Category Archives: Hollywood

Anatomy of a Mass Shooting

Standard
Anatomy of a Mass Shooting

I ended up watching a couple of old episodes of Grey’s Anatomy last night.  For those of you who may not know it, Grey’s Anatomy is a hospital drama set in Seattle.

What caught my attention was that these episodes dealt with a mass shooting at the hospital committed by a deranged man whose wife had die while under the care of the doctors there.

The shooter basically walked around calmly as ever, looking for the Chief of Surgery who he blamed directly for his wife’s death and started shooting people who weren’t helpful or who had tried to stop him or were just other surgeons.  What ended up happening was that after the first few victims were finally discovered the hospital was put on lock-down and the police were called.

The shooter? Well, he kept on calmly walking around shooting people at will.

You see, this fictional hospital was a gun free zone and even the security guards were unarmed.

When the shooter was down to his last bullet he made some soliloquy about how easy it was for him to buy his gun at a superstore five days previously and he had all this ammo because they had a sale.  I had been waiting for the leftist gun grabbing slant and there it was.

Yet, while the writer’s made a fainthearted attack of the 2nd Amendment by schlepping together a monologue at the end of the show they couldn’t overcome that the two episode arc was a repudiation of so-called “gun free” zones.  While we can imagine what happens when a mass shooting takes place in a gun free zone, these episodes actually give us a pretty accurate fictionalized version of what takes place.  In the same way that Saving Private Ryan gave us a pretty good fictionalized version of what storming a beach on D-Day looks like.

What did the Grey’s Anatomy episodes outline that is the core anatomy of a mass shooting?

  • An active shooter is killing people and the police are minutes or more away before they are called and arrive
  • Even after police arrive they just don’t storm the building, they assess, so the killer is allowed to continue his rampage
  • If you run, the shooter will shoot you if he wants
  • If you beg for your life, the shooter will shoot you if he wants
  • If you hide, the shooter will find you then shoot you if he wants
  • If you fight back unarmed (unless you catch him by surprise) the shooter will shoot you
  • When someone armed shows up to oppose him, the shooter will most likely kill himself

This is what happens when a shooter is free to roam a place like a hospital or school with many rooms and many people and none of them able to shoot back.  Your life is forfeit if the shooter deems it so.  When you are unarmed you are at the mercy of any tyrant and your choices are run, hide, beg or fight.  Without a weapon of equal measure the likely outcome for all those choices is death.

As for the shooter, in a place such as a hospital or university there are plenty of places for him to hide and the size of the building allows for the possibility that he could start his rampage and have it go unnoticed for a while.

So even though the writer’s of Grey’s Anatomy may have tried to make this about the evil of guns, what they really produced was a work that showed the evils of so called “Gun Free Zones” and it was a pretty powerful work at that.

Advertisements

Anti-gun cities, where the rich pay for protection while the poor pay with their lives

Standard
Anti-gun cities, where the rich pay for protection while the poor pay with their lives

The story in New York City is one often told.  While about 8 million souls reside in the city only a scant proportion  (.00375%) are allowed to carry a gun for their own protection.  And with the steep, non-refundable application fee many people just cannot afford to even try for the likelihood of getting turned down and losing nearly $500.

But the rich, famous, and connected have no issues footing that bill and getting a CCW issued to them.  Yet for every Jon Lennon there are THOUSANDS of John Q Publics murdered because they have had their constitutional rights denied them,  not to mention the tens of thousands raped, robbed or beaten.

Even if the privileged few didn’t feel like getting a gun and CCW, like say hypocrite Rosie O’Donnell, you can just pay armed guards to protect you and your family.

It’s a nice option, but one the vast majority of American’s cannot afford.

But New York City is not the only place where the infringement of the 2nd Amendment finds the well to do buying armed security while the less well off are forced to fend off the wolves unarmed.

In Oakland California, where crime rages in the gun control environment forced upon the state by the brain trust in Sacramento, people are also paying for armed security. That is nice if you are rich enough to afford it, or live in a neighborhood affluent enough to have the disposable income in order to share the bill.

For the people who live in a neighborhood that cannot or just won’t pay for private armed security the options are limited due to the fact that getting a ccw in Oakland is almost as difficult as getting one in New York.

In Baltimore, Maryland, they even have separate neighborhoods that pay higher tax rates in order to pay for Private Security.  Though I can assure you those higher tax neighborhoods aren’t in poor neighborhoods.  Once again, the people with money pay for security while the right to defend oneself is denied to those who cannot afford it.

To put it succinctly, the right to defend yourself should NOT be dependent on how much money you have.  

Yet in places where the issuing body has discretion on which citizens can carry a firearm which cannot you end up with 2 America’s.

