SteamArena

Should movie stars stop worshipping guns if they want to show a good example?

Its been getting to me for a while that most modern movie s absolutely HAVE to be posing with a gun in the movie poster, and all plotlines HAVE to have someone shooting someone in order to progress the plot and deliver an outcome.

Now it seems the Hollywood A listers are making a video to "Demand a Plan" to stop gun murders. And so say all of us, surely.

Thing is, say what you like about the NRA (and I think they have to lobotomise themselves on the basis of the otherworldly theories they have about making the world a safer place) Holloywood A listers are the people who almost singlehandedly promote the use of weapons for unilateral judgment and death on a constant basis. And these are the "heroes". Not even the "bad guys". Do the NRA produce thousands of hours of glorified butchery broadcast across every TV and movie screen in the States? All in the name of truth, justice and the American way?

Someone's released a counter video to the Demand a Plan one splicing in the broadcats moments where the actors wield weapons and distribute extrajudicial death sentences to whomever is patently cast as the bad guy.

I am totally for gun control. I am totally for this being extended to the media as well, frankly i am a bit sick of the idea that the gun is the central theme in any movie where people need to be cast as heroes, and solutions to problems need to be arrived at before the end of a TV episode.

Discuss

jack1987 Good points, I'd not considered the role of celebrities (especially movie stars) on this issue. I imagine the real culprits are the thugs from the rap/hip-hop genres who wield guns on album covers and include references along the lines of 'busting caps in other people's asses' (their words, not mine). Realistically we aren't going to censor all films with guns (and hey, what kind of action film doesn't include guns?) but perhaps movies where guns are frequently used should be classified higher than 'PG' and any posters with gun-wielding 'stars' should be monitored more closely.
One 'steamy' issue for me is the hypocrisy of celebs (movie stars and musicians are the worst) - acting with guns on screen and campaigning against the use of guns and gun 'rights' off screen. Just like Bono preaching global warming but having his 'favourite hat' flown by private plane across the country... AHHH!!!!

bismarck I agree, hollywood bears a large portion of the blame on this issue, by glorifying guns and desensitising the public to violence. But we know these people are only interested in their egos and money. I have a rule that any movie with a gun shown on the promotional banner is probably a lousy movie so I dont watch them. There are a few films however, which have some violent (and factual) historical theme, which in order to portray the event truthfully, depict violence. When this is done in a way that shows the tragedy and terror guns cause in real life, I consider this responsible.
But most hollywood films just show a glorified and gratuitous use of violence in fictional situations.

Micheal Collins @jack : Bono has a lot to answer for before we even GET to the plane flying his hat around the world. For example those shades. And the fact that he pays his taxes in the Netherlands. For sure, if the actors thought every time they picked up a movie prop and took direction on how to "blow away the bad guy", that maybe just maybe they are inspiring a whole lot of people who otherwise might not have considered the apparent ease of ridding the world of their problems through gunfire, we might see a different view. I wonder, how recent is gun culture in the US, really? Automatic weapons for civilians and the cash to have several firearms is surely a post-WWII or similar phenomenon? Actually, no, I am reading Roughing It from Mark Twain. It's pretty clear that for a long time in the frontiers, carrying a gun and (importantly) using it, was the mark of a man.

@bismarck : i watched the movie Blood Diamond the other night. Loads of people illed by guns. but you kow, i felt that it was a good show. because nobody was boo-yah-ing their victory. It was all utterly tragic, and I imagine, reflective of a situation in a part of the world where human life is so cheap people migth spare your life so as to save on bullet costs. Death was grim in that movie. Life, it seems, is grim too when guns are available. Guns allow people to project multiples of their power over those without guns, when there is no instituion to protect them. And the multiples increase with the firepower.

Micheal Collins Oh here's one nice quote i read today, that kinda sums up the importance of guns and other armaments in moral decisions :

War does not determine who is right, it determines who is left.

Now do we really want to go back to the middle ages?

marina By this logic, should we also ban all films that contain guns/fighting (ie. most classics)? I do agree that glorification of violence is a shame, but we also shouldn't give violent films an "underground" cult status. By banning them, they will become more "cool" and sought after - especially by rebellious youths trying to appear edgy.
There is no quick fix to the problem of violence - ultimately, if parents and families don't raise their children to have good judgement and not be desensitised to violence, banning violence in the media won't help much.

Micheal Collins banning? never.

I'm jsut saying that people need to look further away from violence in movies as an inevitability, not have it banned.

If hollywood people want to make a difference well, start as Michael Jackson said, with the (wo)man in the mirror. Change your ways, not so much deny them.

in the middle ages, it was normal to go around killing people to sort things out. It's not normal any more.

to some extent, banning killing helped. but mostly it was education and better options for resolution.

Let's get hollywood to act out some better options for resolution

bismarck The issue can’t be resolved with a dialogue and a willingness to give consideration to the arguments of the gun nuts. Oh sorry, I mean, our pro-2nd amendment fellow citizens. One argument that cant be dismissed out of hand, is that a well armed citizenry is capable of preventing tyranny. This has been proven through history by many examples - colonial America would not have been able to defeat British tyranny without the assault weapons of the day (rifled firearms and cannon). A converse example is the Norman subjugation of the large Saxon population in in England after 1066 - the first thing the Normans did was to disarm the Saxons and pass laws restricting the right to bear arms, that being reserved for the Norman nobility. Then you have numerous examples all over the world, not least in Europe, where a small tyrannical minority takes over a country and leads it to ruin, and the population is not able to put up an effective resistance, because the state has a defacto monopoly on the means of violence.
So, it is a fair question - is the price Americans pay by having all these high capacity weapons in free circulation, worth the theoretical insurance against state tyranny? If we are honest, no matter where we stand in the issue, we can not answer with a simple yes or no, it is question of degree - what limits are reasonable?
Another strong argument is the natural right of self-defence - this right predates civilization and government, and no one can argue that free citizens of any free country have relinquished this right.
Already there is a compromise in place - consider that no one would accept that I should be allowed to possess my own atomic bomb - not even the gun nuts (opps, sorry), so there is already an acknowledgement and legal prohibition against certain type of weapons. We must simply agree where to draw the line, and let the people decide what types of weapons are legal, and what restrictions should be put into place to reduce the chances that weapons may be misused. After all, we have a right to pursue happiness (which for me means not getting shot), and that is stated in the main text of the Constitution, not in an afterthought of an amendment.

Island Resort PANGKIL

Island Resort JOYO