Quick note: I don’t make this stuff up. Day after day, month after month, I click onto anti-gun screeds that make no sense whatsoever. The overarching theme is unmistakable: anything that “allows” civilian gun ownership is inherently flawed; anything that “promotes” civilian gun ownership is deeply evil. All gun laws that aren’t completely insurmountable by law-abiding citizens fall into the flawed category. The National Rifle Association (a.k.a, the “gun lobby”) is the poster child for evil. Needless to say, gun grabbing Miami Herald columnist Edward Wasserman is down with saying down with the NRA. But he demotes the gun rights group to number two slot in his post-Aurora rant . . .
Face it, the most dangerous promoter of gun violence in contemporary society isn’t the gunmaker or the National Rifle Association, it’s Hollywood. Movies are how guns are exhibited, marketed and sold. When did you last see an advertisement from Glock or Ruger or Smith & Wesson? Unless you read a specialty magazine, never.
That’s because the market for firearms isn’t widened and regenerated through consumer advertising. That happens through lurid, breathtaking portrayals of gun violence, lovingly depicted in harrowing detail, as plot elements indispensable to the contemporary action film.
The reason you don’t see ads for guns in mainstream magazines: left-wing media companies ban them. Just thought I’d point that out. Now, back to the action!
Cinematic technique has made huge advances in depictions of all violence, from dismemberment to fist fights, but the achievement with guns has led the field. The visuals, as the shooter blazes away, are almost a cliché: Lyrical, slow-motion close-ups of the slide of the semi-automatic pistol spitting out the spent shell and chambering the next round, the viscous slide of the now-empty magazine dropping from the grip, the snap of the new clip as it’s shoved home, the cutaway to the cascade of shells hitting the floor. There’s a grim pornography to the camera work. And then the money shots as the bullets hit bone and flesh.
Yeah America was much safer when special effects sucked. Correlation equals causation—at least in theory.
But you gotta admit: Wasserman has a distinctly cinematic style. I wonder what he’d say if Hollywood backed-up a dump truck of cash to his garage door in exchange for a movie script? Maybe he could do something about a mind-reading writer who bumps into a spree killer?
What was in the mind of the Aurora shooter during the weeks of planning and calculating, while he was figuring out which weapons to buy and how much ammo he’d need, waiting for the shipments, building his bombs, picking out his commando wardrobe? Do you need to ask?
A 24-year-old American lad, marinated in revenge fantasies — how many cinematic montages has he seen, the quietly determined protagonist fashioning his straps and holsters, lubricating and reassembling his weapons, squeezing cartridges into clips, DeNiro in Taxi Driver, Jean Reno in The Professional, Keanu in The Matrix: “Guns, lots more guns.” The essence of cool.
Actually, we know nothing about James Holmes’ movie preferences or cultural influences (save a Joker fixation). We do know that he was a doctoral student who snapped after failing his prelims (Holmes bought his rifle five hours after his chosen alma mater declared him persona non grata).
We also know that anti-gun “thinkers” have a tendency to completely blow the firearms-related details within their argument. For example.
In what has likely been the winningest — and least transparent — campaign of product placement in Hollywood history, those weapons became the norm on the big screen, and back home the punk who might have settled for a snubnose .38 was so tantalized with the far more devastating .45 or AR-15 or 9mm that they became the streetwise norm. (It was a 9mm that the killer of six Sikh worshippers used last week in a suburban Milwaukee temple.)
Parenthetically, Wasserman (or his editor) got it right: while Holmes used an AR and a .40-caliber Glock in his attack (and a shotgun), the 9mm handgun is both the spree killer and gang-bangers’ weapon of choice. And? Would criminals have “settled” for a snubbie if Hollywood hadn’t depicted larger caliber weapons since, I dunno, World War II.
The answer doesn’t fit the gun-averse media maven’s narrative so . . . the stupidity stays in the picture.
Hollywood didn’t cause the Aurora slaughter, but it’s impossible to imagine Aurora without Hollywood.
Over-educated arrogant statists without any understanding of (or respect for) the United States Constitution didn’t create gun control, but it’s hard to imagine it without them. Impossible, in fact.
is it just me or are the gun grabbers getting so desparete that they’re eating their own. this libtard is blaming hollywood, the ancestral home of the libtard tribe. talk about an animal biting at it’s own wounds. may be a glimmer of hope left in this country for the good guys after all.
While I understand and appreciate your enthusiasm and conviction, but please can we ALL try to refrain from blanket derogatory remarks such as ‘libtard’. This guy is definitely a moron, no question. There are a good number of people that are liberal and gun rights supporters. There are also a significant of conservatives that are also not all too gun friendly. All I’m saying is lets try to embrace all gun rights and 2A supporters instead of alienating those that have different ideas about other aspect of politics.
Not trying to single you out jwm, I just keep seeing this happen again and again. Frankly, its a big turnoff to to many that would be proactive and helpful in the fight. KWIM? Keep fighting the good fight!!!
FLAME DELETED
Understood
Nah, libtard is the correct term. You see, its almost always the libtards, is it not? If you are a liberal……become a conservative.
