The hollywood movies thing is such a lightweight point. So because something makes an exciting piece of art, something that appeals to the masses, the maker endorses it's place in actual society? The assumption is that hollywood is exploiting gun love and love for actual gun violence in society to make money- as opposed to exploiting human attraction to danger and death and battles... violence has been in art for that reason since it began. Hollywood movies featuring gun violence are very popular in Australia, or anywhere really. Maybe to the extent that guns are more relevant, and so it makes sense to use them in violent movies set in modern times, they are 'exploiting' the status of guns in our culture. It's like making the charge that violent Japanese videogame makers would be hypocritical for calling for a reduction in actual street violence. They would be hypocrites if they wanted gun violence and gun love to remain so intimate as they are with American culture, so they could make more profits, and then went out and preached against it. But that wouldn't make sense, and I would say they're pretty genuine in their desire for gun control.
Maybe some of them are hypocrites in this regard, it is possible. I mean if you wanted to stretch it that far, I could be a hypocrite for paying for these movies that might propagate violence, and that allegedly feed of a particular culture of guns/violence. But to class them as the biggest hypocrites? There's bigger.
