Anti-Gun Film Review Mistakes Fiction for Reality

I’ve written a handful of novels in my time, so I’m familiar with the concept of fiction, as opposed to reality. The two have a tenuous relationship at best, and part of that is that stuff that would never fly in a work of fiction can most definitely happen in real life. I’ve seen it way too often.

But fiction is also the figment of the writer’s imagination. When I write fiction, I can make the characters do or say whatever I want, more or less. As a result, I can have them do something that might seem like it’s plausible, but has never actually happened in real life. All that matters is whether most of the audience will accept that as a potential outcome, not whether it actually is a potential outcome.

I start this piece this way because the Sundance Film Festival is taking place, which means a lot of movies are being viewed for the first time, and that means movie reviews.

One out of Salt Lake City seems to think that a movie called Run Amok does a fantastic job of illustrating the issues of guns and schools.

As the film unfolds, we learn that a shooting occurred at Meg’s high school ten years earlier, and her mother was among the victims. In response, the school has adopted a controversial policy: arming teachers with bright orange guns that fire rubber bullets. The film uses this detail to echo real‑world debates in the United States over whether arming educators could prevent future tragedies.

Examining the Dangers of Having Guns (of Any Kind) in Schools

Run Amok later underscores the dangers of such policies. When a teacher mistakes Elton’s water gun—intended for his sculpture—for a real threat, he shoots him, injuring his hand. The moment starkly illustrates the risks of placing weapons, even non‑lethal ones, in the hands of school staff.

First, any student who pulls out a realistic-looking gun on a school campus–which one has to assume this was, otherwise why would the teacher freak out, though this is Hollywood trying to make a political point, so we can’t tell unless we watch the movie ourselves–is going to be treated as a threat regardless of whether teachers are armed or not.

However, armed teachers are a thing. They’re in several states throughout the nation, and despite that, there’s no evidence of anything like this happening. None at all.

Why?

Because the author wanted to make a plot point of a kid being shot with a rubber bullet, either to make that political point about armed teachers, or because they wanted it for some point of tension to drive the story forward, if not both. Seeing this as reflective of anything beyond that is ridiculous, simply because it’s reflecting a purely fictional event.

It’s never happened, so far as I can find, and that’s important when you look at a movie that has an event like this.

Most screenwriters don’t even know which end of the gun is the dangerous one, much less how schools address arming teachers. They aren’t aware of the training being mandated in most of these states, nor are they aware of the fact that, despite the hysteria, there’s little evidence of any problems with these armed school staff members.

Most movie reviewers are even more clueless than that, with a few notable exceptions such as Christian Toto.

This isn’t reflective of real dangers.

It’s reflective of anti-gun hysteria and the ignorance of people who think they have a duty to inform us that they really know more than we, and they, do.

Editor’s Note: The mainstream media continues to lie about gun owners and the Second Amendment. 

Help us continue to expose their left-wing bias by reading news you can trust. Join Bearing Arms VIP and use promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your membership.