The Brave One

Posted:
in AppleOutsider edited January 2014
I saw this movie yesterday, and it's a little disturbing. I am totally opposed to vigilanteism, and I think the film sends the wrong message.



This is the kind of movie that will give people like Jubelum orgasms in his sleep. But it's unrealistic.



And she wasn't brave. A brave person would have picked themselves up and got on with their life without having to start shooting people.
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 40
    cato988cato988 Posts: 307member
    I kinda thought so to.



    Although i was cheering for her, i thought it was really bad at the end when even the cop let her.



    It was like she went crazy.



    Also the part where they justify the killing with the "my hands don't shake"
  • Reply 2 of 40
    shawnjshawnj Posts: 6,656member
    apparently jodie foster is a big-time lesbian. any thoughts?
  • Reply 3 of 40
    jubelumjubelum Posts: 4,490member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by tonton View Post


    This is the kind of movie that will give people like Jubelum orgasms in his sleep. But it's unrealistic.



    Was that really necessary? And you don't really know that much about me re:vigilantism, so once again, joose sticka to whatcha no, jes?
  • Reply 4 of 40
    jubelumjubelum Posts: 4,490member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by tonton View Post


    My premise is that even if she died in either situation, the streets would be safer because there would be less gns on it. Life would have been less safe for her (and would have cost her her life in the convenience store) but safer for society as a whole, because there simply would have been fewer guns on the street.



    I'm not interested in derailing your thread with a guns debate. Unless that's what you are looking for.

    I find it tragic when innocent people die because they had no means of self defense. It's not a requirement, just an inherent right/option, to choose self defense. Some do, some don't.



    I'm astounded that you think the streets are "more safe" because an innocent did not have a means of defense that could have saved their life. The streets were certainly safer... for the assailant. Victim dead, assailant not harmed. Another victory for "safety." And before you go there... don't bother coming back with the "Jubelum wants everyone armed" farce.



    And since you didn't address it, nor ask for the facts, I am opposed to vigilantism... I only support direct, violent citizen action in cases where there is no way law enforcement can help in time to prevent the victim from becoming a victim. Then let the grand jury sort it out should that be necessary. We are a nation of laws, and people should rely on our admittedly flawed system to achieve justice.
  • Reply 5 of 40
    shawnjshawnj Posts: 6,656member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by tonton View Post


    Good for her to follow her heart the way (whatever God she believes in) made it.



    Scandalous!
  • Reply 6 of 40
    brussellbrussell Posts: 9,812member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by tonton View Post


    My premise is that even if she died in either situation, the streets would be safer because there would be less gns on it. Life would have been less safe for her (and would have cost her her life in the convenience store) but safer for society as a whole, because there simply would have been fewer guns on the street.



    I haven't seen the movie and so I'm not addressing the specific situation, but I don't think people are safer if they have guns. I think it's at least debatable whether a society is safer when more law-abiding, sane, sober citizens have guns. I'm willing to at least consider the possibility that criminals may be less aggressive if they believe the potential victims have guns.



    But it doesn't pass my plausibility test that you, individually, are safer if you have a gun. I think it's clear that the infinitesimal chance of protecting yourself with it is heavily outweighed by the increased risk of having it around. At least, that's true for normal people in normal situations. I can imagine that someone living alone (no family) in a super-high crime zone might be safer. But under normal circumstances, you are putting yourself and people close to you at greater risk, not less risk.
  • Reply 7 of 40
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ShawnJ View Post


    apparently jodie foster is a big-time lesbian. any thoughts?



    Or paranoid schizophrenic; Panic Room, Flight Plan and Brave One...it's alright Jodi, John Hickley Jr.'s never getting out. Make some good films and stop wasting your talent.
  • Reply 8 of 40
    mydomydo Posts: 1,888member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ShawnJ View Post


    apparently jodie foster is a big-time lesbian. any thoughts?



