Does NRA Exploit Violent Movies to Sell Guns?

A gun industry analyst says NRA spokesman Wayne LaPierre is hypocritical in his latest attack on violent movies

Washington, DC — A report issued Jan. 2 by author and gun industry expert Tom Diaz shoots down NRA executive vice president Wayne LaPierre’s recent attack on violence in films and games.

Bloody Reel: How The National Rifle Association And The Gun Industry Exploit Violent Movies To Sell Guns...And More Guns, documents in detail how the National Rifle Association and the gun industry it represents have promoted the use of guns in movies and exploited many of the very movies LaPierre recently attacked as the cause of gun violence in America. 

Here's more on the gun debate:

NRA: Put Armed Security in Every School Now

Mom's Group Slams NRA Response to Sandy Hook Shooting

Assault Weapons Ban? Here's Where Lehigh Valley Lawmakers Stand

Tell Us: Should Assault Weapons Be Banned?

On Friday, December 21, 2012 LaPierre, the National Rifle Association’s chief executive, blasted the movie industry in a press conference, pointing to what he called “blood-soaked films out there” and exclaiming, “Isn’t fantasizing about killing people as a way to get your kicks really the filthiest form of pornography?”

“If violent movies are filthy pornography, Wayne LaPierre is the king of filthy porno,” said Diaz, author of two books on the gun industry. “For over 10 years, the NRA—through its National Firearms Museum, its websites, and its media outlets—has glorified the use of guns in some of the most brutally violent films ever made. The gun industry the NRA represents exploits violent movies for one reason: to sell guns.”

Do you agree? Tell us in the comments section below.

Bloody Reel describes two special exhibits on Hollywood guns that the NRA has mounted at its National Firearms Museum in Fairfax, VA. The report also recounts how former movie critic Stephen Hunter – who wrote the introduction to the NRA brochure for its current exhibit, “Hollywood Guns” – dismissed the effects of violence in movies in his own book, and suggested that violent movies head off violence.

“Wayne LaPierre obviously never visits his own porno-packed museum,” Diaz said.  “He also seems not to have a clue that of one his favorite scriveners has in the past scoffed at the violent-movies-make-them-do-it excuse the NRA is peddling as the cause of gun violence in America.”

Diaz is the author of the forthcoming The Last Gun: How Changes in the Gun Industry Are Killing Americans and What It Will Take to Stop It (The New Press, Spring 2013) and Making a Killing: The Business of Guns in America (The New Press, 1999). 


Tom Diaz is a lawyer, author, journalist, and was formerly Democratic Counsel to the Subcommittee on Crime and Criminal Justice of the Judiciary Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives. He worked for then-Rep. Charles E. Schumer. His principal brief covered issues related to terrorism and firearms.

Prior to his staff work for the Congress, Diaz studied and wrote about terrorism and transnational organized crime at the National Strategy Information Center in Washington, DC.  Before joining NSIC, he was assistant managing editor for news for six years at The Washington Times newspaper, where his earlier beats as a reporter included the Supreme Court and national security matters.

Most recently Diaz was senior policy analyst at the Violence Policy Center, a non-profit, non-partisan public policy organization that studies the gun industry, its products, and their impact on crime, death, and injury in the United States.

