Filmmaker Quintin Tarantino has made some amazing movies. I still love Pulp Fiction and The Usual Suspects after all these years. They’re great films.

However, Tarantino is one of many in Hollywood who has advocated for gun control, generally despite the number of guns one tends to find in his movies. In other words, he’s a bit of a hypocrite to say that we need gun control while making his living in part thanks to guns.

Yet he recently admitted to being a bigger hypocrite than we thought.

In a recent interview with Spanish magazine EL PAÍS, legendary Hollywood director Quentin Tarantino claimed that there needs to be more gun control in the U.S., but admitted that he keeps a gun for personal protection.

The “Pulp Fiction” director mentioned that the United States needs more gun laws, claiming it has too many “automatic weapons.”

Except that automatic weapons are the most heavily regulated kind of firearm there is. While they’re not banned explicitly, the rules that are in place put them out of reach to anyone but those with a lot more disposable income than the average American has.

Moving on, though.

The outlet then broached the controversial gun control question: “What’s your position on the debate about gun ownership in the U.S.?” The “Django Unchained” filmmaker tried to take a nuanced position, but ended up advocating for more gun control.

He said, “There are always two sides. We certainly don’t need as many automatic weapons as there are. There should be better laws.”

Despite his politics on guns, Tarantino admitted, “I do have a gun at home.” The interviewer asked, “A gun?” to which he said, “Yes, for protection.”

Again, we don’t have a pile of automatic weapons roaming the streets. Not ones lawfully obtained, anyway. Must automatic weapons in criminal hands these days are the result of illegal full-auto switches on handguns, not because of a lack of laws restricting them.

Yet Tarantino thinks we should have more gun control while having a gun for protection? I find that interesting.

Granted, I respect that he’s not just outsourcing his safety while pretending the rest of us aren’t worthy of protection at all, and he’s one person I suspect doesn’t actually support a total gun ban while still advocating for gun control.

The problem, however, is that when you start talking about “automatic weapons” you’re either ignorant of what you’re talking about or you actually mean semi-automatic weapons. If that’s the case, you might as well just call for a total gun ban, because that’s damn near what you want.

The vast majority of firearms sold today, including handguns, are semi-automatics. From your Glocks and 1911s to your AR-15s and AK-pattern rifles, semi-automatics make up the lion’s share of guns sold today.

If Tarantino actually means semi-automatics, he’s effectively calling for restricting the go-to firearm for most people.

And I suspect he’s talking about the same kind of gun he has for protection.

As a result, he’s either too ignorant to have an opinion on the subject–thinking automatic weapons are plentiful and relatively unregulated–or he’s a colossal hypocrite because he wants to regulate the most common firearm in the nation while making sure he has a gun at home to protect himself.

That’s just how it works out.