    What does that have to do with anything? How does one become a "big-time lesbian" anyway? You're just being juvenile.
  • Reply 9 of 40
    As far as vigilanteeism is concerned (is "vigilanteeism" even a word?), all I can say is that Clint Eastwood was in several ass-kicking movies during the 60's and 70's. I haven't seen "The Brave One" so I can't comment, but generally I see nothing wrong with using a gun for self-defense. The more sensible question to ask yourself is whether or not you think counter-violence should be used in self-defense at all. In all the inescapable self-defense scenarios I can think of, in none is a basic gun much more powerful than a blunt object. An uzi, maybe.
  • Reply 10 of 40
    e1618978e1618978 Posts: 6,074member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by BRussell View Post


    I haven't seen the movie and so I'm not addressing the specific situation, but I don't think people are safer if they have guns. I think it's at least debatable whether a society is safer when more law-abiding, sane, sober citizens have guns. I'm willing to at least consider the possibility that criminals may be less aggressive if they believe the potential victims have guns.



    But it doesn't pass my plausibility test that you, individually, are safer if you have a gun. I think it's clear that the infinitesimal chance of protecting yourself with it is heavily outweighed by the increased risk of having it around. At least, that's true for normal people in normal situations. I can imagine that someone living alone (no family) in a super-high crime zone might be safer. But under normal circumstances, you are putting yourself and people close to you at greater risk, not less risk.



    It seems like this should be pretty easy to get stats on, but good luck on finding an unbiased source. My opinion is that gun accidents are pretty uncommon, and that you probably have a lot fewer burglaries in places that allow gun ownership, and a lot fewer rapes in places with concealed weapons permits.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ShawnJ View Post


    apparently jodie foster is a big-time lesbian. any thoughts?



    [homer voice]Mmmmm, lesbians![/homer voice]
  • Reply 11 of 40
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by tonton View Post


    I saw this movie yesterday, and it's a little disturbing. I am totally opposed to vigilanteism, and I think the film sends the wrong message.



    This is the kind of movie that will give people like Jubelum orgasms in his sleep. But it's unrealistic.



    And she wasn't brave. A brave person would have picked themselves up and got on with their life without having to start shooting people.



    Admin-



    This would definitely qualify as one of your famed "personal attacks", no? Let's get some civility back here... for 5 minutes!
  • Reply 12 of 40
    jubelumjubelum Posts: 4,490member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Splinemodel View Post


    a blunt object.



    Unfortunately, there are state jail felonies waiting on the books here in Texas for possession/concealment of a club or other blunt force weapon. You cannot carry a knife over 5.5 inches, throwing stars, brass knuckles or any kind of club. And there is no permit to allow them on your person. In most cases, it is the cop's discretion.
  • Reply 13 of 40
    aquamacaquamac Posts: 585member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ShawnJ View Post


    apparently jodie foster is a big-time lesbian. any thoughts?



    Apparently there are big-time lesbians and gays everywere. Gasp! look behind you.
  • Reply 14 of 40
    jubelumjubelum Posts: 4,490member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by tonton View Post


    How about a D-Cell Mag-Lite?



    If the officer defines it as a weapon, or has cause to believe it is/was used as such, it is a crime.



    I have a five cell D maglite next to my bed- I'd prefer to knock someone out cold than to remove their vitals from the proper place inside their torso.



    When I do go to check on a noise at night, I have the Maglite and the 45. I do not carry the maglite concealed in my vehicle on the advice of a LEO. It's hard to carry a large flashlight concealed, and if you carry it in the open without previous training, you are more than likely going to be beaten without your own flashlight.
  • Reply 15 of 40
    brussellbrussell Posts: 9,812member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by e1618978 View Post


    It seems like this should be pretty easy to get stats on, but good luck on finding an unbiased source. My opinion is that gun accidents are pretty uncommon, and that you probably have a lot fewer burglaries in places that allow gun ownership, and a lot fewer rapes in places with concealed weapons permits.



    There's a ton of research on it, and I don't think the sources are biased (or any more biased than any other type of research), it's just that there are some people out there who will claim that any research that conflicts with their pre-existing opinion is biased.



    I think you're right that accidents are a lot less common than most people imagine, and I'm at least willing to contemplate that crimes may be lower in places with more citizens carrying guns (but I haven't seen any evidence clearly showing this).



