Liam Neeson comments: Must action stars oppose gun control?

'Taken 3' star Liam Neeson supports gun control. Is it hypocritical for actors who wield guns on film to oppose them in real life?

Sam Urdank/20th Century Fox/AP
This photo released by 20th Century Fox shows Liam Neeson as Bryan Mills in a scene from the film, 'Taken 3.'

Liam Neeson has a very particular set of skills - skills he’s acquired over a very long career – that made him so convincing as a pro-gun character in the Taken series of films, that one gun company is boycotting him for not staying in character off screen.

“First off, my thoughts and prayers and my heart are with the deceased, and certainly with all of France, yesterday. I’ve got a lot of dear friends in Paris. There’s too many [expletive] guns out there. Especially in America,” Neeson told media during an event in Dubai. “I think the population is like, 320 million? There’s over 300 million guns. Privately owned, in America. I think it’s a [same expletive again] disgrace. Every week now we’re picking up a newspaper and seeing, ‘Yet another few kids have been killed in schools.’”

That didn’t sit well with one gun company that has supplied props to the Taken film franchise.

In response, Para USA, which has provided firearms for Neeson’s latest film is calling the star a hypocrite for his pro-gun control statements to the media and is calling for an industry-wide boycott against him:

“PARA USA regrets its decision to provide firearms for use in the film "Taken 3". While the film itself is entertaining, comments made by its Irish-born star during press junkets reflect a cultural and factual ignorance that undermines support of the Second Amendment and American liberties,” the company posted on its Facebook page. “We will no longer provide firearms for use in films starring Liam Neeson and ask that our friends and partners in Hollywood refrain from associating our brand and products with his projects. Further, we encourage our partners and friends in the firearms industry to do the same. ‪#‎America ‪#‎2A

The response to Para’s post was largely unprintable due to negative invective directed at the actor.

However, Facebook user Linda Walker posted, “Awesome, thank you for taking this stand.”

Christopher Perisho replied, “I approve! Do the same for Matt Damon. I'm doing my part, refusing to pay to see movies they are in. Hypocrites...”

One or two responses questioned why the gun manufacturer had not done its homework on the widely outspoken actor prior to committing to supply weapons for his films.

Para did not respond to requests for interview.

Twitter fans also shot off their beaks calling Neeson a hypocrite for his statements.

According to a piece in Guns & Ammo Magazine from February 2012, this is not a new issue, as many action heroes who hit the screen with all guns blazing have come out as pro gun-control in their private lives.

Also, the Movie Firearms Database has a long list of weapons filmography on which weapons were seen in the hands of actors, including those mentioned in the Guns & Ammo story who in their private lives support gun-control.

Anti-gun action stars listed by G&A from that issue include: Kevin Bacon who often pairs firearms with his characters; Mark “Marky Mark” Whalberg whose rapper career was popular among those living the gun culture; Danny DeVito often wields a Smith & Wesson Model 19 Snubnose in “It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia;” Matt Damon who played a.k.a. action hero character Jason BourneSean Connery who played James Bond who famously packed a Walther PPK and Rambo/Expendables 1-3 star and producer Sylvester Stallone.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.