Connect with us


Exclusive: How Hollywood validates the myth of the good guy with a gun



How Hollywood validates the myth of the good guy with a gun

#Hollywood #validates #myth #good #guy #gun

He gallops into town, the stranger with the shadowy past, and quick-draws his Winchester to right the town’s wrongs. Or he’s a gruff, pistol-packing cop with an estranged wife and a kid he only sees a few times a year, but he saves a whole building full of people from the terrorists who’ve kidnapped them. Or he’s a taciturn former assassin who’s dragged reluctantly back into action when hardened bad guys show up again. He’s the hero, the savior, the knight in slightly dinged-up armor.

The backbone of Hollywood storytelling is the good guy with the gun.

When NRA CEO Wayne LaPierre first used that phrase, it was 2012, one week after the massacre of 26 people at Sandy Hook Elementary School. “The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun,” he said, and it spread like wildfire. Many have decried the statement, noting that at the deadliest mass shootings — such as the shooting in Uvalde, Texas, where 21 people died — the so-called good guys with the guns were there, but absolutely failed to prevent tragedy. Broader data clearly shows that in American active shooter attacks, the armed good guy often does not make a difference.

Yet the phrase sticks. It’s an attractive scenario to imagine. It’s romantic. Evidence suggests that gun owners, on the whole, imagine the good guy with the gun and see themselves. We all feel helpless to prevent attacks; for some, acquiring a gun is an appealing way to feel in control.


John Wayne in True Grit.

“Neither aggressive criminals (the ‘wolves’ in gun culture parlance) nor meek victims (the ‘sheep’), gun carriers see themselves as valiantly straddling a moral space of heroic violence,” sociologist Jennifer Carlson explained for Vox in 2018. What’s more, she writes, “this citizen-protector ethic redefines men’s social utility to their families.”

In other words, for many gun carriers — who are predominantly men — carrying a weapon is a way to identify with that courageous ideal. Carlson came to this conclusion through studying the state of Michigan, where economic depression, crime, and the impression of decline have fostered a robust concealed-carry gun culture. For many of the men she spoke to, carrying a gun was a way to fight back against the deterioration they saw in the world around them.

“Against the backdrop of socioeconomic decline, guns become a powerful means of asserting oneself as an upstanding person, as a dutiful father, and even as a committed community member,” she writes, noting that guns allowed those men to “rework their personal codes about what it means to be a good man and transform lethal force from a taboo act of violence to an act of good citizenship.”

That image has to come from somewhere. And one source seems obvious.

Clint Eastwood points a gun.

Clint Eastwood in Dirty Harry.
Warner Bros.

In the wake of the mass shooting in Uvalde and far too many more, Hollywood veterans have circulated an open letter calling on Hollywood to be part of the solution, not the problem. The letter suggests being “mindful of on-screen gun violence and model gun safety best practices,” showing on-screen gun users locking guns correctly and making them inaccessible to children, limiting the ways they’re used on screen, and exploring alternatives.

The initiative was led by activists Robert Bowers Disney and Christy Callahan, organizers for the advocacy group Brady United Against Gun Violence. Disney, the group’s national organizing director, told me that modeling good on-screen behavior around guns can have a much bigger impact than one might think and that social activists have had success with storytellers rethinking how they depict other social issues in the past.

Storytellers’ “support of seatbelts, addressing teen pregnancy, and smoking [prevention] are just a few examples where modeling safer behavior led to a culture shift for the better,” Disney said. “We’ve already received comments from TV writers who have changed a scene in response to our campaign. What’s truly exciting is these writers are taking advantage of this moment to actually be more creative in their storytelling.”

Guns, as objects, are all over the movies, and the debate about Hollywood and gun violence has sometimes verged on the asinine. But it’s important to note that the stories that Hollywood has been telling for almost its whole lifespan have placed the good guy with the gun front and center. It’s a great plot device. Our silver screen action heroes have often been good guys with guns, frequently those who must operate from outside the system.