Rosemary B January 09, 2013 at 08:08 PM
The government, as inept as it is, is not to blame for the mass shootings. Those crimes were committed by individuals.
WILFREDO G. SALCEDO, Sr. January 09, 2013 at 08:23 PM
A rose by any other name smells as sweet...Weak-mind is stupidity anyway you look at it...And anyone who disagrees with you is weak-minded...Well, I say same to you who supports the ideology of Romney and your party...By the way, after Obama took over, the country is now inching progressively forward in spite of the scorched-earth obstructionism of the Republican Party...Now let's join Obama on his gun control program so there won't be anymore children dying from guns.
WILFREDO G. SALCEDO, Sr. January 09, 2013 at 08:38 PM
You are right, Rich Cranium...I don't many terminologies of firearms...All know is these machines are killing machines which I don't have use for...Vent all you want, but one dead man or child is one too many...I have lived all these years without possession of any these objects and knock on wood I am still alive and healthy and I am nnot going to avail myself of a gun at this stageof my life...God knows what could have happened if I had one of them in my house...I shudder to think about it...They do, indeed, do more harm than good according to many studies done by reputable institutions.
WILFREDO G. SALCEDO, Sr. January 09, 2013 at 09:22 PM
87 gun deaths a day in the US vs. 37 a year in England!!!
Rich Cranium January 09, 2013 at 09:45 PM
If you are afraid of having a gun in your home then you do not trust yourself to be responsible. You think that you cannot be responsible enough to own a gun, so you think no one else should? Is that what this comes down too? If stopping death is really your goal there are bigger fish to fry then guns. Drowning, non-firearm murders, cars, accidental poisoning: all of these things kill more Americans annually then guns. You have no constitutional right to own a car, go after them. Or maybe just the "assault cars" That are able to drive over 65MPH, after all there is no need to drive faster then that, since that is the maximum speed limit in nearly every state. You know what doesn't reported? Guns that don't kill people... You know what doesn't show up in those statistics? Instances where a gun prevented a crime from occurring, without the need to fire a shot. If guns are evil killing machines why do Police Officers need them? Why do security guards need them? Because they have a deterrent effect, one that the framework of our government, supported by SCOTUS says that we have a right to. Because you don't like guns don't force your belief onto those of us who have done nothing wrong, and are exercising our constitutional right. I am not forcing you to own a gun because I do like them, I am not even forcing you to shoot a gun. You think that your emotions trump my RIGHTS.
Stu January 09, 2013 at 10:26 PM
Rich Cranium The reference to "all males" is sexist, When the Supreme Court demonstrates a sexist viewpoint it is a time for a change. The reference to "physically capable" is equally questionable, how would that be interpreted? Even the current interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is out of step with equal rights. An interpretation that does not work within equal rights is suspect.
Rich Cranium January 10, 2013 at 03:42 AM
Then the dictionary is sexist and discriminatory against the physically capable too. Maybe we should abandon the English language because of how discriminatory it is: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/militia Honestly that is the weakest argument for anything that I have ever heard in my life, is that the best you can muster? Based on that weak argument I am going to assume that was an attempt to be anti-2nd Amendment. So you know what, I am going to apply the same twisting logic you applied. So now you are the one who is sexist and against the physically incapable, because you do not think that they should be able to defend themselves from a bigger stronger attacker. That you believe that we should go back to "might makes right." Nothing equalizes the playing field for those who are physically weaker then their attackers then a .357 Magnum Because you are against equal rights (to defend yourself) anything you say is suspect.
Rich Cranium January 10, 2013 at 03:45 AM
Not to mention you ignored the part of the ruling that said: (1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm UNCONNECTED with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.
Stu January 10, 2013 at 04:20 AM
No I am neither, it is the Supreme court who used the questionable language in their interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. The US military uses both men and women, gay, straight, bi, etc. so why did the Supreme Court use "male" in this statement about the 2nd amendment as concerning the militia? Please note that your reference to militia, the primary definition did not include gender. While they may not have been seeking to exclude anyone by that reference, their pointing to an all male militia in the past is poor judgement. It would only serve to indicate a preferences. Please don't think you can speak for me. You don't know me and so you don't know what I believe. As for my weak argument, if it's weak don't reply.
Stu January 10, 2013 at 05:23 AM
"The teen himself, through tears, said it was an accident. "I just want to say that everybody should turn in their guns," he says." http://www.abc12.com/story/20497348/teen-says-he-accidently-shot-killed-his-friend?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
Dave Rex January 10, 2013 at 07:55 AM
If there are more cars than guns, than we should expect more deaths from cars than guns. If we compared man-hours behind the wheel without death to man-hours behind the trigger without death, we'd find that cars are much safer than guns. Any useful comparison should reflect the distinction between accidental and intentional deaths. Relatively few deaths from firearms are accidental while relatively few deaths from cars are intentional. Cars aren't very efficient weapons; nor is it their primary function. It's tough to run the Buick over some guy on 34th floor. But the Beretta could get the job done pretty much anywhere. That's what they're built to do.
Rosemary B January 10, 2013 at 11:37 AM
Terrible tragedy. Boy was very brave to go public with this sad story and then turn himself in. He made a tragic mistake with horrible consequences. Just like a teenage drunk driver does when he crashes into something and kills his friends. Does not mean all law abiding citizens should turn in their cars.
WILFREDO G. SALCEDO, Sr. January 10, 2013 at 12:50 PM
We control both...Control one, control the other...What's wrong with that?
WILFREDO G. SALCEDO, Sr. January 10, 2013 at 01:04 PM
