Tom Cruise, "Jack Reacher": Is This Suitable for Seven-Year-Olds?

Today, I saw Tom Cruise's latest flick, "Jack Reacher," or at least part of it. For reasons of exhaustion and jet lag, and having nothing to do with the film, I swiftly drifted into a deep slumber, and notwithstanding my youngest son's valiant attempts to awaken me, I missed much of its beginning. Bottom line? We were presented with an imaginary hero, whose vigilante tactics are accompanied by relentless gore. On the other hand, the movie is certainly aided by rousing car chase scenes. I suppose you need to be a Tom Cruise fan.

But more to the point, a collection of seven-year-olds populated the first two rows of the theater. Should these youngsters, some of them plainly hyperactive, be allowed to watch a young women be punched in the jaw, suffocated, and then left with the trash? Then, too, there were headshots (not of the cinematographic variety) galore.

My views on gun control certainly do not comport with those of the National Rifle Association. On the other hand, I have repeatedly inquired whether it is possible that the graphic violence routinely foisted upon impressionable minds has made it that much easier for persons with violent inclinations to pull the trigger as a matter of course.

Notwithstanding the impact on Hollywood's profit and loss statement, this needs to be better controlled.

The National Rifle Association is not the only villain out there.

Maureen Dowd, "From Apocalypse to Dystopia": Tending Toward Myopia

I need to fess up: I own two pistols, Ottoman, both more than 150 years old, neither in working condition. Something that actually shoots in my home? No way, Jose. I have spent too much of my adult life with automatic rifles, cleaning them, oiling them, sleeping with them, and hiding them from the children. Then, too, there was the accident, when someone let loose a burst that almost cut me down from behind.

In her latest New York Times op-ed entitled "From Apocalypse to Dystopia" (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/23/opinion/sunday/dowd-from-apocalypse-to-dystopia.html), Maureen Dowd unleashes a fiery tirade against the National Rifle Association:

"They defend anyone owning anything with a trigger, reiterating that military-style semiautomatics are just uglier hunting guns.

While there were more heartbreaking funerals in Newtown, Conn., with long hearses carrying small bodies, [Wayne] LaPierre stepped to the microphone in Washington on Friday to present the latest variation of his Orwellian creed: Guns don’t kill people. Media kill people.

'Rather than face their own moral failings,' he said in high dudgeon, 'the media demonize gun owners, amplify their cries for more laws, and fill the national media with misinformation and dishonest thinking that only delay meaningful action, and all but guarantee that the next atrocity is only a news cycle away.'

So it’s our fault."

No, Maureen, you're not to blame, but is the NRA the real culprit for the recent spate of mass shootings in the United States, or is there something else, much greater in scale, responsible for these horrors?

The US leads the world in gun ownership with an average of 88.8 firearms per 100 people (see: http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/jul/22/gun-homicides-ownership-world-list), and the firearm murder rate in the US is 2.97 per 100,000 people, which is the 28th highest in the world. How does this compare with other Western democracies with large numbers of guns in the hands of civilians?

Finland has an average of 45.3 firearms per 100 people, but a firearm murder rate of only 0.45 per 100,000 people.

Switzerland has an average of 45.7 firearms per 100 people, but a firearm murder rate of 0.77 per 100,000 people.

Although gun ownership in Finland and Switzerland is half that of the US, the firearm murder rate of Finland is some 15 percent of that in the US, and the firearm murder rate of Switzerland is some 26 percent of that in the US.

Norway, which experienced a horrific summer camp massacre in 2011, has an average of 31.3 firearms per 100 people, but a firearm murder rate of only 0.05 per 100,000 people. Although gun ownership in Norway is some 35 percent of that in the US, the firearm murder rate of Norway is less than two percent of that in the US.

Israel has an average of only 7.3 firearms per 100 people and a firearm murder rate of a mere 0.09 per 100,000 people. But these figures fail to take into consideration the tens of thousands of automatic (not semiautomatic) rifles which are brought home on weekends by soldiers. Now you might think that this plethora of automatic rifles would lead to disaster, but this is not borne out by the facts.

Sorry, Maureen, it's not just the number of guns floating around the US which has led to America's high firearm murder rate.

Dowd dismisses "violent video games" as the reason for the spate of mass shootings in the US. However, is it even remotely possible that these video games, together with the graphic violence routinely beamed into American living rooms, have made it that much easier for persons with violent inclinations to pull the trigger as a matter of course?

Or could it be that American society is characterized by a "rage" which is not to be found in Scandinavia and other Western European countries?

Solutions? With so many guns in American households, I doubt that this genie can be put back in the bottle.

Maybe the US is in need of a television campaign aimed to counter gun violence. If there have been successful advertising campaigns against smoking and drunk driving, why shouldn't this also be considered?

Given that firearm deaths will soon exceed fatalities from automobile accidents (see: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/gun-deaths-in-america-projected-to-soon-top-car-fatalities-8426644.html), I wouldn't rule out any possibilities, including enhanced background checks and some self-reflection on the part of Hollywood.

New York Times Editorial, "The Yawning Loophole in the Gun Laws": Okay, the N.R.A. Is to Blame, but What About Hollywood?

The New York Times, in an editorial entitled "The Yawning Loophole in the Gun Laws" (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/19/opinion/the-yawning-loophole-in-the-gun-laws.html), lambastes the National Rifle Association for "blocking legislation that would require private sellers to run buyers through background checks, which take just a few minutes to process on the telephone."

I agree with The New York Times that such background checks are indeed warranted. However, as also acknowledged by the Times, such a background check would not have prevented Adam Lanza's mother from purchasing guns.

In addition to focusing our attention on the N.R.A.'s regrettable policies, let's look further afield and also consider the behavior of . . . Hollywood.

Is it even remotely possible that the graphic violence routinely beamed into American living rooms has made it that much easier for persons with violent inclinations to pull the trigger as a matter of course?

Sure, you like watching "Game of Thrones" and "Homeland" as much as I do, but what is the effect on young minds?

Think on it.