They’re not the cops; they’re the beaten-down guys, the ones who are living on the margins. In Westerns from Stagecoach to True Grit, they were often the outsiders, men without moorings, a little mysterious, a little dangerous, but with their moral compasses set more true than society’s. They were John Wayne, Gary Cooper, Jimmy Stewart.

In the big blockbusters of the Reagan era and onward, they were often individuals who stepped in for those who couldn’t defend themselves, usually because whoever was supposed to be saving the day was too weak or ineffectual to pull it off. That guy is played by Sylvester Stallone, or Arnold Schwarzenegger, or Steven Seagal, or Liam Neeson. Or it’s not a guy at all: Melina in Total Recall, saving Quaid, or Marion in Raiders of the Lost Ark, stepping in to save Indiana Jones.

Even today’s biggest moneymaker, the expansive, superhero-based storytelling of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, has its roots in this tradition. In these films, some of the good guys have guns; others have superpowers instead. But the metaphor is latent and the allure is the same. Guns give ordinary people superpowers; wield one, and you too can be Captain America or Black Widow or Iron Man. Or Deadpool.

A scene from Captain America: the First Avenger.


Bucky Barnes, sniper.

The gun-wielding good guy doesn’t even have to be the protagonist (or, in a small number of cases, a guy). Think about it: How many times have you seen a film in which a villain has the hero in his sights, ready to take him out and then, when we hear a gunshot, the villain falls instead? From Captain America: The First Avenger to Under Siegel to The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance, the trope is the same. Our hero has been rescued by a comrade, a friend, an acquaintance, even the enemy of his enemy — and his gun. It’s a time-worn trope precisely because narratively, it adds an element of suspense, surprise, and catharsis to the story.

These tales are told in a way that encourages us to identify with the good guys, the ones who save the day. So when we imagine a real-life scenario, we naturally gravitate toward putting ourselves in the place of the hero of countless stories we’ve watched since childhood, not the victims.

These stories aren’t the only reason we swallow the romantic notion, nor do they bear the brunt of the blame for our struggles to curb gun violence in America. After all, Hollywood has exported its films abroad for decades, with very different results. The ease in acquiring guns in the US and the culture that’s sprung up around them is the product of a set of unique factors spanning culture, law, and politics.

But that doesn’t mean the movies have no effect. Tell people a story about themselves often enough, and they’ll believe it.

All of the measures proposed in the open letter to Hollywood seem reasonable, if mild. But even changing how guns are depicted on-screen would be a challenge. As the Hollywood Reporter has exhaustively reported, depictions of guns onscreen have steadily climbed over the years, and that’s resulted in a lucrative relationship between gun manufacturers and Hollywood.

Depicting guns realistically runs into another economic issue: the MPA ratings system tends to draw the line between PG-13 and R ratings to movies not based on gun violence, but on how much gore is shown on screen, and PG-13 movies make far more money at the box office than their R-rated counterparts. So studios have a vested interest in not showing blood and destroyed bodies, the natural result of gunfire. That means we’re often watching sanitized, cleaned-up fantasies of guns, rather than the kind of reality that might cause the good guy with the gun to hesitate when faced with a real-world scenario.

What we don’t see with nearly as much frequency is what we know happens in real life: the good guy arrives with the gun, and nothing happens. Or, as in Uvalde, the “good guys” — the cops, in this case — stand around, doing the opposite of what they ought to do, and nobody manages to save the day until after there’s been immense bloodshed.

There’s a simple reason for that. Movies are entertaining. Tragedy is, emphatically, not. Reality isn’t either. Nobody wants to turn on the TV and watch that story. Nobody wants to believe it happened.


So what are we supposed to do? At this point, Pandora’s box has been opened; you can’t take back a hundred years of film history. It would be both anti-art and counterproductive to erase guns from Hollywood’s history. Similarly, banning them from on-screen depiction wouldn’t make much sense. Guns exist in the real world. They cause tragedies, lots of them. Telling stories truthfully requires guns.

