Senate Gun Control

Well, I'm still not seeing anything about an ex, even in the cache (http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...ing-zombie-targets/ &cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk) Again, the only one who mentioned "the ex" seems to be the original link, so is it possible it was listed under that blog, and not what the company itself marketed? Because yet again, you guys are ignoring the issue in relation to the claim you originally made. But even it was, I've already said so what?

Shinjo, going back to your post answer me 2 questions, 1) how in any way was the NRA involved in this? Because that was your original political claim.The only connection that exists is that this company sold some of these targets at a booth at the NRA convention....

2) You, as well as the blogger, you linked to as supporting evidence, made this about linking to violence in relation to gender issues, despite the fact that the company has more than a dozen male zombies, and just happens to have a one that's female. Maybe you should go back and re-read the blog you linked to, because it's a lot stronger than what you are now claiming. I could accept if you just read the title of that blog and threw it up as a link without really reading it, but there is a disconnect to what you posted in your recent post and what you originally linked to. So it's not a straw man to bring up examples like the Walking Dead or whatnot, but in relation to your original claim.

(Btw-You defended song lyrics specifically in an old discussion about race. It wasn't a "banning vs not banning" music discussion, but you indicated that violent rap lyrics were a way for those who write them to reflect about taking back some control. The point you made back then was that rappers don't actually hate women, but that the lyrics are a reaction to a situation. The point is that applies to anything, as such things are reflection across multiple genres in all media.)

Have you guys ever seen shows like The Deadilest Warrior, where historical figures are matched up in hypothetical battle? The targets they use are much more "reactive" than bleeding zombies, so people want to buy similar things. Because zombie targets can just be zombie targets, and nothing more has to be read into them.

 

Ummm

 

Ummm

 

Why can't rednecks just use their neighbors broken-ass, lawn ornament of a pickup truck as target practice like we used to do in the old days? Or weather stained patio furniture?

http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/05/07/gun-homicide-rate-down-49-since-1993-peak-public-unaware/

Not that I care, and not that this should be news to anyone, but US media is just a step above propaganda and horror movies.

 

Sorry ES mate, I'm still not seeing anything about an ex. Probably because you're being too vague. Could you be more specific? But seriously, I couldn't get anything like that to show up. But I also don't think it changes anything regarding the overall picture, or what deeper meaning zombie targets are supposed to have....They're zombies. Maybe to be fair, they should make a male "ex boyfriend" target, but any of the other guys could be used to fill that role. Again, the "ex" zombie target doesn't seem any worse than anything else being discussed. I still don't see how anyone can be outraged about a zombie target compared to say, anything shown on an old episode of Tales From the Crypt.

Regarding the larger picture, the Department of Justice just released the official government report on gun violence in the US. As for where crime guns came from, the study notes:

less than 2% of convicted criminals ended buying their weapons at gun shows or flea markets.
The highest number, 40 percent, said the guns came from a family member or a friend.
About 37 percent said the weapons were stolen or obtained from an illegal source.
The rest say the guns were bought at a retail store or pawn shop.

Despite the fact that the US has the highest rate of gun ownership over the past 20 years, murders committed with a gun dropped 39 percent to 11,101 in 2011, from a high of 18,253 in 1993. Other crimes committed with guns were down even more sharply from 1.53 million in 1993 to 467,300 in 2011, a drop of 70 percent, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics.

About 75 of all murders which involved a firearm were carried out by handgun. Hardly any involved the type of firearm which has been labeled as an "assault weapon."

The study itself doesn't supply any rationales, it just tallies up the numbers in a hard facts kind of way. But the official study sure does blow away a lot of the political talking points which have been revolving around guns in the US.

 

Step 1: denial
Step 2: distraction
Step 3: goto Step 1

 

As I've already said, yet you continue to ignore as usual so you can repeatedly ask the question, I know it wasn't their product. It was sold at their convention. They should (a) be responsible for items sold at their convention, even if they're not the manufacturer and (b) I don't actually care if it has an NRA label or not as this isn't about the NRA but about the weird fetishes of gun culture.

I'm not gonna lie, when I Googled "NRA Target The Ex" it was the first article that came up so I linked it. It's now 4th on my search. Hence why I didn't quote anything from the article, just linked to it.

Either way, I think there's a fine line in the gender issue. Yes, it is the only female one, but it was also titled "The Ex" and I don't have to just through any partisan hula-hoops to connect domestic violence (which is a huge problem, and heavily targeted at women) and a life-like target that you shoot with real guns with it. If one of those male "zombies" was way more human than the rest but was male and titled "The Ex" I'd also think it was rather insane to buy something like that.

I don't believe I did. The only time I remember discussing this is when I said that Rush Limbaugh's sexist comments are different than those of a rapper because of the political role he plays in the GOP but that I find both reprehensible.

