How on earth is this supposed to make me or anyone anti-gun? I know it's supposed to be shocking and dramatic. There's a baby crying as the screen cuts off at the end because the DEFENSELESS woman was shot. Guess what? If your crazy ex is violating restraining orders, he's not going to listen to any law telling him he can't have a gun either...Jesus. Excuse me, but these people are just unimaginably dense and delusional. Please join us in the real world, 'gun control' advocates.
Via
Rare.us: Former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s anti gun group Organization Everytown, recently released a PSA that was meant to inform us about senseless gun violence.
In the short clip, which has been viewed almost 20,000 times in one day, a woman calls 911 to report her violent “ex” is at the front door and is trying to get inside to take their son. After the man breaks inside, the two struggle for control of the child, before the man takes out a gun and shoots the woman.
The message: stop gun violence against women.
Katie Pavlich at Town Hall points out that the video actually makes a stronger case for woman arming themselves. After all, if the woman in the video, and more woman generally, carried guns, they’d have more of a fighting chance.
The video makes it seem that women are not in control, and that they can only wait for police in order to defend them from violence.
“What are women supposed to do when violent attackers disobey the laws? I happen to believe that a piece of paper and a false assurance police will show up on time aren’t good enough. Women must be able to go on the offensive with equal force to protect themselves,” Pavlich writes.
26 Comments
Trancecoach*promote
siftbotSelf promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Tuesday, July 29th, 2014 7:44pm PDT - promote requested by original submitter Trancecoach.
JerykkHilariously poor attempt at anti-gun propaganda. If the woman had a gun, the ex probably would have thought twice before barging in and stealing the baby.
Also, why is the message so incredibly specific? "Stop gun violence against women"? Really? Shouldn't it just be "Stop violence against anyone"?
ShepppardNo... This definitely continues the point of "We don't need weapons that are easily concealed and readily available for this exact situation to be available at your local Wal Mart."
In terms of Canadian gun laws, could this still happen? Yes. But only after he's taken not one, but two tests, and a psych exam. Other than that, if he were walking around outside with a gun, it would've been something like a hunting rifle, where she could A) have hid, or B) said "He's carrying a gun!"
Lets go back to the whole "What about if he didn't have a handgun" bit, though. Because, honestly, if he didn't have a handgun, the cops would literally have been there within 2 minutes most likely.
You also make the assumption that even if she had a gun, she wouldn't have gotten shot. That would be true if she had been brandishing it when the guy broke in, but unless it was already in her hands, he already would've had her within the first 10 seconds of being in the house.
sixshotsays...No matter how you look at it, this is one terrible PSA/ad campaign for "anti-gun". There are pro's and con's to owning a firearm. And whether or not it is right to have one, to not have one, to open carry, to conceal carry, it's all subjective opinion. I can't argue for or against for any of them...
Because frankly, I don't give a damn.
JerykkYou assume that he'd obtain the gun legally instead of just borrowing it, stealing it or buying it from illegal sources. Considering that the majority of guns used in gun-related crimes are obtained illegally, that's a flawed assumption.
In the video, the ex doesn't just burst into the house immediately upon arrival and then shoot the woman. He stands at the door, pounding and shouting long enough for the woman to call the police. If she had a gun in her house, she would have had more than enough time to grab it and clearly state "I have a gun and will shoot you if you enter my house." That alone would have been an effective deterrent, most likely causing the ex to back off and reconsider his actions. The only reason he brazenly stormed into the house was because he knew the woman was unarmed and didn't pose much of a threat. Killing the woman wasn't even his goal either. He wanted to take the baby and only shot the woman because she physically tried to stop him.
Hanover_Phistsays...Having a gun for self defense only works if you are willing to shoot and kill someone. There are all sorts of messed ideas around Mommy killing Daddy, for whatever reason.
The reason Daddy has a gun in this video is because guns are everywhere, easily accessible and always in the hands of people willing to use them. If she had a gun, but lacked the steely nerves to use it properly, she's likely only going to hurt herself or her baby.
