Defense Distributed jefe Cody Wilson is a pal. I’ve spent many an hour listening to Mr. Wilson’s rapid-fire anti-government rants. His polemics, peppered with references to classical literature, are a veritable farrago of philosophy, law, politics, science and technology. Although I’m not as well read as the self-described “crypto-anarchist,” I can just about keep up. The question is, can viewers of No Control follow Cody’s [bullet] train of thought? That all depends on . . .

the editing.

As a former videotape editor for CNN, I know well enough that all editing is editorial. No Control director Jessica Solce will have no problem weighting the “debate” on gun control in any direction she pleases. If she wants Cody to look like a sage, an apostle of firearms freedom, that he shall be. If she wants him to look like the devil’s personal emissary on Earth, that’ll work too.

This clip (not magazine) doesn’t give us any indication which way Ms. Solce plays it. Over at huffingtonpost.com, she claims neutrality.

“Nobody wants death. Nobody,” said Solce, in an attempt to find common ground. “If we’re all fighting against violence, what does that mean? I don’t think the movie is meant to provide an answer, but to ask more questions and create an open framework for debate.”

I can’t find a lot of information about Ms. Solce (other than the fact that the native Texan was an assistant to the extremely comely Rachel Weisz) and no one’s seen the completed movie yet. So . . .

No Control premiers tonight @ the IFC Center in New York City. If a member of TTAG’s Armed Intelligentsia could attend and review and talk to Jessica, we’d be much obliged and refund the admission price. Click here to buy tickets. (thetruthaboutguns@gmail.com)

Recommended For You

34 Responses to A Balanced Documentary on Gun Control? What Are the Odds?

  1. Date night! Who’s going? Maybe bring Jessica flowers compliments of TTAG. Put this site on her map for the sequel. Robert Fargo as…..Robert Fargo.

  2. This actually honestly looks pretty interesting.

    Realistically, it will take balanced documentaries with zero to minimal slant in order for antis to watch them.

    • “balanced documentaries with zero to minimal slant”

      Perhaps we could get Sasquatch to narrate it while sitting on a unicorn. All three are equally common.

      • A unicorn is just a horse with a narwhal horn attached to its face.
        Sasquatch is just my uncle if he forgets to shave.
        Rare they may be, but if you want them, you can always just make them.
        Just realized, that same logic applies to NFA weapons, too.

  3. I’m staying in Manhattan for business this weekend. Tickets are
    Not available on the web site but I will attempt their “rush” tickets (wait in line, first come first serve). I will report back if I get in. -Bret

      • I went to the web site again some hours later, and tickets were now somehow available. So I’ll be attending for sure. I’d ask TTAG to donate the $18.50 admission to NRA-ILA, SAF, or any other reputable defender of 2nd amendment rights rather than reimburse me. I’ll provide a report later tonight or tomorrow morning.

  4. I heard two comments in the clip that describe “gun deaths” as a “public health problem”. That’s two more attempts to equate personal injuries as a “health” problem. It just ain’t so. Guns may be used to kill, but they don’t make you sick.
    It looks like the propagandists have given up on trying to depict guns as a danger to “public safety”, since it is so easily countered by showing how guns are used by the innocent for “personal safety”. Now we are supposed to believe that guns endanger our “health”, and our ownership of guns endangers the “health” of all society.

    • We can counter the “public health” issue by pointing out that firearms cause less than 1% of the deaths in the US annually whereas medical errors are responsible for upwards of 17% of the deaths.

      If there is a “public health” crisis, it is the result of medical errors not firearms.

      The medical community should clean up their own house before they point fingers.

      • No, you can only counter the false public health issue by not playing the game. Whichever side controls the verbiage controls the debate. You can’t be half right, letting your opposition call the shots on the labels, and you are finished.

        • I agree. I would counter the public health threat by emphasizing that more lives are saved because someone had a gun than ended because someone had a gun and that to push for gun control is to say that more people should be dead.

      • To be fair: guns can pose a public health risk.

        Of course, that risk is easily mitigated by washing your hands when you leave the range. Doesn’t really sound like a very interesting angle for a documentary, if you ask me.

    • Use of cigarettes is a ‘health issue’ because there is no way to smoke them without giving yourself a risk of lung cancer (not to mention the effects of tar). Also secondhand smoke (but that doesn’t matter because it’s a responsibility issue, same as guns. One could easily choose to smoke in designated areas and have a minimal affect on other people).
      Don’t get me wrong, I don’t like cigarette regulation either, but guns are a completely unrelated topic.
      The person that goes on a killing spree is a public health issue, not what they use on their rampage. Their whole trick to remove guns from normal society is to demonize them; to make guns seem evil so that no ‘sane’ person would want to own one. Those people don’t care about the culture of guns in America, nor all of the fun experiences between friends and family while shooting.

      • No, no, no. You have it all wrong. Remember that nutjob in Santa Barbara? Only the gun he used was a public health risk. Not the knife or the car he also used to kill people. Just the gun. Don’t you get it?

