In this "documentary" several convicted criminals, gang members and weapon fanatics are interviewed in a useless attempt to blame the Glock weapon company for everything that is seemingly wrong in this world.

Yes even Sadam Hoessein carried a Glock; so what???

What does that has to do with the Glock company? He probably drove a Mercedes-Benz as well??

Totally worthless crap documentary which touches several subjects (poverty, gang violence, 2nd amendment) without coming to any conclusions whatsoever except for the fact that Glock is a bad bad company.

You can clearly say that this is one sided. It's obvious that the filmmakers had an agenda. And in general not being pro gun I get the sentiment overall. But there seems to be no other goal than just demonizing Glock and their product. Now if that sounds like your kind of documentary you will probably love this way more than the general audience.

The other things is by focusing on the Glock but throwing in so many other things ... it loses its overall focus too. Does it matter what individuals used a Glock? This almost works as a movie for pro gun activists, because they can say: see how crazy anti gun people are? They think they can change something with this ... and maybe that wasn't the aim or goal, but that is just it: we don't really know what this was aiming at (no pun intended)

An Austrian argues against 2a. Evidently he has no idea why the populace might need to defend itself against tyranny. An Austrian!

I suppose that from a Germanic point of view, the defence against tyranny is an enigma (pun intended). "If only the fuhrer knew! "

This kid even flew to Iraq for one shot out of his hotel window because someone erroneously informed him that Chicago is known as Chiraq. It's more commonly called Chicongo. Neither Iraqi nor Congolese citizens have 2a rights to protect them from tyranny. They have tyranny instead. That's what you get without either 2a or Germanic obsequience to authority.

The fuhrer was Austrian. He knew. He also knew his subjects would think the best of him because, hey, why would the citizenry believe their masters would practice tyranny?

On the positive side, this guy is less of a one eyed polemicist than the odious Michael Moore. That's the best that I can say for this. It's naive rather than cynical communist propaganda.