Good Observation:
Read Red Star Over Hollywood for more details on the Commie Incursion of Hollywood (started in the 1920’s)
“Impossible” to imagine the Aurora shooting without Hollywood…
Impossible is an awfully big word. Its right up there with “Always” and “Never”.
I think it is very possible to imagine.
Sure, hollywood glorifies violence. And America (and the rest of the world) BUYS it.
Speaking of things that should be impossible…someone Paying real money for Mr. Edward Wasserman to write nonsense.
I just have to know, Robert, how hard do you and Dan look for the pictures if these idiots you guys quote here? Every one has this holier than thou shit eating grin. Do you guys search them out on purpose, or do most just come that way?
Yes.
You really need to start a “Smug Gallery”. All these dipshits’ silly photos in one place.
Newsrooms, faculty lounges, liberal Think-Tanks and non-Starbucks coffee shops are full of these smug faces.
I’m with Wasserman. We need some common sense Hollywood control laws to protect the Children.
I think that there are some elements of truth that Hollywood is a contributing player (one of many) in motivating or conditioning of people to embrace violence as a valid form of action to use in their lives. The two-parent family is mostly gone, many people are being raised in the belief that ethics and morals are all personal choices, if it makes you feel good then do it, etc. Films and TV shows, like advertising, seek to connect on a deep emotional level with viewers. Actors may publicly claim, in real life, to be anti-gun (while owning guns) though their fans ‘want’ to own those guns they’ve seen them use to be like them. Unfortunately, some people in real life see guns as a bad-azz cool tool of empowerment to achieving success and status in their lives.
The Hamas have no issue creating havoc and devastation beyond all comparison and they filter the internet and tv.
His argument is invalid.
Except they replace Hollywood with their own brand of “edutainment”.
As far as the argument made, it does carry some weight. It all starts with the argument: are we born or raised a certain way? If born, then you would have to conclude that all serial killers would have ended up as they did regardless of their upbringing and choices.
There is something to be said for the influence of culture on our behavior. Incidentally, if you don’t believe so, you may as well stop going to church, it won’t make a difference. Yes, that argument would cut both ways.
I have (well, not quite done yet) raised 3 kids. My limited experience shows me that my youngest will mimic my oldest, down to the most disgusting, rude behaviors. At the same time, I try to provide the best example to mimic. So, what makes them chose one (bad) example over the other?
Point is, don’t discount the effect of culture anymore than Wasserman gives it too much weight. It’s part of the equation.
How can a mind this utterly demented and flat-out delusional possibly function in society? Ignoring the staggering projection of subconscious violence and fear of his own vulnerability to suggestion, did he seriously suggest that random acts of violence are unimaginable without Hollywood? Can anyone be so incredibly ignorant of history as to truly believe that? What a dumbass. (it’s hard to imagine where I could have learned to curse…must be Hollywood. And the NRA)
As much as he rails against Hollywood, with that face and his obviously treacherous excuse of a spirit, he’d make a great villain. Let’s suggest to the creators of Gray State that they make this guy a traitorous collaborator. Art imitating life.
Blame Obama – he said he took out Bin Laden personally and that glorifies violence.
He must have used his “AK-47 that belongs in the hands of our soldiers, not criminals”.
Wasserman, you dipsh!t, it’s not Hollywood that you need to blame. No, it’s your leftist, punkass media. Douchebag nobodys like Holmes commit hideous crimes because they want to be famous. Your beloved MSM makes them famous. The media needs the murderers like roundworms need a dog’s colon.
Somehow this man demands a brown stained napkin tied around his neck, the type normaly found in some Lobster resturants on the EAST coast
The only reason “it’s impossible to imagine Aurora without Hollywood” is because it wouldn’t have been in a movie theater.
What we really need to do is pass a law where spree shooters’ names and faces cannot be released.
I think the divide begins way before we even get to fire arms. The aforementioned Lintard and his ilk uniformly start with the proposition that our fellow citizens are utterly lacking in any and all personal agency and simply waiting for some random catalyst to detonate. Catalysts include but most certainly are not limited to, the presence of a firearm, something they saw on tv or in a movie, a T shirt, slogan, bumper sticker, coffee mug or the ever offending ball cap. That Homer Simpson T shirt or ‘Who Farted’ ball cap of truck stop ubiquity carry the seed of the next bloodbath for the advanced, enlightened thinker of our age.
I’m not sure whether I detest their contempt for the Constitution or their fellow citizens more.
“Hollywood didn’t cause the Aurora slaughter, but it’s impossible to imagine Aurora without Hollywood.”
Oxygen didn’t cause the Aurora Slaughter, but it’s impossible to imagine Aurora without oxygen.
I think there may be a logical fallacy here
If there were no movies, there would be no movie theaters, and therefore no movie theater shootings!
::rides away on a unicorn farting hearts stars horseshoes rainbows and blue moons::
Humans tend to be dumb, stupid and violent(physically and mentally), and have a high opinion of their presence in, and contribution to, and importance in life. This guy is one of those.
Nous Defions
Comments are closed.