maiforpeace wrote:N.R.A. PROPOSES SWEEPING BAN ON MOVIES
By Andy Borowitz
FAIRFAX, Va. (The Borowitz Report)—Saying it was “high time to take action against the number one cause of violence in America,” the National Rifle Association issued a statement today urging a sweeping ban on movies.
Tracy Klugian, an official spokesperson for the gun-lobbying organization, said that the N.R.A. had taken this extraordinary step because it “could not stand idly by and watch movies tear apart the fabric of our civil society.”
To that end, Mr. Klugian said, the N.R.A. would use money from its PAC, the N.R.A. Political Victory Fund, to support politicians who favored a ban on filmed entertainment.
In the hours after the N.R.A.’s announcement, politicians on both sides of the aisle were quick to applaud the group for identifying what it called “a long overdue need for movie control.”
“It is time for us to stop the madness,” said Speaker of the House John Boehner. “As a first step, I am proposing legislation that would impose a two-year waiting period and background check before one is allowed to see a Hollywood release.”
Minutes later, the White House said that the Speaker’s proposal was “a good first step, but does not go far enough,” arguing that Congress had to “take a hard look at whether superhero costumes and masks should continue to be legal.”
All in all, the N.R.A.’s Klugian said he was “cautiously optimistic” that the organization’s call for new legislation would be heeded “because our message finally seems to be getting through: Guns don’t kill people. Movies kill people."
The funny thing is, while this appears to be stated ironically (and it's in poor taste, in my view), there were folks out there raising the question of whether Batman was to blame for this and the usual hue and cry about "violence in movies." http://ideas.time.com/2012/07/20/dont-b ... -shooting/ (the articles says "don't blame batman" but it is discussing the fact that some folks are suggesting such blame is due).
I had a conversation with a friend who referred to how movies and t.v. and video games "desensitize" us to violence, implying that such desensitization would cause more violence. I responded by suggesting that if that was the case, given that 4 decades ago we had 3 to 5 t.v. channels, movies were watched less frequently and were less violent, and there were no violent video games, and people watched 1/4 of the hours of t.v......wouldn't violence be overall higher now? And, since it isn't -- how can one even correlate such media to violence?
And, since most movies and music are about love, wouldn't we all just love each other a lot more?
