, it must just come from your perspective. I live in Scotland, where the gun laws are, as I understand it, you can only have one if you can demonstrate a distinct need for it, like if you were a farmer and needed a rifle.

I've never seen a gun in my life, not even on a policeman, and have never known anyone who owned one.

I'm not saying there aren't a few people who own them illegally but it is not in any way something that makes its way into the lives of the vast majority of people living here.

I do however know some people who live in what could be considered the absolute middle of nowhere, even more so than the people in this film considering they at least had neighbours who seemed to be able to walk to them pretty easily. And as they don't have any livestock, they don't have a gun and, as far as I can tell, they feel perfectly secure.

I don't know whether it would be different if I lived somewhere where it was expected that everybody would have a gun but, personally, I would be much more scared to have a gun in the house than not, so the way the characters in the film react is how I would and I didn't think there was anything odd about that until seeing this thread!

# Films and tv shows everywhere but not a thing to watch... #

[–] Trumerica 10 years ago

Yes there are a lot of dumb liberal idiots who think nothing bad will ever happen to them.

[–] simplemines 10 years ago

Shhh! Let them keep thinking that!

[–] martaug7 10 years ago

you are correct simplemines. If the grid ever was taken down, there would be 3 kinds of people.
Those with the firearms,
Those who now serve those with the firearms
&
the groups in the cities(mostly liberals, as big cities have a higher concentration of them)who have turned to cannibalism to survive.

[–] snakeye808 9 years ago

I can't help but be curious about the "bad" that keeps happening to you? Ninjas keep jumping out of bushes and attacking you with nunchucks every time you leave the house?

[–] Zalophus 10 years ago

I live In northern Cali, though much closer to SF than where they are, and I can believe it. We have different gun laws than most of the US. Because of this, there is sorta a weird stigma on owning a gun. Like, it's not uncommon but no one ever seems to talk about them or show them off. Nor will you ever see anyone open carrying a gun. So you get a lot of people who are on either end of the spectrum rather than having most be closer to the center. Not to mention there is a wide variety of different types of people here as well.

I would say that it is realistic to have a person or two like the main character, who would stock up yet not carry a firearm, but they would be rare. Realistically I could see the main house/group having only a single handgun, but the other larger group of their neighbors would likely to have a fair supply of guns in their camp. So while the movie isn't likely to be totally accurate in that regard, it's not a major stretch and is still within the realm of possibility.

[–] shaunwtx-514-167198 10 years ago

That's my apocolypse plan. People like this that stocked up on these types of goods while I stocked up on guns and ammo.

[–] Levi-91 10 years ago

I live in Britain and guns are not allowed here, our police don't carry guns, only special forces have guns for extreme situations and I have never seen a gun and I rarely hear about crimes involving a gun, obviously there are gangs who have them illegally and use them in gang fights. When myself and friends talk about what we would need in the event of an apocalyptic world none of us have ever mention the need for a gun, we have mentioned that perhaps we may need an axe or something equally as sharp and dangerous. I suppose that's a cultural difference, obviously we still have violent crimes and crimes involving knives again mostly gang related. I know lots of people have guns in America for protecting themselves and their family but what sort of people actually use guns in the US? Is it gangs or people who are just violent

[–] aurolacul2004 10 years ago

Trust me we have guns in Britain. I should know, I'm in Britain and have 10 of them...Legally.

[–] Arquinnian 10 years ago

Essentially there are 2 categories of people who carry guns in America: criminals and law abiding citizens. There is no way to eliminate the illegal gun ownership by criminals. There are many arguments that maintain that if guns were outlawed the criminals would no longer own guns. But these criminals already own guns even though it is illegal for them to do so due to their criminal records.

It is true that some of the law abiding citizens who own guns are "gun nuts" and a bit wacky in their world views, but they do not have criminal records, so they are allowed to own guns.

Also, the criminals in the USA tend to be very bold and aggressive when they decide to rob someone on the street or in their homes. Due to the long mandatory prison terms that they will incur if they are caught using a firearm for a robbery, they will often murder the person that they are robbing.

[–] mpfive0 9 years ago

''I know lots of people have guns in America for protecting themselves and their family but what sort of people actually use guns in the US? Is it gangs or people who are just violent''

That first sentence is accurate, but that last sentence is incredibly ignorant.

While there are gang members and violent criminals who do in fact use firearms, they are only a small percentage of gun holders. And its already illegal to boot. But then to characterize all gun owners as being either criminals or violent is wrong on so many kevels.

That vast majority of law abiding, normal, non violent gun owners have to protect themselves from the small percentage of criminal gun users. The vast majority of gun crimes are commited by criminals with already illegally possesed firearms. We need to enforce current gun laws, not create
more that will only make criminals out of law abiding citizens. But in many large cities, like New York, Chicago, and LA, weapons violations are some of the first charges dropped when gang members are caught using firearms.

I own a few handguns, and half a dozen ARs that I built myself. I enjoy working on them, and taking them to the range with my sons. We are a completely normal middle american family. Obviuosly you and I are from very different cultures, but to assume my sons and I must be violent by nature just because we own and use guns is incredibly insulting.

[–] FlyinFireman 9 years ago

Yes they do exist and the're called Commie, Liberal Democrats. They will be the first ones
to go when the lights go out….

[–] irishtom29 9 years ago

The Commies have guns and history shows they can be pretty handy with them too.

[–] rockraider 9 years ago

The fact the Palmer family was completely unarmed (outside of one baseball bat and a frying pan) was a significant gap in the story, or just an unrealistic omission. I guess there is the argument that there are survivalists who don't believe in guns, but I have yet to meet one. In the least, excluding the personal security aspect, a firearm would be an essential part of food gathering in the kind of event they experienced. And a vital part of providing safety from bears, mountain lions and bobcats. All of which I have seen near my home in norcal, granted I'm not in mendocino, but I doubt it's much different there.

But the Palmer's aside, what about the lack of firearms by all the other towns people who gathered at the neighboring property? There was a total of 4-5 firearms between them all, two of which came from the rogue National Guardsman. That's just not accurately portrayed of any rural area in this country, and specifically not of rural norcal. All of those old timers would have shotguns and probably a revolver, at a minimum.

And finally, given the lack of firearms one would think the Palmers and friends would at at least attempted to fashion some sort of defensive tool. Especially after the National Guardsman came by the first time, and after they received multiple warnings from their neighbor about 'talk' about their supply stash & meds. But nothing. They didn't look for the baseball bat. They didn't grab the kitchen knives. No sticks. No clubs. They didn't even pack the one revolver they had. And they didn't have anyone keep watch at night or walk the perimeter for security. I don't even know how someone can rationalize the inaction in light of the dangerous situation, but I didn't find that to be very realistic. I would think that even the most pacifist person would grab food/meds and either hide them, or take what they can and hit the road to find a more secluded/safe area. Not just sit around and whine about how the neighboring group is taking their supplies.

Not the worst movie ever, but definitely not a movie for people looking for Prepper insight or SHTF scenarios, etc. This was a drama about a bunch of 30 year olds who were forced back together after not seeing each other in years and their relationships. The end of the world was just a glossed over backdrop to the story.