Those Hollywood liberals are addicted to gun violence

I have a love-hate relationship with Bill Maher and his ego-driven, often intentionally provocative, and always a bit vulgar comedy, but I keep watching "Real Time" each Friday night -- so he must be doing something right.

What rarely disappoints is the "new rules" segment that closes each show, and last Friday he took on the hypocrisy of supposably "woke" Hollywood movies and their infatuation with gun violence, particularly when it is driven by revenge.

His staff put together some montages bursting with horrific shootings, showcasing special effects, but also highlighting the fact that even if we could rein in gun violence somehow, we are all awash in violent images. Many of the "heroes" of our most violent films and TV are out for vengeance, and Maher pointed out that vengeance seems to provide a convenient exception to society's norms.

He also pointed out that popular culture is one of the factors behind America's orgy of gun violence, though exactly what percentage it accounts for is unclear. The sheer number of available guns is certainly a large factor, but what about those images on the screen? I can certainly imagine young men being fascinated with the power and violence and justice meted out by everyone from Bruce Willis to Jack Reacher to Liam Neeson. 

The "good guys" get shot from time to time, but seem to overcome their wounds quickly, like the knight in Monty Python and the Holy Grail being slowing hacked to death by Arthur. "It's just a flesh wound."

Bad guys die in gory dozens.

For me, much of the violence I see falls into the category of cartoon, and I hope I can differentiate fantasy from reality. I'm not so sure of some younger males.

And it's not like humans haven't been fascinated by violence for, well, ever. Shakespeare plays feature horrific violence in many places, but it all happens off-stage. I assume old Bill would have added realistic on-stage violence had he the special effects available, but he didn't. Sophocles didn't back away from characters murdering parents and children and blinding themselves. Off-stage violence seems quaint now, and the difference between hearing about a shooting and actually seeing heads explode seems important.

Maher made me a bit depressed at first. After all, if pop culture is awash with guns and violence of all kinds, how can we ever be optimistic that things will change? 

But then I thought about smoking and how a strong and steady campaign, along with significant law suits against tobacco companies, has reduced the amount of smoking we see on TV and in movies. I know smoking is not a Constitutional right, but I don't read about radicals demanding their right to see smoking in their media.

Of course, addicts over a certain age can continue their "slow suicide" smoking activities, much like those stubborn motorcyclists who don't wear helmets. The thrills and comfort cancel out brain damage or lung cancer as motivators to behave differently. FREEDOM!

Once again: change happens slowly and then all at once. Some basic additions to the nation's gun safety laws look to be happening this summer. 

Tobacco use has fallen from over 44 percent of American adults in 1965 to near 13 percent today. Helmet use has gone up to 67 percent from very low use 50 years ago and more.

That still leaves a stunning number of adults purposely self-harming, but there is progress.

And so we stumble on.