Mr. Cranium Touche'...In all the years raising my family I swear I don't recall being remiss in bringing it up in the most proper way I could and I am not going to mess it up by having an unwanted, despised object such as a peashooter or weapon of mass destruction...God only knows what could have happened had I owned one (Please see previous comment on this issue above)...In passing, let me share with you one horrible story (I am sure many of you have other opposing ones) about a "loving, law-abiding" husband who shot his wife in a fit of anger, then chopped her up with a chain saw...One more: A lady in Kansas scared an intruder with an ear piercing scream...I have more, but what's the use...Finally, Mr. Rich, you can have all the guns you want...I am not stopping you and I can't...It's your right.
WILFREDO G. SALCEDO, Sr. January 10, 2013 at 01:11 PM
News of interest...In Georgia, a gun lover was dead by homicide...This dead man told all that he always has gun with him wherever he went...Like I said, guns for protection is a myth...The gun should ALWAYS BE READY to be useful in this regard.
John Fox January 10, 2013 at 02:40 PM
Rich Cranium I think you need to take your own advice: Stop playing chess with the pigeons.
Rosemary B January 10, 2013 at 02:49 PM
"guns for protection is a myth.." You can try telling that to the mother in Georgia who saved herself and her two children with a gun, but I don't think she will believe you. You can tell it to the off duty security officer at the movies who shot dead a crazy man with a gun before he shot up the theater but I don't think she will believe you either. Or the guy in the mall who drew his weapon against another crazy shooter and saved God only knows how many lives, but I don't think he will believe you either. I could go on and on. Were these lives not worth saving? Are their lives any less precious? The shooters all have one thing in common. They broke the law. More gun laws won't make us any safer. We already have over 300 gun control laws on the books. The bad guys don't pay attention to them. It will just serve to disarm the good law abiding people.
Rosemary B January 10, 2013 at 02:57 PM
Even with the ban on guns they are the leaders in violent crime. Obviously banning guns has not solved anything. You are also taking away a great equalizer of the smaller weaker (or elderly or infirmed) person who is probably a victim by taking away a weapon to defend themselves with that just about anyone in any condition can use. You have now leveled the playing field in favor of the criminal! That is what is wrong with banning guns.
WILFREDO G. SALCEDO, Sr. January 10, 2013 at 03:29 PM
It is a myth as proven by surveys from reputable institutions...That incident with the Georgia mother was a fluke because at the same time a lady in Kansas scared an intruder to her house just by an ear-splitting scream...No need for a stupid gun...That off duty security officer did her job as was suppose to do, not by a gun-toting movie goer...By the way, if we are reading the same article, the movie shooter did not die, just wounded, as was suppose to happen: save life if need be...Yes, we do have stories to tell, but these won't stop until the laws that are there and more to come are strictly applied...Meanwhile, keep your guns if you want...No one is taking them away from you. I mentioned to Rich Cranium, above, about that gun enthusiast who died of homicide...Yes, he did not leave home without his piece, still died from a gunshot...Gun for protection?..I rest my case.
Stu January 10, 2013 at 05:04 PM
Mentality of gun advocates, He doesn't seem to care that people we be injured and killed. Ratliff was known as an outspoken gun advocate. In a message posted to Twitter on Aug 11, 2012, he wrote: "I went to the movies with my pistol in my pocket the whole time I was praying that somebody would try to pull a Batman!" http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/09/keith-ratliff-fpsrussia-dead_n_2439284.html
WILFREDO G. SALCEDO, Sr. January 11, 2013 at 03:58 PM
Sales of guns rose after Columbine, VTech, Aurora, other massive killings...A hundred thousand more people joined the NRA after the Newtown debacle...Do we see a pattern here?..FEAR!..The MO of the NRA...And we wonder why it doesn't like gun control...It's not good for business...The more dead people from massacres the better for the Association's kitty, I think...I am hearing now that many members are getting on board with Biden to tighten security measures...Good for them.
WILFREDO G. SALCEDO, Sr. January 12, 2013 at 02:25 PM
Let me add this trivia...Since the NRA is so linked up with the gun industry, the corporations should bestow financial advantages to those who bought their products, sort of dividends akin to holding stocks and bonds of these companies...I know, many of you gun lovers are already stockholders of these killing machine companies, but a bit more token, a monthly stipend would be nice. Before I forget to mention the arrogance of these gun sellers, I vividly remember the full-page ad placed by one of them astride the headline announcing the massacre of children and teachers in Sandy Hook...Yes, more gun deaths become commercials for gun sales...Sickening!
Moe January 14, 2013 at 06:05 PM
As a law abiding gun owner and NRA member I can say I do not promote violence in any way, shape or form. I find violent "entertainment" as repulsive as the acts of criminals regardless of type of weapon used. Maybe you should learn something about the NRA other than what the media and anti-gun crowd feeds you. http://www.nrahq.org/history.asp You will learn that the NRA has played a part in the freedoms of people around the world and have promoted safety and training for decades.
Crestor Januvia January 14, 2013 at 06:50 PM
Gun free zones are the height of stupidity, since anybody will bad intent ignores them. This is the kind of thing only a liberal progressive can come up with. Something so utterly stupid, it actually INCREASES the likelihood of violence at a school. The democrats... the "Logic-Free Zone" for studid americans.
Crestor Januvia January 14, 2013 at 07:05 PM
Sorry John... your wrong. Period. Guns will never be banned. HAHAAH. Dream on.
Crestor Januvia January 14, 2013 at 07:07 PM
1000 killed by drunk drivers. Now what.
Crestor Januvia January 14, 2013 at 07:08 PM
The only pattern I see in your messages is stupidity.
Stu January 16, 2013 at 02:09 AM
2nd amendment refers to 'arms' which means weapons, firearms are not give special rights. There is room to control guns as with any weapon.
Stu January 16, 2013 at 02:14 AM
can we get a refer for the number killed by drunk drivers? Really we should not have to ask!
Stu January 16, 2013 at 02:19 AM
Can you provide a rebuff for this reference? http://www.meetthenra.org/board-list


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something