 

Look blind or admit it's there..

look blind it is.

 

I'm sorry, but where else do you hold people to this sort of standard? The NRA convention also a trade show where numerous vendors apply for and rent out booths. You can look at the application required here.

Well, let's compare that to other trade shows. How about the Food Marketing Institute's exposition? Their application asks even less about the actual content of the booth. The Automotive Service and Repair Week Expo has an even shorter online application. The Consumer Electronics Show has a similar application form.*

In other words, it appears that the process for reserving a booth at the NRA convention is similar to the process used for comparable trade shows in other industries. None of those seem to care about the content of the booth, nor do they appear to exercise much in the way of control over the products offered or presented at the booths. And yet, I don't see you holding CES responsible for some of the bad consumer electronics products that are presented at their shows. Why the different standard for the NRA?

* Note: the longer forms appear to include the contract terms, while the shorter forms (including the NRA) suggest that once you apply you will be provided the contract to finalize things.

EDIT:

My take on the actual targets is that they are meant to be a somewhat humorous (through the use of zombies) take on the more traditional threat targets.

In the case of the only female one being named "The Ex", I have a bit of a different perspective on that, in large part because I have an ex-wife who actually did make threats of violence against me after our divorce. (I was alerted to the threats by two different mutual friends.) At the time, she worked a couple blocks away from my office, along the route that I would have to walk to and from the subway each day.

The "crazy ex" is honestly one of the more common threat profiles I have seen people encounter (both male and female). When I heard of the target being called that, my first thought was back to the threats that were made against me by my ex, and several of the steps I had to take because of those threats. It wasn't to interpret it as "I could imagine killing the *****".

 

I don't know, but I'm guessing you've never see me hold them to that standard because we've never discussed the issue of vendors at conventions. The Food Marketing Institute also isn't a 50k rally of people with gun fetishes though.

 

Which is why I also used the example of CES. Their attendance this year topped 150000, almost twice what the NRA convention got. I was trying to cover the entire spectrum.

Quite simply, you are holding the NRA to a higher standard because you don't care for the industry that they are part of. They operated the exposition part of their convention no different than any other trade show is run. It's unfair to single them out as though they should exert more control over their attendees than others do.

 

Again, the other conventions are not full of people with gun fetishes.

 

So you admit that your reason for holding them to a higher standard is because you don't like the subject matter? Good. Now we're making progress.

Honestly, you act like you were trying to find something to get offended about. If it wasn't this, you would have found something else to complain about. Why? Because you don't like the NRA, and so everything about the NRA's convention you look at with a more critical eye.

Honestly, that sort of attitude is a big part of the problem in discussing gun control. As this piece discusses (and I recommend the entire thing, although it's quite long), there is a fundamental problem underlying these discussions. From the piece:

Look at your language here. You are essentially labeling all NRA members as "people with gun fetishes", trying to frame the conversation as a reasonable person against extremists.

I'm sorry, but much as with the previous line of discussion, I reject your underlying assumptions. The NRA convention had over 86000 attendees. The companies represented ranged from firearm manufacturers, to safety instructors, to accessory manufacturers, and so forth. They cover everything from hunting to self defense to law enforcement and military uses. They had seminars on everything from firearm law and policy to self defense techniques. The attendees came from all walks of life, from lawyers and doctors to a wide variety of blue collar jobs. You can't just stereotype them like that.

You wouldn't say that a car show is "full of people with car fetishes", nor would you refer to people at a cooking expo as having "food fetishes". Similarly, there's no need to poison the discussion by referring to attendees of a firearm expo as having "gun fetishes".

 

KK... didn't you give your wife a gun as a wedding present? Considering most people opt for lingerie or a whip, wouldn't you say that falls under the category of fetish?

Also...



lol.

 

Yeah. The gun I gave her was a family heirloom that had belonged to my grandmother, and is too short for me to use comfortably.

If I had given her my grandmother's car for a wedding gift, would that have fallen under the category of a car fetish?

 

It's not as simple as that I dislike the subject matter, but that guns are devices that can - and are - used to kill people. Kitchen appliances are not used en masse to commit murder.

Another large part of discussing gun control is because people such as yourself refuse to acknowledge there is a problem and tend to view any action to curb the violence as an infringement on their rights. You and others seem to refuse to acknowledge that the same devices that you use to protect yourself from some imminent act of violence and shoot at targets in your backyard are being used to murder tens of thousands of people a year. And anything that poses a slight inconvenience to your hobby is treated with hostility and viewed as an act of tyranny.

The main problem I have with the target - and thinking the NRA should be more self-aware of the products being sold at their convention - is because the item they are promoting is being used for violence all across this country. And while you and others may get enjoyment out of the humor of shooting the female zombie, many of us see it as you simply shrugging your shoulders to the violence that is also occurring.