Statistically, the answer to gun violence is not more guns. Sorry, but those are the facts.
harlequinnThe average response time of police is a lot longer than 2 minutes.
It's not about the firearm. It's that in the USA, it is a seemingly acceptable choice to use firearms as a means to an end for situations where it should not be an acceptable choice. The firearm is just a tool.
Because, honestly, if he didn't have a handgun, the cops would literally have been there within 2 minutes most likely.
harlequinnAnd the answer is not technically "less guns" either.
The "why are they using a firearm for this situation" is much more important than "what are they using" in regards to a choice of weapons.
Statistically, the answer to gun violence is not more guns. Sorry, but those are the facts.
SagemindWell, here are my facts.
I don't know a single person who owns/caries a personal firearm.
I don't know a single person that has been shot.
I don't know a single person who has been faced with someone who has a gun
I don't know of anyone who had a home invasion using a gun
I don't know a single person who has been in a traumatizing situation with a gun.
(This excludes people I know who own rifles with the sole purpose of hunting game to put food on the table.)
Oh ya, and I live in Canada.
Fairbssays...Another reason is because women are victimized by ex boyfriends and husbands and murdered at an alarmingly high rate. I read elsewhere this commercial is being aired right now because there is some voting going on with something to do about people that have restraining orders can't obtain guns. Seems fair to me.
Anyone scoffing at this commercial isn't getting the point that this is happening all the time in the U.S. We are the 14th most in gun deaths per capita in the company of mostly 2nd / 3rd world nations. That sure is something to be proud of.
Having a gun for self defense only works if you are willing to shoot and kill someone. There are all sorts of messed ideas around Mommy killing Daddy, for whatever reason.
The reason Daddy has a gun in this video is because guns are everywhere, easily accessible and always in the hands of people willing to use them. If she had a gun, but lacked the steely nerves to use it properly, she's likely only going to hurt herself or her baby.
Statistically, the answer to gun violence is not more guns. Sorry, but those are the facts.
TrancecoachIf the majority of Americans were anti-gun ownership, then the 2nd amendment would have already been disposed of (as has happened with most of the other amendments on the Bill of Rights).
So folks here can complain all they want, but there's never going to be any progress on the (out-of-touch) anti-gun effort in the United States. That's where most Americans seem to draw the line: "The state can do whatever (e.g., surveil its people, drone foreigners indiscriminately, devastate the dollar, etc.), but don't touch the guns." In this, it's the anti-gun contingency that remains in the minority in the U.S. Even Joe Biden campaigned on his gun ownership.
Alas, most of the (conservative, rural state and Southern state liberals, inner city minorities, or NRA-supporting, and anti-NRA) gun-owners are not among the "progressive" (pseudo-)intellectuals on Videosift.
YogiWell I live in America...and yeah still pretty safe but here's my list.
I know several people who own guns.
I don't know anyone that has been shot.
I don't know anyone that has been faced with someone who has a gun.
I don't know of anyone who had a home invasion using a gun.
I don't know a single person who has been in a traumatizing situation with a gun.
I sleep 20 yards from a giant gun safe that is FULL of guns. I mean a fuckload of serious fucking guns, some automatic and really fucking evil. They belong to my friend who owns the house I live in. He's a good guy, he used to have guns stashed around his house, he still might have guns stashed around his house.
I am quite anti-gun and I live here happily and he's very cool with talking about it. Never felt threatened, never felt in danger. His guns don't protect me or worry me. I just wouldn't own them myself.
Well, here are my facts.
I don't know a single person who owns/caries a personal firearm.
I don't know a single person that has been shot.
I don't know a single person who has been faced with someone who has a gun
I don't know of anyone who had a home invasion using a gun
I don't know a single person who has been in a traumatizing situation with a gun.
(This excludes people I know who own rifles with the sole purpose of hunting game to put food on the table.)
Oh ya, and I live in Canada.
ChaosEngineYou've just countered your own point. The "majority" of Americans (and indeed humans in general) are and have frequently wrong on just about every issue in history.
Meanwhile, as you said, the majority seem to be fine with the slow erosion of every other freedom enshrined in your constitution.
