Nevix wrote:Episode 1 takes ideas in Objectivism and arguably the Freedom based US' Second Amendment to an extreme, to make a point that is... there.
The point of the episode is that, to have a society that allows everyone to be armed and free to kill, you would need both people who are willing to see people killed, and someone who is willing to kill for them.
In Objectivism, which begins with a solid moral foundation before anything else, murder would not need to be illegal because Objectivists would already have the standard that murder is both immoral and unnecessary in most circumstances.
It's not supported in the reality of countries that have free/armed populaces, as there are plenty of places where people are armed, and don't kill for fun. While this does have exceptions (Las Vegas being a recent example), they ARE exceptions to the rule of law abiding armed citizens handling guns safely.
Also, it makes little difference to me whether Kino is a travelling girl, as is shown in the original anime version, or if she's a girl pretending to be a boy, or if he's just a boy in the new version. It literally matters not to the overall story thus far.
SPOILER if you want to watch the show
In the previous show, many of the stories used to be about concepts that sounded ideal, but when implemented, had a lot of darker undertones to it. This episode is all about a country that sounds like a dystopia, but when you actually go there - it's a good place to live in. In a way, the flip to a more beautiful art style feels like this is a 'mirror' to the original Kino, while still being the same world.
The use of Wild West scenery for the buildings subverts the normal things we think about when we think about Westerns. We usually think Westerns are full of lawless killing, but this doesn't have any of that.
I thought that the episode would end with Kino just leaving, but the extra touch with the second traveler is what pushes this story to a higher level. It shows the difference between a guy who merely dreams about killing and acting lawless, and a guy who has actually experienced it. Ultimately, the moral seems to be that even in 'anarchy', or what should be a chaotic state, humans will always aim towards order and law to earn mutual benefits.
To go deeper to the point, it has nothing to do with guns or owning weapons and especially the 2nd Amendment of the US constitution. To those that say it's pro gun, remember how the one guy was killed and it wasn't from guns or even from enthusiastic people. They did it because that's their way of dealing with a problem, not because they want to. This is a society that's developed on the idea that as a community, they need to look out for each other and protect each other.
I'm not saying this will actually work but it is the idea of, if you can be killed and it isn't illegally for it, then suddenly what bounds us together isn't law, but our morals.