 

How many times are you going to use the car defense? It would be interesting to count how many times you've used it in this thread, but I really can't be bothered.

 

It's an analogy, and in this case it's perfectly apt. Get over it.

And yet, it's not the guns that are the source of the problem. As a recent study shows, by every metric gun violence is at its lowest point since 1993, and it's continuing to decline. And yet most people seem to have the impression that it's higher than it's ever been.

Not true. I don't know any gun advocates who refuse to acknowledge it. What we have an issue with is the claim that the proposed "solutions" will do anything about the problem.

Gun control advocates have a long history of making "blood in the streets" predictions about firearms, and then having them never come to fruition. They claimed that "shall issue" laws would lead to increases in gun violence, and the gun violence decreased. They claimed that unless the 1994 AWB was extended in 2004 violence would increase, and it's still gone down.

At every turn, their predictions have turned out to be nothing more than fear mongering. And yet, they continue to make the same predictions over and over. They continue to offer the same "solutions" that they even admit wouldn't stop the same violence that they use to excuse the new laws. They aren't interested in effective solutions, only in getting more restrictive ones passed.

Personally, I don't care for that type of target. I prefer to use reactive targets (that flip down when you hit them, and can be reset by hitting another target) or traditional paper targets.

However, I don't see any difference between the female zombie target and someone putting up a picture of their ex to shoot at. (Side note: the NRA's HQ range in Fairfax, VA, where I often shoot, prohibits the use of targets that resemble living creatures, except in silhouette.) It's ultimately a niche item in a niche market. If anything, by making a big deal about it, you are bringing them more publicity than they otherwise would have gotten, and likely helping to increase their sales. You can find people in every industry that market their products through controversy.

 

I'm delighted that the USA's rate of gun crime is falling. I'm appalled that it's still as high as it is.

 

I don't buy the notion for a second that right-wingers like yourself are actually interested in enacting ANY form of gun control. It is in the best interest of the Gun Lobby to look concerned and convince-able, but simply discouraged with the lack of "viable solutions" from the Democrats. This deflects attention from what is actually going on - the rural and/or conservative population getting their jollies by sticking it to "liberal elites" in the name of cultural ressentiment masquerading as "freedom".

The Repubs are losing pretty hard on every other culture war issue, so, meh, let them have their guns. I said in the other thread that I thought this was the wrong time to push on this issue, and Obama and co. suffered their first real setback over it.

 

Similarly, gun advocates tend to exaggerate any gun control measure and tend to shrug their shoulders at the violence as a necessary side-effect of protecting their hobby. Take the latest Toomey-Manchin Amendment to expand background checks. The largest criticisms of it are that it would provide too big of a burden on people transferring the possession of guns and that it would be the start of a national registry; the latter is absolutely a lie.

 

Which product in particular did you feel was advertised at their convention that was as objectionable as the one we are currently discussing at the NRA? Please share it with us, and provide an opportunity for substantive response. Otherwise, you are building your whole argument on your narrowly conceived view of us as individuals acting in an entirely hypothetical situation. That's not an acceptable or legitimate form of discussion.

This logic is entirely specious. Historically, the NRA has exercised control over the content of its booths, and just did so days ago. How, in light of that move, can you argue that it is impossible for them to exercise any control over content? They could do what they've just done in another case. The criticism is thus two-fold: First, why don't they exercise any control over their content, and second, that their failure to exercise the same level of control here as in other cases is at least tacit approval of what was being done. Both criticisms stand.

Why would every single trade/industry conference have exactly the same standards? The ones from psychiatric and medical professional organizations are more stringent than those for Comic Con. Each industry has its own suite of risks and downsides that have to be weighed. In the case of guns, they are instruments with huge destructive potential and an intimate link to violence. It is appalling and negligent to try and pretend that these products have no potential downsides, or that the industry shouldn't try to be cognizant of them. It is, in fact, exactly the sort of behavior that leads to accusations that pro-gun advocates do not want any sort of regulatory regime or restraint at all.

Your personal experience is nice, but is that all the further analysis should extend? Is authorial intent the only thing that ever matters in public discourse? If I said "People in Mitt Romney's sick, perverted cult don't deserve to have their activities legalized in the US" is that perfectly okay, so long as I personally am referring to "vulture capitalists" instead of Mormons? What about "People who believe like Mark Hacking should be put to death?" That's great so long as my mean people who murder their wives, even if I never say that, and instead just pair it with a bunch of images of him practicing Mormonism? Would you be perfectly comfortable with a campaign built around this sloganeering?

 

What I've been saying all along: people don't really need to bring guns into the home for self-defense in this country, and people bringing so many guns into the home is what keeps the firearm suicide rate so high. We've created a real public health problem in an attempt to solve an imaginary public health problem.

 

I think they made that guy a senator, though.