Frankly, the majority are idiots.
Each of the issues outlined above were opposed by the majority, but a few progressive intellectuals slowly changed things.
The same will happen for guns.
If it doesn't, it will be due to the triumph of lobbyists over citizenry.
If the majority of Americans were anti-gun ownership, then the 2nd amendment would have already been disposed of (as has happened with most of the other amendments on the Bill of Rights).
So folks here can complain all they want, but there's never going to be any progress on the (out-of-touch) anti-gun effort in the United States. That's where most Americans seem to draw the line: "The state can do whatever (e.g., surveil its people, drone foreigners indiscriminately, devastate the dollar, etc.), but don't touch the guns." In this, it's the anti-gun contingency that remains in the minority in the U.S. Even Joe Biden campaigned on his gun ownership.
Alas, most of the (conservative, rural state and Southern state liberals, inner city minorities, or NRA-supporting, and anti-NRA) gun-owners are not among the "progressive" (pseudo-)intellectuals on Videosift.
rancorsays...Ding! I can't believe how many people come back to this argument strategy nowadays. In the last few years, it has just stunned me that issues like gay marriage bans were put up to POPULAR VOTE. Hurts my brain. It hurts worse when those votes pass, too, but that's why things like civil rights aren't supposed to be put in that position.
But of course let's not forget guns aren't people. Lots of dangerous stuff gets banned, mostly because we don't have a constitutional amendment (and lots of $$$) to defend them.
My main hope for the future is that both sides cope with the fallacies of their OWN arguments and work towards reasonable compromise. The laws should be narrowly focused to combat criminal behavior, while allowing responsible law-abiding citizens reasonable freedoms for hobbies and self-defense! Oh it sounds so simple.
You've just countered your own point. The "majority" of Americans (and indeed humans in general) are and have frequently wrong on just about every issue in history.
YogiI drew up a reasonable compromise and I like telling people about it and they like to explain to me how I'm stupid. So I'm not gonna bother with my plan now, unless you ask nicely
Ding! I can't believe how many people come back to this argument strategy nowadays. In the last few years, it has just stunned me that issues like gay marriage bans were put up to POPULAR VOTE. Hurts my brain. It hurts worse when those votes pass, too, but that's why things like civil rights aren't supposed to be put in that position.
But of course let's not forget guns aren't people. Lots of dangerous stuff gets banned, mostly because we don't have a constitutional amendment (and lots of $$$) to defend them.
My main hope for the future is that both sides cope with the fallacies of their OWN arguments and work towards reasonable compromise. The laws should be narrowly focused to combat criminal behavior, while allowing responsible law-abiding citizens reasonable freedoms for hobbies and self-defense! Oh it sounds so simple.
TrancecoachWell that should make you feel quite at home then.
I am not "pro-gun" nor am I "anti-gun." You just made my point that democracy in the absence of individual rights turns into mob-rule, by virtue of a monopolistic, crony government.
Meanwhile, most of this "argument" you seem to be trying to have with me is primarily taking place in your head.
Frankly, the majority are idiots.
ChaosEngineNonsense and hyperbole. There are already protections for individual rights. See Tyranny of the Majority.
What you can't accept is responsibility.
Well that should make you feel quite at home then.
I am not "pro-gun" nor am I "anti-gun." You just made my point that democracy in the absence of individual rights turns into mob-rule, by virtue of a monopolistic, crony government.
Meanwhile, most of this "argument" you seem to be trying to have with me is primarily taking place in your head.
TrancecoachGreat! At last.
Nonsense and hyperbole. There are already protections for individual rights. See Tyranny of the Majority.
What you can't accept is responsibility.
VoodooVThe fallacy though is that there is a strong anti-gun movement. There isn't The pro-gun people desperately cling to that strawman fallacy any time there is a call for gun control.
The number of people who are actually "anti-gun" in the US are too small to politically matter, but who knows, as @ChaosEngine pointed out, maybe that will change someday as attitudes and technology changes, but that day is not today.
