A British artist, Carl McCrow, has figured out a way to increase gun manufacturers bottom line, and his own. I can almost hear the manufacturers thinking "please throw me into that briar patch". From nbcnews.com:
Posted on 08/26/2015 6:48:41 AM PDT by marktwain
A British artist, Carl McCrow, has figured out a way to increase gun manufacturers bottom line, and his own. I can almost hear the manufacturers thinking "please throw me into that briar patch". From nbcnews.com:
LONDON — British artist Carl McCrow is asking the world's most successful filmmakers to make an unambiguous pledge: For every gun that appears in their movies, he wants them to destroy a real one.The irony is doubly delicious because McCrow has made his living with firearms art, and this is his way to feel less "guilty". He lives in New York City.
Asking directors to destroy one gun for every firearm that appears in their films is McCrow's way of attempting to offset his enjoyment of violence in entertainment — a "guilty pleasure" he shares with much of the population.The error, of course, is in the premise, which is that more firearms are bad, and less firearms are good. It has empirically been shown to be false. The worst case is when only a small minority have guns, and lord it over the rest of the population, like in Somalia, the Sudan, or Brazil now, or Cambodia during the Pol Pot regime, or North Korea today.
He said the idea takes inspiration from carbon offsetting schemes, in which people plant trees or invest in other environment projects to counteract their own carbon footprint.
Step 2. Destroy guns.
Step 3. Buy more guns for next movie. More profit goes to gun makers.
Repeat as often as desired.
The gun manufacturers are laughing all the way to the bank. and logical thinkers look at this and think “They cannot really be this stupid, can they?”
Is McCrow really this stupid? I do not think so. He just scored a fantastic merchandising coup for his art. Ka-Ching!
©2015 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.
Society would be better served by destroying one liberal actor for every one that appears in a movie.
Being that such artists are usually impoverished and scurrilous, I think what he really wants is for those guns to be given to him, for free. Then, all he has to do is make them inoperable, “artsy” them up, and sell them to rubes with too much loot as overpriced knickknacks.
You, too can save a gun, just pennies a day will help save guns from this evil fate...
(sorry, too danged many of those sad eyed puppy commercials on the tube lately).
>>Destroying guns, without draconian restrictions on the manufacture of firearms, does not reduce the number of guns in society.
That’s what makes this stupid liberal idea so funny. It’s like filling an SUV with tires, dousing it in gasoline, and setting it on fire to combat “global climate change”.
Liberals are liberals because they don’t think things through.
Nothing but a deceitful publicity stunt!
If they believe guns in films inspire viewers to acquire and or use guns, how does destroying one real gun for every gun that appears in their films compensate for millions of people seeing those guns in their films and being so inspired?
I own stock in RGR......this can only help the share price.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.