He's also an outsider who likely wouldn't have known of the rule; and he doesn't "ignore the rule" so much as plan a homicidal revenge spree. Consider the greater difficulty the villagers would have in obtaining firearms and uniting against their overlords. Many people in lives like this would rather maintain a crappy status quo than risk the lives of their family, so a conspiracy could be difficult to drum up.
You're trying really hard to use this movie as a real-life example of why guns are good, but you ignore the actual problem in this film, which is that bullies use guns to terrorize people. Also, this film is fiction and your point is too facile to mean much, so you'll have to try yet harder--let me help you.
The better argument would be to point out that in the 19th century rifles and shotguns were vital for hunting and protection against wild animals. In this sense, guns lay at the foundation of civil society, and it's only when people (like the Brenner patriarch) refuse to play by civil rules that guns are a problem. So, our protagonist didn't break the rules--Brenner did--and a few bad apples aren't reason for everyone else to give up their guns.
The lesson here is one about fighting tyranny, if anything. Greider hardly "saves the day," except for the recently-married couple. He kills a bunch of people who, admittedly, did wrong but who were themselves terrified victims of a tyrant. Let's advocate responsible gun ownership, so that Brenners don't actually pop up in the real world.
__ __ __
Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room!"--Pres. Merkin Muffley
reply
share