“May Issue” is more arbitrary than Jim Crow era voting laws ever were.  At least Jim Crow put obstacles that could be overcome (literacy test, poll tax, etc.).  “May Issue” is just simply saying “no, you cannot exercise that right because I say so”.

Rights that can be denied on a whim is not what the founders fought for.  This country is one of liberty and liberty should never be stripped due to one persons discretion.

Elysium: The Gun Hypocrisy of Hollywood continues

Standard
Elysium: The Gun Hypocrisy of Hollywood continues

Hollywood leans left…no kidding.  My issue with the most vocal Hollywood stars is not that they are liberals or even anti gun per se, it is the wanton hypocrisy in which they conduct themselves that really gets to me.

The latest example is from gun hater Matt Damon.  Besides being a staunch supporter of President Obama and gun control in general, Damon goes so far as to say (in an interview with The Sunday Herald), “I actually hate guns, they freak me out”.

Hmmm…interesting, because when you were Jason Bourne making millions off the franchise you didn’t have a problem with the hero of the movie using firearms in order to protect his life and freedom.

But that was a few years ago…what about now.  Well, with his new movie, “Elysium”, Matt Damon decides to dedicate an entire movie to shoving his face so full of cake it would be laughable if it wasn’t so pathetic.

The gist of Elysium: The quintessential story of haves and have nots.  Majority of the Earth’s population live on the surface with disease running rampant, food shortages and abject poverty.  The rich and powerful live in an orbiting space station (Elysium) that has no disease, poverty or want of anything.  They also have an almost absolute ban on immigration.

You can see how this is set up for a social commentary heralding the good of socialism and collectivism and the evils of capitalism and exceptionalism.  And of course Damon, the hero, is going to try and right these “injustices”.

If it was only that, there wouldn’t be much of an issue.  Even though the message is as subtle and nuanced as a sledgehammer driving in a tack, liberals have been producing this schlock for years.

But it is HOW Damon’s character goes about doing it.  To put it succinctly, he arms up like a walking battle tank.  He manages to get his hands on the MILITARY exclusive exo-armor and the gambit of firearms from pistols to machine guns to rocket launchers.

And that is when the hypocrisy train comes roaring into the station without the brakes.

Now, I don’t know if Matt Damon is a shill who easily will sell out his own beliefs for a payday, is a complete idiot who doesn’t see his own hypocrisy, or if (and this is probably worse) he only believes that people WHO BELIEVE AS HE DOES should have access to guns.

You see…if he played a bad guy in a movie and used guns to do bad things, I could see that he is following his beliefs that guns are bad and only bad people have them.  But Damon wants his cake and eat it too.  He hates guns and doesn’t believe people should have them, yet he promotes in his politically drenched new movie that the only way to get equality is to arm up and fight.

I guess when it’s liberal socialism that is being fought for, it’s ok.  To Damon, Socialists with guns are freedom fighters and anyone else are the bad guys.

It’s ironic really.  I believe in the Second Amendment because it benefits the liberties and freedom of all Americans.  Matt Damon and those like him only believe in the 2nd Amendment when it benefits themselves.

But this is just he most recent example.

Here are a couple of other hypocritical stars that made millions glorifying the gun all while believing that the 2nd Amendment should be abolished.

Side note: How many of these actors have private security?  Talk about a haves and have nots mentality.

I’ve all ready did an article on Jim Carrey so we’ll move right by him.

Arnold Schwarzenegger.  While being an action star and saying he was in favor of the 2nd Amendment showed his true colors when he became Governor of California.  A supporter of both assault weapons bans and the Brady Bill, Arnold spoke plainly during a interview with Time magazine saying: “I’m for gun control. I’m a peace-loving guy.”  I find that actually insulting, because he equates not being for gun control to being a warlike bloodthirsty thug.

Sylvester Stallone.  Et tu Rambo?  While living abroad in England, Stallone had no qualms throwing barbs not only at the 2nd Amendment but at Americans in general.  In response to the death of Phil Hartman, Stallone had this to say: “Until America, door to door, takes every handgun, this is what you’re gonna have. It’s pathetic. It really is pathetic. It’s sad. We’re living in the Dark Ages over there.” Door to door folks…door to door.

Mark Wahlberg.  On top of saying that Charlton Heston should win the Best Villain award at the 2000 MTV Awards: “I believe Charlton Heston is America’s best villain because he loves guns so much.” Marky Mark doesn’t stop there and gets funky by both admitting his hypocrisy and spinning it: “Certainly, I haven’t used a gun anywhere other than on a movie set and I’d like to see if we could take them all away. It would be a beautiful thing.”

That’s just a short list of actors who vocally hate guns yet get rich of their use and exploit them for their benefit.

If you hate guns so much stick to romantic comedies or physiological thrillers or play the bad guy, if you believe only bad people like guns.

Other than that, please stop shoving your hypocrisy down the throat of America.