    But my argument is that the conjoint probability of 1) being the target of crime and 2) effectively using a firearm to protect yourself is so small, that it is smaller than the risk of you or someone in your home otherwise being injured by your firearm, either by accident (admittedly, rare) or intentional infliction - homicide or suicide or other intentional injury. The gun people dismiss those as non-issues, but the fact is, people in families get in fights and get very angry sometimes, or get very depressed sometimes. Often enough that having a gun is a risk factor for death or injury, it is not a protective factor, by any standard usage of those terms.
  • Reply 16 of 40
    e1618978e1618978 Posts: 6,074member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by BRussell View Post


    But my argument is that the conjoint probability of 1) being the target of crime and 2) effectively using a firearm to protect yourself is so small, that it is smaller than the risk of you or someone in your home otherwise being injured by your firearm, either by accident (admittedly, rare) or intentional infliction - homicide or suicide or other intentional injury.



    I agree with this, but actually defending yourself with a gun is not the main beneficial effect - it is the deterrent. In Washington DC, muggers are pretty free to attack anyone because they know for sure that nobody has a concealed weapon. In NC, it does not matter if you carry a concealed gun or not, a mugger will be a lot more hesitant to attack anyone. My gut feel is that the deterred crimes are way higher than any +/- stats from the actual gun usage or mis-usage (accidents), the actual use of guns is almost a side note in the real story.



    I have never owned a gun, and only touched one twice in my life, but I am pretty sure that the uncertainty about "are there guns in that guys house?" makes my house safer from break-ins.
  • Reply 17 of 40
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by e1618978 View Post


    ... My gut feel is that the deterred crimes are way higher than any +/- stats from the actual gun usage or mis-usage (accidents), the actual use of guns is almost a side note in the real story.....



    I think I've read stats before that show that muggings and similar types of crimes in areas that allow concealed weapons licenses. There are many variables at work, of course, but who knows -- it seems logical.
  • Reply 18 of 40
    jubelumjubelum Posts: 4,490member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by tonton View Post


    I'd rather be robbed than shot.



    Unfortunately, it's not either/or. I'm sure we all would rather hand over or wallet or auto than be shot, that's the nature of someone using illegal deadly force against you. You miss the boat with the assumption that just because guns are illegal, that criminals will not have guns. Nothing could be further from the truth. Criminals do not care about your gun laws... they enjoy the advantage.



    The presence of your own means of protection increases the likelihood that you *might* have some kind of say in the matter, perhaps being able to avoid being robbed and/or shot altogether. The criminal must also be willing to take the risk that by threatening to shoot you, he might get shot in the process.



    If the perp wants to rob you/shoot you, you can try out those non-violent verbal negotiation skills and hope the criminal will listen to your pleadings.

    If not, I guess that is just too bad- someone else will have unrestricted and ultimate power to decide your fate.



    Be sure to ask nicely.
  • Reply 19 of 40
    jubelumjubelum Posts: 4,490member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by e1618978 View Post


    I have never owned a gun, and only touched one twice in my life, but I am pretty sure that the uncertainty about "are there guns in that guys house?" makes my house safer from break-ins.



    I keep a version of these in my training materials to hand out to chronic gun-haters...







    Have not seen a SINGLE ONE on a front door or posted in a yard yet, and I must have handed out at least fifty of them.

    I guess, as much as they cannot admit it, my eeeevil gun must keep them safe as well.
  • Reply 20 of 40
    brussellbrussell Posts: 9,812member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by e1618978 View Post


    I agree with this, but actually defending yourself with a gun is not the main beneficial effect - it is the deterrent. In Washington DC, muggers are pretty free to attack anyone because they know for sure that nobody has a concealed weapon. In NC, it does not matter if you carry a concealed gun or not, a mugger will be a lot more hesitant to attack anyone. My gut feel is that the deterred crimes are way higher than any +/- stats from the actual gun usage or mis-usage (accidents), the actual use of guns is almost a side note in the real story.



    I have never owned a gun, and only touched one twice in my life, but I am pretty sure that the uncertainty about "are there guns in that guys house?" makes my house safer from break-ins.



    That was the point of my first post above: That the general presence of citizens with guns may act as a deterrent to crime, but at the same time, they also put those citizens with the guns at higher risk. So, strangely enough, the best position to be in is to live in an area where lots of citizens have guns, but you personally don't have one. That way you gain the advantage of any deterrent effect, without acquiring the risk of having the gun.



    But I still have to say that, although this deterrent effect has been promoted by people like John Lott, his data are, at the very best, extremely murky. On the other hand, the data are crystal clear that there is more likely to be a death or injury in your home if you have a gun (granted, still extremely low, but higher than having no gun).
Sign In or Register to comment.