Any single death can be a tragedy, but it somehow seems even more so when the circumstances and scale also make it a statistic. Sadly, the news thrives on both, but the deaths of twenty children and several adults in Connecticut early in mid-December has the tragedy, scale, statistical weight and seasonal poignancy that cannot fail to pull at the personal heart-strings. Still, it's not the sort of news we usually dwell on in an official way at the Impact website at there's far better arenas to address some of the big issues of the day. While we all, as contributors, have personal opinions on such subjects, it has to impact the world of action entertainment to really fit our specific remit.
So, perhaps blame America's influential National Rifle Association for lobbing it firmly into 'our' court when the association finally appeared before the cameras on Friday to state that guns weren't the problem with the Connecticut killing of twenty children (indeed, the NRA feels there should be MORE guns in schools) - no, such tragedies are apparently down to bad films and evil computer-games.
The NRA, however, don't do themselves any favours... its VP Wayne Pierre was only able to name-check films such as Natural Born Killers and American Psycho - where, if there is a questionable level of violence (and perhaps there's an argument that there is, though the rating/certificates reflect that) - both are over a decade old. That's essentially like coming out and blaming Footloose for a 21st century mullet. They also cite games such as Bulletstorm (admittedly revelling in its anarchy, but also based in a fantastical universe), Mortal Kombat (a martial-arts tournament format), Splatterhouse (gorey, but specifically aimed at fans of the horror genre) and Grand Theft Auto... the only title they cite which has even remotely 'realistic' violence in a 'realistic' setting and which has been under scrutiny for a decade. If there were a sudden spate of domestic abuse against Orcs or prejudicial assaults on zombies, that would be one thing... but if you're wanting to SOLELY blame films and games for people walking into schools and cinemas with assault-rifles... well, honestly... it's a bit of a stretch.
LaPierre referred to violent films as “...the filthiest form of pornography "- suggesting he has a fundamental misunderstanding of both.
Now, to be fair, the NRA are (to mix metaphors) swinging widely with their broad-stroke buck-passing, but aren't entirely wrong. It would seem entirely logical that the more a society gets desensitised to violence, the more it tends to shrug off its real consequences - though actual proof of specific causes-and-effects remain argumentative. Sure, there IS an out-or-proportion glamour attached to guns, weapons and simulated (but explicit) violence, an attraction to gunfire as lazy, but shiny punctuation that was once reserved for genuine suspense. You don't have to be a finger-pointing Daily Mail reader (though you'd have a headstart) to be able to find examples of entertainment where specific carnage and violence therein seems to be pure titilation and celebrated for shock-value rather than merely be the singular element or obstacle to overcome. As a regular viewer of a diverse amount of action entertainment, I can also point to releases where I've found no redeeming features whatsover - purely torture-porn outings and deliberate headline-grabbing scandals - have never sat well with me. But they are statistically, few and far between. For those concerned, I remain relatively sane.
Of course, responsible gun-owners would argue that the ratio of owners-to-tragedy is also notably rare and they'd be absolutely right about their personal integrity. The counter-argument would be that you can put an idea of gun-violence in minds by a variety of means and stimuli that differ from person to person, but you really can't shoot anyone (deliberately or accidentally) without a gun.
But the over-reaching, poor examples aside, other aspects of the NRA statement are nothing short of ludicrous. In pointing the finger at Hollywood but refusing to believe the amount, size and capability of guns out there is in ANY way a factor in the argument, the organisation set themselves up for even bigger ridicule and accusations of self-serving partisan commentary. Their logic is demonstrably wrong: For instance... the UK and Canada have much of the same viewing habits: we see a majority of the same hit televison shows, we get the same Hollywood blockbusters (sometimes even ahead of the US) and play the same computer games on similar machines. And yet, as a country, with much stricter controls on the likes of handguns etc, our gun-deaths and shooting incidents are a fraction of the US, even taking into account the proportionate size of the countries themselves. You can argue that we still have general assaults, but a man with a baseball bat (an object primarilly built for hitting a ball around a playing field) is less likely to take out a nursery than a man aimed with an assault rifle (designed primarily to kill).
The gun debate is, of course, bigger than these elements, with different factors, nuances, entitlements, traditions and real needs to take into consideration and it would be wrong to dictate the outcome of a sensible, informed debate on guns, mental healthcare and security. But to suggest the debate shouldn't happen at all, that merely discussing the incredible amount of firearms out there - and the tragic incidents that seem to litter our calendars in recent years - is somehow useless... IS offensive and for the NRA to point fingers at everyone BUT themselves is as telling as if a tobacco company pointed at the screen and saying 'Don't blame us for our manufacturing millions of cigarettes, it's not our fault Al Pacino smoked them so well on screen in Serpico and created the demand!'
Perhaps two weeks after Connecticut (twenty six victims in a school), six months after Colorado (twelve victims in a cinema), five years after Nebraska (eight dead in a shopping mall) five and a half years since Virginia Tech (thirty-two killed in a campus massacre), seven years after Minnesota (seven killed in a school shooting) and thirteen years after Columbine (thirteen dead)... not to mention other less famous incidents... the statement shouldn't be 'It's too soon...' to discuss gun-tragedy, but that it's clearly almost too late. SURELY, this must now be a wake-up call and, indeed a pragmatic OPPORTUNITY for responsible gun-owners the NRA, Hollywood and television, gun-manufacturers, games-manufacturers and others to look at their COLLECTIVE contribution to the climate we're in and the messages that are being sent out... and how they can ALL work towards a slightly safer, saner world.
As someone who unapologetically enjoys escapist action entertainment, who spends a lot of time in America, but has been on the wrong end of a shooting that could have left me paralysed or dead, I think it's worth me pointing out that NO-ONE of note is calling for guns to be banned, least of all me. It couldn't happen. It never will. And no preventative system will be perfect. Entertainment censorship should have its legal boundaries, but within them, it's all a matter of taste. However...
“...there exists in this country, sadly, a callous, corrupt and corrupting shadow industry that sells and stows violence against its own people.." said LaPierre at his NRA briefing - but he was only talking about Hollywood.
The very fact he didn't get the irony - one that still hangs in the air over the funerals of children in Connecticut like a shroud of utter ambivalence and buck-passing - suggests EVERYONE should be worried about his lack of aim and target-practise.
Discuss this further at: http://www.facebook.com/theimpactonline
