It is quite common for many critics of Hollywood to raise the image of product placement. It is as though seeing an indirect or even a blatant advert in a film somehow detracts from their movie-going experience. In films of $100M+ budgets, on top of that sum advertising costs can crawl into almost half a billion dollars, it is no wonder that filmmakers look to other companies to help pay for some of the costs. After all most films these days are just products themselves.

It is just as common for the anti-gun voices to vocalise their concerns each and every time a despicable human being goes on a deadly rampage.

Hollywood is often associated with a certain vocal elite who are sometimes skewed in their opinions, whether they happen to be safe political messages or at times controversial criticism of the then current presidential regime. They have this right as individuals.

Their status as icons in popular entertainment allows them a taller soap box upon which to stand and with various methods of social media these celebrities can tweet or snapchat their cultivated day to day ensuring greater spread for themselves and that which they seek to sell or promote.

Marred inside many of the critics and elite's opinions alike lurks a disfigured reactionary jerk pertaining to gun rights. Though most political masters and celebrity elites themselves own firearms and are often surrounded by well armed protectors they look down on the peons of society who also seek to protect themselves, their families and their property with firearms.

The same police that they have access to, and seem to disregard in actual practice is supposedly adequate for the non-famous, un-wealthy masses to rely upon for security. Many of the film critics themselves come from the masses and tend to agree with their elite celebrities, perhaps via impression or because it is a simplistically easy fear to cling to.

That does not however mean that all should suffer beneath such imperial instincts to put the theatre of safety above liberty. Empirical evidence is never as seductive as the glamour of fiction.

It is an obvious stab to point towards the two gun wielding celebrities starring in their newest block buster blasting to death scores of goons. To mention the celebrity that certain firearms gain after being featured in key roles, ie inside the hero's grip, is perhaps a moot point.

Take famously for example the films Lethal Weapon and Die Hard featuring the Berretta's M92. A hand gun which would go on to gain commercial success thanks to the films, and would also see wide adoption inside police, military and government agencies.

Thanks to its own merits but also in part to it being the side arm of choice of both John McLane and Martin Riggs as they dispatched villain, terrorist and criminal with keen entertaining shooting. Just as John Rambo inspired the sales of large combat knives and Dirty Harry helped to boost the sales of Smith and Wesson's hand cannons, so too would these two films assist Berretta in its mostly US sales.

Outside the commercial success of firearms to the civil market, the relationship between the US military and Hollywood is obvious. The need to utilise current and even older equipment and facilities can make and break a film. This has often worked in favour both for the military itself and the film makers.

Top Gun helped recruit more people to the US Navy than any advertising campaign or amount of school recruiting. The film used US Navy vessels, aircraft, personnel and bases to help make a 1980s mega hit.