But as with all things in the movies, it’s not what the subject is that matters; it’s how the film goes about it. Imagining guns as the solution to all problems — as the successful solution — is, as we now know, a fantasy. It can be a dangerous fantasy. For people who feel like the world is spinning out of control, it suggests taking on an identity of gun-toting protector that doesn’t, in the end, deliver what it promises. That story, however appealing and romanticized, can block us from finding real solutions.


Exclusive: The Most Conservative Court In 90 Years –




Compelling Television

#Conservative #Court #Years

“In 2018 just after he announced his retirement, Justice Anthony Kennedy, who sat at the ideological center of the court for much of his 30-year tenure, met with a groups of reporters. Was he worried that some of the precedents he helped establish–the right to abortion and LGBT rights, for instance–might now be in jeopardy? No, he replied. He was confident that constitutional rights, once established would remain in place,” NPR reports.

“It took just four years, and the addition of one more Trump appointee to the Supreme Court, to prove him wrong.”

FiveThirtyEight: “The data emphasizes that the court is deeply polarized along partisan lines — perhaps more than it’s ever been. There have always been ideological disagreements among the justices, and those have often pitted liberals against conservatives, but those divides weren’t consistently linked to the justice’s appointing party.”

LoadingSave to Favorites

Continue Reading


Exclusive: Sorry, Biden, Gas Stations Can't Just 'Bring Down the Price' –




Sorry, Biden, Gas Stations Can't Just 'Bring Down the Price'

#Biden #Gas #Stations #Can039t #039Bring #Price039

Over the holiday weekend, President Joe Biden discovered a new scapegoat for persistently high gas prices: Americans who own and operate gas stations.

“My message to the companies running gas stations and setting prices at the pump is simple: this is a time of war and global peril,” Biden tweeted on Saturday. “Bring down the price you are charging at the pump to reflect the cost you’re paying for the product. And do it now.”

It arguably lacks the pomposity of former President Donald Trump’s memorable tweet that “hereby ordered” American companies to stop doing business in China, but the content is equally unhinged. Biden has been aggressive about using vague executive powers to shape the economy in recent months, but that doesn’t change the fact that an American president has no business whatsoever telling gas stations how much to charge at the pump.

If the tweet merely overstepped the limits of executive authority, though, it wouldn’t be as noteworthy—that sort of thing is almost an everyday occurrence. It’s also a telling example of just how little the Biden administration seems to know about what it believes it can design.

It would take no more than a few minutes of a White House adviser’s time to learn that the “companies running gas stations and setting prices at the pump” in most cases aren’t companies at all. More than half the gas stations in the country are single-store operations run by an individual or a family, according to the Association for Convenience and Fuel Retailing (NACS), a trade association representing the stores that sell more than 80 percent of the gasoline American consumers use.

A “Shell” or “Exxon” logo on the canopy above a filling station doesn’t mean those oil companies own the gas station. All it means is that the station’s owners have contracted with that company for the right to advertise the well-known brand. It’s the same as having a neon “Coors Light” sign hanging in a bar—which doesn’t mean MillerCoors owns the establishment.

And those gas station owners aren’t raking in massive profits, either. Over the past five years, retailer gross margins have averaged 10.7 percent of the overall price of gas, according to NACS data. But most of those profits come from selling food, drinks, cigarettes, and the like.

The Hustle, a business and tech newsletter, put together a useful breakdown of the economics of gas stations last year. “Selling gas generally isn’t very profitable” due largely to intense price competition among retailers and the ease with which consumers can shop around (because they are literally in their cars). On fuel alone, gas stations have an average margin of 1.4 percent.

If gas stations sold fuel at cost, consumers might hardly notice the difference—but the small-time entrepreneurs running those stations would have a harder time making ends meet.


Biden’s ignorance about gas stations sounds like a replay of Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s (D–Mass.) attempt at blaming higher food prices on greedy grocery store owners—despite the fact that they often operate on similarly tiny margins. It’s also a worrying sign when coupled with the fact that the White House has ordered the Department of Justice and FBI to investigate companies for earning “illicit profits” due to inflation. How can the Biden administration be trusted to police companies’ profits when it is demonstrating such economic illiteracy?

