Pretty sure that most people other than the OP don't actually think it's about finger guns in the case of the movie. Also pretty sure that at least some american schools HAVE banned finger guns according to what has been posted here, so there's nothing lame or armchair political about saying it like it is.
I was responding to literally several posts immediately above mine that were saying that. So it's the OP and at least a few other people. And if some schools have banned the gesture, whatever. That still isn't a state or federal government sanctioned "banning" is all I'm saying.
Edit: All I'm saying is, words have meaning and how you present these ideas has a bearing on how you're perceived. People jumping to silly conclusions and then using that conclusion as another building block in their worldview risk having a very shaky foundation when it comes down to really talking about these issues. I am unequivocally in favor of strong firearm regulation, and I think that "banning" the use of something like finger guns is profoundly stupid, but that doesn't mean I should let this narrative carry any weight just because it would confirm something I already intuitively believe.
That kind of stuff just bothers me is all. It's the same kind of reflexive, thoughtless statement that's responsible for various misunderstandings and for steering us away from actually understanding a situation. It's like when I have to explain to coworkers that it's a problem when they refer to a peaceful protest as a "riot", even if they didn't really
mean "riot". It unintentionally adds to a narrative that undermines the value of the protest, right? So in a sort of similar way, parroting something like, "Oh, look how stupid America is: they'll ban finger guns, but they won't ban real guns," is just a totally inaccurate and unhelpful way of framing anything, and it gets us no closer to any kind of truth. In fact, it becomes something that's easily dismissed because it's reflexive and inaccurate.