      • The cigarettes themselves must be the health issue. Not those that choose to smoke them. Never blame the user. Always blame the inanimate object. The user is just the poor dupe that was convinced to smoke and has no free will of his/her own. Ban cigarettes, booze, drugs, hookers, etc.. Oh wait, the booze thing did not work. Drug bans not doing great either. Well there are still many other things to ban. Let’s try that. One of these times it just might work.

  5. I just find it ironic that the fat women is defining firearms as a public health issue. Perhaps she should worry about Twinkies and MCD’s before going after guns. I have a feeling that those sort of things have a much greater chance of killing her. Perhaps we should regulate spoons while we are at it. If guns kill people, than spoons made this woman fat. 🙂

  6. I think we know which way this spins form the trailer. The anti’s are shown in comfortable home-like settings with flowers and “homey” objects around them. The pro’s are shown handling guns. There was (in the trailer) no answer to any of the anti arguments, other than “you can’t take my right to kill away.”

    Maybe I’m wrong but if I am it’ll be a nice surprise. Looking forward to hearing the review.

  7. I think that the title it’s giving it away. I can bet that will be a scare mongering movie about how you can get a firearm with no “control” of the state. And how we all should be wery, wery scared.

  8. What are the odds of it being a no spin balanced look at guns?

    In this case, I’d say low teens, simply based on the selection of “voices”.

    You’ve got the black woma from New York gun grabber group looking for accountability from legal gun owners, framing it a public health (CDC anyone?).

    You’ve got the artist who ants to “erase” guns “threaded” throughout, per PuffHo’s product placement, which in itself is a sign of who this is being marketed to.

    You’ve got the white guy advocating the failed deconstructionist argument about limits on constitutional rights.

    You’ve got the producers own words, all very careful, talking about deabate from bothbsides, but revealing in mindset…”what can we do to close the door on debate”.

    Even the words in the transitions frame the selection of clips “control”…

    No, color me jaded, and I hope I am pleasantly surprised, but all I see is more failed rhetoric from the Progressive narrative, aimed at the same captive audience, presumeably to be predictably puffed up, pre and post screening, as “how to control” PEOPLE, top down, again, through background checks and registration.

    I’m especially suspicious that this former assistant to a British actress has no other work out there. Not typical of the true indy film world, nor do you see this level of polish and pr, on a first effort. I can specul

    Call me cynical, but I’m willing to bet a steak dinner and a trip to the ramge against any progtard lurking here from San Diego, that this is likely to be another Bloomberg sock puppet.

  9. “doesn’t give us any indication which way Ms. Solce plays it. Over at huffingtonpost.com, she claims neutrality.”

    Yea huffpoo neutral, haha best laugh Ive had all day thanks.

    I seriously hate hearing the “public safety issue” bs, progressive thinking is a public safety issue. Just from the selection of voices put into the trailer, and Im no betting man, but I sure as hell doubt this will be a 50/50 split of balanced portrayal.

    Im trying to be impartial that it is being showcased in a bastion of freedom (/trollface) like NYC, but I guess thats probably one of the standard locales for releasing independent movies.

  10. just FYI TTAG, the “Defensive Gun Use of the Day: MDA Heads Explode Edition” article is linking to this one and contains the same body in the article as well. Not sure whats going on but it seems the streams may have been crossed.

    • “Don’t cross the streams.”

      “Why?”

      “It would be bad.”

      “I’m fuzzy on the whole good/bad thing. What do you mean, “bad”?”

      “Try to imagine all life as you know it stopping instantaneously and every molecule in your body exploding at the speed of light.”

      “Total protonic reversal.”

      “Right. That’s bad. Okay. All right. Important safety tip. Thanks, Egon.”

  11. Does anyone else think that the very word “Progressive” to describe a group that wants to take rights away from others is a misnomer? Why are they not called the “Regressive” party ? Seems more accurate. The word progressive was probably chosen as a propaganda tool to make everything they advocate seem more palatable.

    • Yep. “Regressive” in that what was once a “liberal” meant a person that believes in minimal government regulation and maximum personal freedom now believes in a statist collectivist control of the person and all that they own, including their life and their freedom.

    • It’s semantics.
      If they are “Progressives”, it suggests that those who oppose their agenda are “regressive”, maybe even “retarded”.
      Perhaps we should insist they keep that identity as “progressive”. It is used in a medical sense to indicate a worsening of a sickness or condition, e.g. “The patient’s cancer has progressed rapidly”.

  12. Trailer seems to lean way more towards gun control than pro second amendment issues so probably pretty biased against guns. Be good to see the reviews though.

  13. If it’s at the IFC, then chances of it not being pro-gun control are slim. You are talking about the heart of the liberalist liberal enclave in existence.

  14. I dunno… looks like horseshit to me.

    If Cody Wilson wrote a book, I’d buy it.

    I was in Austin the other day, I almost thought about going over there and talking to him. Dude is far out.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *