Project Veritas: Why aren’t we banning guns from movies?

posted at 8:21 pm on April 2, 2013 by Erika Johnsen

Quoth President Obama, “If there’s even one thing we can do, if there’s just one life we can save — we’ve got an obligation to try.” But, as Project Veritas asks in their latest video, are President Obama and his liberal allies really doing everything they possibly can to perhaps save even just one life? Their attention to addressing gun violence certainly does seem mighty selective; they’re all too willing to infringe on America’s Second Amendment rights to enact measures that they (often wrongly) posit will impact gun violence, but when it comes to the gun violence peddled and even glamorized in films, Hollywood gets a free pass. The point is not necessarily that gun violence in movies and video games begets violence in real life, but rather that there are plenty of studies out there to that effect and President Obama has proclaimed that we have an moral obligation to try anything we can. If there’s a chance that some nutjob is even subtly influenced toward murderousness by the gun violence in movies, would entertainment companies and media personalities be willing to do anything about it?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

If there’s a chance that some nutjob is even subtly influenced toward murderousness by the gun violence in movies, would entertainment companies and media personalities be willing to do anything about it?

Only if one believed that they really cared about saving lives and crime…

Resist We Much on April 2, 2013 at 8:24 PM

Why aren’t we banning guns from movies?

…(in the Church Lady’s voice)…because…t h e y’re…s p e c I a l !

KOOLAID2 on April 2, 2013 at 8:29 PM

What an absurd question! Why do you want more children murdered?!

/sarc

ThePrez on April 2, 2013 at 8:31 PM

Come on…Barack tell Hollywood how to make money to funnel back to him so he can create more executive orders to take away our constitutional rights….Parrish the thought

jaywemm on April 2, 2013 at 8:34 PM

I would like to know how many hundreds – perhaps thousands of extinguished young African American males lives are directly attrituble to that sewer of filth from MTV and their glorification of gangsta rap throughout the 1990s.

sbvft contributor on April 2, 2013 at 8:35 PM

As the report said the other day, Lanza studied these events and chose on his course to be worse that all before his. The next moron will make it even worse. Nothing that New York or Connecticut just passed would have stopped Lanza. If the next event occurs in NY or CT despite what they just passed, are they then going to get really serious and discuss the violence in movies, video games, and the mental health problems in this country?

TulsAmerican on April 2, 2013 at 8:36 PM

Because it sells.
Then the proceeds goes to the Libs.

Electrongod on April 2, 2013 at 8:36 PM

In this whole debate, I’ve only heard one honest man. I think it was Ben Shapiro talking to Piers Morgan. He said (paraphrase)that gun ownership had nothing to do with hunting, collecting or target shooting. Guns in the hands of citizens were the hedge bet against a government that might need to be thrown down by the people. It seemed to go over every ones heads when he said it. Why not defend the second amendment on that principle alone?

BL@KBIRD on April 2, 2013 at 8:41 PM

If the next event occurs in NY or CT despite what they just passed, are they then going to get really serious and discuss the violence in movies, video games, and the mental health problems in this country?

TulsAmerican on April 2, 2013 at 8:36 PM

Nope. They’ll just blame the NRA. Because that’s how America works now…

joejm65 on April 2, 2013 at 8:44 PM

I would like to know how many hundreds – perhaps thousands of extinguished young African American males lives are directly attrituble to that sewer of filth from MTV and their glorification of gangsta rap throughout the 1990s.

sbvft contributor on April 2, 2013 at 8:35 PM

I’d have to say just about all of them.

Killin gives cred that leads to swag, bling and lil white chicks butts. It’s all sunshine from there. Apparently it is to be viewed as a cultural triumph showcasing what blacks can do on their own while waiting for a call from the NBA.

BL@KBIRD on April 2, 2013 at 8:47 PM

As the report said the other day, Lanza studied these events and chose on his course to be worse that all before his. The next moron will make it even worse. Nothing that New York or Connecticut just passed would have stopped Lanza. If the next event occurs in NY or CT despite what they just passed, are they then going to get really serious and discuss the violence in movies, video games, and the mental health problems in this country?

TulsAmerican on April 2, 2013 at 8:36 PM

…and overuse of mind-altering prescription drugs. Why are no ‘journalists’ looking into this? Making too much money from advertising for the drug companies?

slickwillie2001 on April 2, 2013 at 8:47 PM

Yeah, lets ban bad words, people who argue, hit and punch, kick and stomp, pinch, steal and have affairs. We should also ban people who sell drugs in movies. And drink alcohol or eat fatty foods.

Imagine the perfect world we would have if only we banned all this and more, not just on movies in real life. Lets ban poverty too.

It would be funny to see how many people would sign a petition to make crime illegal.

JellyToast on April 2, 2013 at 8:49 PM

Besides guns, violence in movies, videos, and problems with mental health issues, what about this boy’s father?
Lost in the discussion, probably because he killed his mother… is where on God’s green earth was this lost boy’s dad? What role did he have in his son’s life? What was their connection?

I know there was a divorce. But where was this troubled boy’s DAD? Did he just walk out and abandon him? Sounds like the kid was mostly holed up on his own. Most people think kids just manage to adjust to one parent, but I am pretty sure a boy this age could have benefitted from a dad who was engaged and ready to step up to the task. Maybe mom needed help getting this crazy kid some help. What was the deal here?

Has this all been discussed and I just missed it?

marybel on April 2, 2013 at 8:57 PM

What a stupid video. These people are just like Micheal Moore.

Rusty Allen on April 2, 2013 at 8:59 PM

JellyToast on April 2, 2013 at 8:49 PM

Myself, I’m not sure which irritates me more; Hollywood’s hypocrisy, the progressive assumption of automatic moral superiority, or their inability to relate cause and effect. To wit;

Back in the Clinton administration, during the debates over AWB, Jack Valenti was called in to testify in front of the Senate about the effects of violence in entertainment. He harrumphed that “nothing anyone sees on a movie or TV screen can affect their behavior”.

The question I wanted to hear him asked next never got asked, that being “If that’s true, isn’t the money you charge advertisers for commercial time essentially obtained by fraud? And shouldn’t you be in jail for running a long-standing confidence scam?”

Needless to say, Valenti was all in favor of abolishing the Second Amendment. Except for Hollywood, of course.

Which probably explains why he was called to testify in the first place.

clear ether

eon

eon on April 2, 2013 at 9:04 PM

The news media should stop publicizing these mass-shootings, too. The evidence shows that the Sandy Hook shooter was motivated by the fame and notoriety other shooters had gained through their atrocities and was attempting to emulate them and exceed their accomplishments. Nobody needs to know about these incidents except law enforcement, and, if it would save just one child’s life, it’s worth the small loss of entertainment value you blood-thirsty voyeurs get out of reading about the carnage. Besides, the 1st Amendment only applies to hand-set type and Gutenberg presses, nobody needs a high-capacity assault web press or to use military-grade radio waves to exercise their rights.

Socratease on April 2, 2013 at 9:04 PM

I’m pretty sure I saw a movie with a pop tart partially eaten so it kind of looked like a gun if I squinted just right.

It scared me so badly I almost wet my pants. But I suppose that could have been the 64 oz. soda I had just drunk.

Ban large sodas from movie theaters!

malclave on April 2, 2013 at 9:13 PM

Has this all been discussed and I just missed it?

marybel on April 2, 2013 at 8:57 PM

No, it hasn’t been discussed. But I can fill in the details even though I don’t know any of the participants.

Family court is worse than a sewer – it’s a condemnation arena for children. Fathers cannot get treated equally despite numerous court rulings that mandate equal treatment. At a certain point, fathers lose interest in futile battles which enrich the attorneys at the father’s expense.

So they settle. Mom gets the house and as many kids as she wants, plus half of the wealth of the family. Sometimes she gets a monthly check for alimony spousal maintenance. She always gets a check for child support (despite the implication that such a payment means the kid should be in the other parent’s household).

And the kids suffer until they hit puberty. Then mom comes face-to-face with reality – she cannot teach her boy anything about how to be a man. There’s no daily display of masculinity walking around the house for the kid to emulate so his hormones and emotions are left to his imagination.

Sometimes he gets murderously frustrated. Especially when he realizes he wasn’t important enough for his idiot mother to forgo her trophy. Sometimes it isn’t just the guilty who die.

Sow to the wind, reap the whirlwind. Chickens, home, roost, etc.

platypus on April 2, 2013 at 9:13 PM

Besides, the 1st Amendment only applies to hand-set type and Gutenberg presses, nobody needs a high-capacity assault web press or to use military-grade radio waves to exercise their rights.

Socratease on April 2, 2013 at 9:04 PM

And even the ones we decide to allow should be registered with the government.

And insured against being improperly used.

malclave on April 2, 2013 at 9:15 PM

Well said platypus. I agree completely. In a former life, I was a family counselor and saw this scenario countless times.

Your point on Family court is spot on, but I also saw many men who just walked away and completely abandoned their sons who were lost without their influence. Boys need their dads’ guidance, esp in adolescence. It’s an incalculable loss.

marybel on April 2, 2013 at 9:36 PM

We can begin by registering movies and video games. I’m sure Barry and company can get behind that.

GarandFan on April 2, 2013 at 9:38 PM

I also saw many men who just walked away and completely abandoned their sons who were lost without their influence. Boys need their dads’ guidance, esp in adolescence. It’s an incalculable loss.

marybel on April 2, 2013 at 9:36 PM

Yeah, you’re right about the walkaways. But my experience indicates that a lot of them were not in a relationship first so when the baby came they had no real connection to the child. It is very hard to feel and be connected to an entity that basically just shows up. So walking away doesn’t have the same effect on them – they really don’t comprehend that the baby is a part of them because there’s no existing foundation to build upon.

platypus on April 2, 2013 at 9:43 PM

, the law or policy must be the least restrictive means for achieving that interest.

His father was remarried and living in NJ. From press accounts following Newtown, the son was estranged from his father and his older brother, whom he hadn’t spoken to in 2 years.

I got the feeling that the mum was more protective of the son and that this was a cause of some friction.

Resist We Much on April 2, 2013 at 9:50 PM

In this whole debate, I’ve only heard one honest man. I think it was Ben Shapiro talking to Piers Morgan. He said (paraphrase)that gun ownership had nothing to do with hunting, collecting or target shooting. Guns in the hands of citizens were the hedge bet against a government that might need to be thrown down by the people. It seemed to go over every ones heads when he said it. Why not defend the second amendment on that principle alone?

BL@KBIRD on April 2, 2013 at 8:41 PM

Because a lot of people just refuse to believe that the government would turn on them and a lot of the others would welcome the new overlords thinking they’d have a place in the new order and see the second amendment and peasants having guns to be a negative.

kim roy on April 2, 2013 at 10:21 PM

Has this all been discussed and I just missed it?

marybel on April 2, 2013 at 8:57 PM

You weren’t the only one if it has been discussed.

That leads me to believe that it would not be a positive scenario for the liberal media and their friends. It’s only when it advances their agenda do we hear about it. They’ve kept this one very quiet.

kim roy on April 2, 2013 at 10:25 PM

Why stop at banning guns from movies. The left despises and fears families, motherhood,and population growth.

Go for it lefties…

No more movies with any kids in them–stick with the promiscuity, uncontrolled lust and blowing up cars. It’s for the children!
(Just make sure those car chase scenes don’t accidently involve any views of churches in the background. I shudder to think of the influence.

BTW, this once again proves Dan Quayle was right and you said condescendingly, “It’s just a movie for crying out loud” and now…

Don L on April 3, 2013 at 1:12 AM

Because a lot of people just refuse to believe that the government would turn on them and a lot of the others would welcome the new overlords thinking they’d have a place in the new order and see the second amendment and peasants having guns to be a negative.

kim roy on April 2, 2013 at 10:21 PM

True, but a lot of people at one time would refuse to believe that a handful of religious crazed people could successfully attack America and take down the trade centers. Our world is one where evil is rapidly coming out of the closet. Maybe if the GOP explained the very real developing potential? Naw…

Don L on April 3, 2013 at 1:17 AM

Movie guns should only shoot those little flags that say BANG! and villains should melodramatically grab their chests and go “Mother Macree!” when “shot“.

Death should be banned from movies entirely, now that I think of it.

And skies should only be blue, with fluffy white clouds.

And all candy should be free in the theater concession stands.

Along with contraceptives.

Obama must act!

profitsbeard on April 3, 2013 at 2:22 AM

The libs and lefties in Tinseltown should be all on board with this, right?

farsighted on April 3, 2013 at 7:21 AM

Sometimes he gets murderously frustrated. Especially when he realizes he wasn’t important enough for his idiot mother to forgo her trophy. Sometimes it isn’t just the guilty who die.

Sow to the wind, reap the whirlwind. Chickens, home, roost, etc.

platypus on April 2, 2013 at 9:13 PM

i love your breakdown of the issue. It rings true with me. I’d like to know what is the “trophy” represent?

beselfish on April 3, 2013 at 7:44 AM

They also need to ban all music. If it weren’t for Helter Skelter and the Beatles, Charles Manson would have been a model citizen.

kenro85 on April 3, 2013 at 8:38 AM

I have yet to read any main-stream or main-conservative-stream report on the connection of all these mass murders and the use of anti-depressants, which is the one thing that unites all recent (and recent past) mass murders. When you listen to the commercials for these drugs, the ALL have a warning about thoughts of suicide. What they don’t say about those thoughts is that they could just as easily be thoughts of murder.

Read this list of cases which are verified: http://ssristories.com/index.php?p=school

Anti-depressants cause something called Akathisia. It is extremely serious. Why isn’t the Congress and the Administration looking at this? Could it be that some very powerful drug companies are suppressing the information? Rather like their suppressing the information that statins are over-prescribed and do nothing to prevent heart attacks in anyone who hasn’t had a heart attack.

Why doesn’t Breitbart.com or hotair or Fox or Daily Caller do a major report on this?

Portia46 on April 3, 2013 at 9:03 AM

which is the one thing that unites all recent (and recent past) mass murders.

Because antidepressants are really not the one thing that these mass shootings have in common.

Vera71 on April 3, 2013 at 9:35 AM

Because antidepressants are really not the one thing that these mass shootings have in common.

Vera71 on April 3, 2013 at 9:35 AM

Really? Since some of them involve the use of knives, not guns, what else unites them? And I’m not being sarcastic. I’d sincerely like a response.

Portia46 on April 3, 2013 at 10:05 AM

How about a petition to ban the use of soda… in movies?/B’berg Dude

RalphyBoy on April 3, 2013 at 10:37 AM

The libs and lefties in Tinseltown should be all on board with this, right?

Absolutely. Going forward with every new movie made. James Bond turns in his Baretta and simply uses skillful and cunning dialogue during martini summits to defeat the villians. And with modern technology, they can digitally remove every type of firearm and weapon from old movies. Imagine, seeing a revised classic war or crime movie with every one pointing fingers at each other and going “bang, bang, you’re dead!”

hawkeye54 on April 3, 2013 at 1:38 PM

Really? Since some of them involve the use of knives, not guns, what else unites them? And I’m not being sarcastic. I’d sincerely like a response.

What unites them? Many people lost their lives to one person wielding weapons. The use of antidepressants were not necessarily used by each mass shooter; therefore, antidepressants are not the one thing these shootings have in common.

Vera71 on April 3, 2013 at 1:53 PM