However, the majority of people ARE for gun control/regulation. The vast majority of Americans have no problem with armed citizenry. The debate is ACTUALLY about the level of armament. They want stiffer controls to keep them out of the hands of criminals and the mentally disturbed. And maybe some required training/certification for those that do choose to own firearms, just like we test periodically for drivers licenses.
Even the pro-gun people should (I hope) agree that nuclear arms should be under tight control and not in the hands of civilians. Should a civilian be able to own a cruise missile? a tank? A battleship cannon? How about one of those new magnetic rail cannons being developed? If you agree that these types of weapons should not be used by civvies, then you are pro-gun control.
The question is just one of degree. I completely agree that "assault" weapons is too vague a term and stricter definitions need to be created to define what civvies should and shouldn't have.
Precedent is already set. We have a constitutional right to bear arms as well as many other rights, but rights have been taken away countless times (with the consent of the governed) for people who have proven that they can be a harm to others, so you can't really argue that the 2nd amendment is inalienable. Many, if not all, rights have conditions to them.
There are ALWAYS exceptions.
I've harped on it before and I'll harp on it again. Bill Maher is exactly right. There is no "anti-gun" party. We have a "loves guns" party and a "likes guns" party.
There is NO significant anti-gun movement in America. But the pro-gun people are scared so they try to bogeyman you into thinking there is.
enochvoodoo just won!
ya'all can go home now!
best,
comment,
ever.
*note* i maaaay be exaggerating a tad,but still...pretty damn awesome comment.
The fallacy though is that there is a strong anti-gun movement. There isn't The pro-gun people desperately cling to that strawman fallacy any time there is a call for gun control.
The number of people who are actually "anti-gun" in the US are too small to politically matter, but who knows, as @ChaosEngine pointed out, maybe that will change someday as attitudes and technology changes, but that day is not today.
However, the majority of people ARE for gun control/regulation. The vast majority of Americans have no problem with armed citizenry. The debate is ACTUALLY about the level of armament. They want stiffer controls to keep them out of the hands of criminals and the mentally disturbed. And maybe some required training/certification for those that do choose to own firearms, just like we test periodically for drivers licenses.
Even the pro-gun people should (I hope) agree that nuclear arms should be under tight control and not in the hands of civilians. Should a civilian be able to own a cruise missile? a tank? A battleship cannon? How about one of those new magnetic rail cannons being developed? If you agree that these types of weapons should not be used by civvies, then you are pro-gun control.
The question is just one of degree. I completely agree that "assault" weapons is too vague a term and stricter definitions need to be created to define what civvies should and shouldn't have.
Precedent is already set. We have a constitutional right to bear arms as well as many other rights, but rights have been taken away countless times (with the consent of the governed) for people who have proven that they can be a harm to others, so you can't really argue that the 2nd amendment is inalienable. Many, if not all, rights have conditions to them.
There are ALWAYS exceptions.
I've harped on it before and I'll harp on it again. Bill Maher is exactly right. There is no "anti-gun" party. We have a "loves guns" party and a "likes guns" party.
There is NO significant anti-gun movement in America. But the pro-gun people are scared so they try to bogeyman you into thinking there is.
VoodooVBesides, we've already had this argument:
*related=http://videosift.com/video/Womens-Gun-Advocates-Hilariously-Hypocritical-Testimony
NRA: They're taking away our ability to defend ourselves!!!
Reality: Nope...we're not.
siftbotWomen's Gun Advocate's Hilariously Hypocritical Testimony has been added as a related post - related requested by VoodooV.
siftbotMoving this video to Trancecoach's personal queue. It failed to receive enough votes to get sifted up to the front page within 2 days.
Payback20 yards? That's a big fucking house...
I sleep 20 yards from a giant gun safe that is FULL of guns. I mean a fuckload of serious fucking guns, some automatic and really fucking evil. They belong to my friend who owns the house I live in. He's a good guy, he used to have guns stashed around his house, he still might have guns stashed around his house.
TrancecoachYep, Where Americans Draw the Line.
Discuss...
Enable JavaScript to submit a comment.