An MRC study published yesterday was the subject of a piece in The Hollywood Reporter. The study analyzed the violence in the top 10 movies currently in theatres to showcase the hypocrisy of celebrities demanding gun control after the Roseburg shooting.
(For the record: 334 separate violent acts; 121 acts of gun violence; 39 dead out of 142 total victims.)
We noted, among other examples, actress Julianne Moore’s Twitter conversation with Obama advisor Valerie Jarrett, which amounted to congratulating each other for being against gun violence.
Well, Moore objects to being lumped in with those calling for more gun control and explained her position to The Hollywood Reporter:
Second Amendment advocates say you are calling for more gun control. Are they correct?
I am an American citizen and a believer in the Constitution. But I believe that with the rights that the Constitution gives us, we also have responsibilities. I am committed to improving gun safety in the U.S. and reducing gun violence by advocating for background checks, gun licenses and safe gun storage, and by keeping guns out of the hands of dangerous people.
Sounds reasonable, if ineffective at addressing mass shootings. But Moore was corresponding with Valerie Jarrett. Jarrett’s boss just responded to the Roseburg incident by proudly politicizing the tragedy and saying, “We know that other countries, in response to one mass shooting, have been able to craft laws that almost eliminate mass shootings. Friends of ours, allies of ours – Great Britain, Australia, countries like ours.” Those “countries like ours” essentially banned hand guns. That sure sounds like gun control. Is there any daylight between Obama’s opinion and Jarrett’s? If so, please explain, Ms. Moore. Back to THR:
Are these Second Amendment advocates against what you call "gun safety?"
I actually think that a belief in the Second Amendment and a belief in gun safety are not mutually exclusive.
No, they’re not. Just ask the organization that does more than anyone else to promote and ensure gun safety, the NRA. But we digress.
Do critics who accuse Hollywood of glorifying gunplay have a valid point?
It is impossible to be killed by watching a violent movie, but unfortunately, it is all too possible to be shot and killed while sitting in a theater and watching any kind of movie.
So no. Predictably, Moore and her colleagues will not admit the possibility of their products having a negative impact on society. Meanwhile, Hollywood loves to remind us how it changed attitudes about the things it likes, like gay rights.
Sadly, some people do get to have it both ways.