Relax. This won’t be another anti-gun opinion piece or religious right-ish diatribe excoriating Hollywood for unleashing violent movies that leads a twisted mind to act upon his impulses and go hunt for humans. After all, if there wasn’t a mass audience for violent, bang-bang-bang movies, Hollywood would then incessantly churn out films like “Benji: Happy Dog Days Are Here Again!”
No, this diatribe is about Hollywood’s sudden NRA-like silence to the latest national tragedy. That is, the studio big wigs are reacting to the Sandy Hook elementary, Newton Connecticut gun-massacre by doing what they know best: giving great PR to themselves by either cancelling the opening of bullet and blood saturated films (like the Harvey Weinstein-made “Django” in LA), delaying an opening (Tom Cruise’s “Jack Reacher”) or even canceling a gun-flavored TV show (Discovery Channel’s “American Guns”).
These PR ploys slyly say the film and TV big wigs are for gun control–while making films about out of control guys with guns. Yeah, if they ever make a bio-movie about Harvey Weinstein, Mr. Weinstein would be played by ventriloquist Jeff Dunham—because both talk out of the both sides of the mouth. Harvey gave oodles of cash to known anti-gun proponent Hillary Clinton in her presidential run, yet bankrolls movies that kill more people than Lindsay Lohan has killed brain cells.
Yet, Harvey and his fellow men of action are suddenly inactive.
Are all the “powers” paralyzed by guilt; knowing that their violent movies, shows or video games most likely contributed to the mass murderer’s state of (violent) mind? Or do these media makers think, “Who cares? It’s okay to have blood on my hands as long as they are raking in millions of dollars.”
Surely, there must be a worthy anti-gun cause where Mr. Weinstein and others of his ilk can announce that they will donate millions. It seems they announce everything else to self-promote themselves or their product. Why can’t they promote anti-violence/guns? How come not one mover and shaker has come out and said, “I’ll give a percentage of my next film’s profits to the Brady Campaign, a nonprofit organization that lobbies for gun-control laws. (P.S.: Their website’s donation page crashed because of the sudden influx of contributions on 12/19.)”
Or, if a mover/shaker wants to stay in charge and CEO over an anti-gun non-profit (or name it after themselves!?), then why can’t any of them just start their own? After all, Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) began with one fed-up with drunk driving mother, Candice (Candy) Lightner, whose 13-year-old daughter, Cari, was killed by a drunken driver on May 3, 1980. Needless to say, all Mrs. Lightner had when she began MADD was her justified outrage. She didn’t have the power, the $$$ or “the voice” of any of these Hollywood fellas. If these lads can’t give money, then why hasn’t any of them at least voice their outrage like Obama and now, even friends of NRA senators have done?
Then again, silence is golden…or in this case, gold. 
Is it because the “Hollywood-ers” know there’s 300 million guns in America (you read that right!), and people who buy guns, also buy their movie tickets and see their vapid Honey-Boo-like TV shows.
Yes, the sad formula these days and in future days is:
300 million guns = $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Yes, all it takes is one Hollywood guy. Perhaps if the first word in an anti-gun organization was “Proposition” then, a number (in this case, “.38”) Hollywood money would reflexively flow in.