Biden’s gas station tweet is “either straight ahead misdirection or a deep misunderstanding of basic market dynamics,” tweeted Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos, a man who knows a bit about what it takes to run a successful business. Meanwhile, the U.S. Oil and Gas Association, an industry group, recommended that the “WH intern who posted this tweet” sign up for a basic economics class.

Maybe Biden should take the class too.

Continue Reading


Exclusive: Supreme Court Deals New Blow To Left’s Climate Agenda – Limits EPA Power To Regulate Greenhouse Gasses –




Gun Rights Victory: Supreme Court Tosses New York Law Restricting Concealed Carry

#Supreme #Court #Deals #Blow #Lefts #Climate #Agenda #Limits #EPA #Power #Regulate #Greenhouse #Gasses

The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) cannot circumvent Congress and pass sweeping regulations to control emissions at power plants.

The decision, described by CNN as a “major defeat” for the Biden administration’s climate change agenda, limits the power of the executive branch to implement environmental regulations on its own.

Chief Justice John Roberts, writing in the opinion, specifically goes after efforts to overhaul major industries through strict regulations without congressional approval.

“Capping carbon dioxide emissions at a level that will force a nationwide transition away from the use of coal to generate electricity may be a sensible ‘solution to the crisis of the day,’” Roberts explained.

But, he added, “A decision of such magnitude and consequence rests with Congress itself, or an agency acting pursuant to a clear delegation from that representative body.”

RELATED: Ten Policies That Could Unleash American Energy And Fuel Recovery

Liberals Aren’t Pleased With Supreme Court’s EPA Ruling

Like clockwork, Democrat lawmakers and liberal pundits responded to the Supreme Court’s EPA ruling with judicious, thoughtful, lucid, prudent, and sensible analysis.

Just kidding, they went to the ol’ thesaurus and looked up synonyms for ‘extreme’ and ‘doom.’

Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) called the ruling “catastrophic,” a term we know she had to look up because it has three syllables more than most words she uses.

She suggested ‘doing away’ with the Supreme Court “for the sake of the planet.”

Honestly, we’re not certain why she’s so worried. According to her own calculations – in which she likely utilized a solar-powered calculator, an abacus, and all her fingers and little piggies – the world is going to end in 2031.

She’s not going to have to worry about the silly ol’ Supreme Court after that.

“Millennials and people, you know, Gen Z and all these folks that will come after us are looking up and we’re like: ‘The world is gonna end in 12 years if we don’t address climate change and your biggest issue is how are we gonna pay for it?’” she said during an interview at an event in New York City in 2019.

RELATED: Biden’s Abuse Of The Defense Production Act Will Drive Gas Prices Even Higher

The Planet is on🔥 

Others swiftly followed suit by metaphorically lighting their hair on fire over the EPA ruling by the Supreme Court.


Senator Elizabeth Warren, who spent a good portion of her career claiming Native American status only to have to apologize after a DNA test, suggested the Court is illegitimate and referred to it as “extremist” and “radical.”

Warren also told followers that “the planet is on fire.”

Now, if the planet is on fire, and low-information supporters believe that it’s the Supreme Court that lit the match, what do you expect to happen? Especially when there have been assassination attempts against at least one Justice.

MSNBC’s Chris Hayes described the Supreme Court as “a threat to the planet.”

Ah, the tears are strong with that one.

Speaking of liberal tears, does anyone remember the ProPublica report that profiled how hard it was for employees at the EPA to work under a Trump administration? Here’s an unintentionally hilarious excerpt.

At EPA headquarters, the mood remains dark. A longtime career communications employee said in a phone interview Tuesday that more than a few friends were “coming to work in tears” each morning as they grappled with balancing the practical need to keep their jobs with their concerns for the issues they work on.

Wonder how they’re feeling today knowing the Supreme Court curtailed the power of the EPA and delivered a significant victory for the coal mining and coal power industry.

Now is the time to support and share the sources you trust.
The Political Insider ranks #3 on Feedspot’s “100 Best Political Blogs and Websites.”


Continue Reading


Copyright © 2022 Talk Of News.