Liam Neeson Ludicrous Gun Rant
To sum up, disturbed, marginalized people are never tempted to emulate violence they see glamorized in movies and TV. They are driven to their crimes by the sheer abundance of inanimate objects known as guns. That’s pretty stupid. Even by Hollywood standards. 
Rush Limbauch also made a good point saying that gun laws doesn’t work precisely because criminals, by definition don’t respect the law. So you end-up disarming law abiding citizen that would only use it for self defense as a last resort:
They don’t even know what they’re talking about. You hit them with irrefutable logic on this and all they do is stare at you like you are brain-dead when they don’t have a retort to it. And I said, “Look, you’re talking about taking guns out of the hands of the law-abiding, the ones who are not using them to commit crimes, by definition. You can disarm all those people. Do you think you’re gonna eliminate a single school shooting doing that? Do you think you’re gonna eliminate violence? Do you think you’re gonna eliminate all these things that you abhor if you take guns away from people who are not using them for that purpose? 
Apparently, the French gun laws were impotent to spoil the plans of dedicated and well-trained attackers. On screen, we rarely see Neeson without a gun in his hand, be it in his lucrative Taken franchise, recent action thriller Non-Stop or his latest gumshoe film noir, A Walk Among the Tombstones. In same retarded liberal mind-set, the 62-year-old actor dismissed the idea that watching violent films, like Taken, glamorised violence and inspired killers.  Asked if he saw duplicity in fervently pushing gun control while making a living with a gun in his hand, Neeson immediately exonerated himself and his industry from any responsibility for violence. Neeson said: A character like Bryan Mills going out with guns and taking revenge: it’s fantasy. It’s in the movies, you know? I think it can give people a great release from stresses in life and all the rest of it, you know what I mean? It doesn’t mean [the viewers] are all going to go out and go, “Yeah, let’s get a gun!”   Neeson don’t that movies featuring firearms, such as his own “Taken” series, encourage people to buy guns. He explained his point of view saying: “I grew up watching cowboy movies, loved doing that [gun gesture] with my fingers, ‘Bang, bang, you’re dead!’ I didn’t end up a killer. I think that’s something the power of cinema can be.”  We have to recall that in the aftermath of the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting rampage in Newtown, Connecticut, a bunch of Hollywood A-list celebrities who already made a fortune from movies and TV shows, at least some of which portrayed gun violence, launched a gun control campaign called “demand a plan to end gun violence.” When it comes to guns and gun control, do you think Liam Neeson is a concerned citizen or a Hollywood hypocrite, or maybe a little of both?  How is it possible to explain Liam Neeson’s point of view about guns? They can be glorified in movies, television and video games all day long but they are inherently bad in real life. How such a point of view can make any sense outside a psych ward? Rush Limbauch may have an answer to this question. This is what he said discussing Liam Neeson’s ridiculous gun rant in his January 13 2015 Broadcast:
I’m convinced this gun control business is just the way you gain and maintain admittance into a particular group of elites that you want to be a member of. […] What it tells me is people are reciting rather than opining. They’re reciting what they should say, what they think they should believe. And everybody’s got a reason for believing this. It’s admittance into society. It’s admittance into a certain club of elites. It’s a way to gain favor with certain other people if you say it in the media. It’s hip versus unhip, cool versus uncool, who knows. But I don’t think there’s a single bit of intellectual thought behind it. They think there is. […] Folks, this is exactly, when I say liberalism is the most gutless choice you can make, liberalism’s the easiest thing, look at all you have to do to be a good liberal. What Liam Neeson said. You have to decry the incident in Paris, and then you say there are just too many guns. What a great guy. Oh, my God. What a caring, what a really compassionate guy. See how easy that is? In the meantime, Liam Neeson hasn’t done one thing to solve gun crime. He hasn’t done one thing to keep guns out of the hands of bad guys. All he’s done is made a heartfelt statement, and it’s been greeted with approval and applause and he is automatically granted the compassion and the understanding and so forth. That’s how easy it is. The tough stuff in the world is refuting the easy stuff and telling people the truth about complex, difficult things. That’s what’s hard, such as gun control. Liberal positions on gun control are easiest damn thing anybody could do or say, but actually tackling the problem, that’s another thing, and to that you have to be interested in solving crime. I never hear gun control people talk about solving crime. […] It’s easy to be a good liberal in good standing. That’s how easy it is. They never solve excrement, folks. They never solve anything, and they’re the ones that have all the compassion. They’re the ones get all the credit for all the compassion. 
Firearm Manufacturer ‘Regrets’ Providing Guns For ‘Taken 3′
Some people would ask: What about Liam Neeson’s repeated use of guns in movies like Taken 3? Taken‘s lead character, Bryan Mills, doesn’t shy away from using guns, grenades or anything else potentially lethal to seek out his revenge. But Neeson was careful to make a distinction between reality and fantasy. Neeson went on to say that Taken 3 would be the last movie in the Taken series, which started in 2008. That might more convenient for everyone, since the gun supplier for Taken 3 has pledged never to supply Neeson’s movies with firearms again, and encourages others to do the same. They posted an official declaration on their Facebook account.
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. 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. 
If the boycott succeeds, Neeson’s movies may take a hit. Not only does the Taken series use plenty of firearms, the Irish-born star has very few titles to his name that don’t involve gun violence in one form or another. But could Neeson’s comments hurt PARA USA? School shootings have hurt PARA USA in the past. The firearms supplier has been a part of Freedom Group since early 2012, which is owned by Cerberus Capital Management. After the school shooting at Sandy Hook, Cerberus announced they would pull out of Freedom Group. According to the Quartz, Cerberus has yet to sell the profitable firearm manufacturer.  Taken‘s Liam Neeson went on to potentially start another high-profile fight as the interviewer later asked if gun violence issues extend to police responsibility. After a moment of hesitation, Neeson added, “let’s put it this way: I think a light has been shone on the justice system in America, and it’s a justifiable light.” If law enforcement officials take an equally harsh view of the actor’s comments, the Taken 3 star might also be lacking police cooperation for his future projects.  gun control.