Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

Jgarrick

(521 posts)
Thu Apr 24, 2014, 01:38 AM Apr 2014

An anti-gun poster shows a complete cartridge being fired. Again.



So not only is this gun shooting a complete cartridge, but the finger on the trigger has returned to its non-firing original position only milliseconds after the bullet cartridge has left the barrel! Man, I wish my revolver's action could cycle that quickly!
65 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
An anti-gun poster shows a complete cartridge being fired. Again. (Original Post) Jgarrick Apr 2014 OP
A pro-gun poster misses the point entirely and deliberately. Again. villager Apr 2014 #1
Oh, I get its point, I assure you. Jgarrick Apr 2014 #4
Potentially, they certainly aid and abet. villager Apr 2014 #14
Is it seriously your assertion tht anyone who is against criminalizing anything that kills children Nuclear Unicorn Apr 2014 #22
well, they certainly aren't inhibiting it. lastlib Apr 2014 #24
Let's define this -- Nuclear Unicorn Apr 2014 #35
Exactly. Precisely the same as buying booze for an alcoholic then feigning surprise when... villager Apr 2014 #46
No, they just leave loaded guns around all over the place Warpy Apr 2014 #55
The poster says nothing about unsecured firearms. Jgarrick Apr 2014 #56
The point is a lie, a logical fallacy, a false equivalency. So obvious. nt NYC_SKP Apr 2014 #23
kinda like the "cars kill more people than gunz" meme, huh? lastlib Apr 2014 #26
Very much like that, yes. Lizzie Poppet Apr 2014 #30
Pretty much the same, a false equivalency that would make any researcher cringe. NYC_SKP Apr 2014 #34
Technical accuracy doesn't always matter...but sometimes it does. Lizzie Poppet Apr 2014 #29
Kinda like "The shoulder thingy that goes up". n/t oneshooter Apr 2014 #31
That's the technical term. Lizzie Poppet Apr 2014 #33
i wouldn't say that at all melm00se Apr 2014 #59
It doesn't have to be accurate. nt rrneck Apr 2014 #2
what was "their point" were they trying to precisely accurately depict a gun being fired? VanillaRhapsody Apr 2014 #3
It speaks to credibility. Straw Man Apr 2014 #6
credibility? A gun being "accurately depicted" in an advertisement MUST VanillaRhapsody Apr 2014 #7
Yes, credibility. Straw Man Apr 2014 #8
So McDonalds isn't "credible" because it uses a clown in its advertisements instead of a VanillaRhapsody Apr 2014 #9
If you are suggesting that this ad has the same credibility ... Straw Man Apr 2014 #11
Yeah....Ronald McDonald has had ZERO impact.... VanillaRhapsody Apr 2014 #12
So the clown has you convinced ... Straw Man Apr 2014 #13
Not I....but he sure HAS sold alot of burgers....no realistic representation required VanillaRhapsody Apr 2014 #36
Sold a lot of burgers -- to children and idiots. Straw Man Apr 2014 #44
So???? This changes the point that creative license is always used as a medium in VanillaRhapsody Apr 2014 #48
Creative license is supposed to be "creative." Straw Man Apr 2014 #49
No creative license in advertisement....is meant to capture attention..... VanillaRhapsody Apr 2014 #50
So far, all of the advertizing you have mentioned Jenoch Apr 2014 #51
What difference does THAT even make? VanillaRhapsody Apr 2014 #52
In each case in which you posted 'gun' I believe you meant "cartridge'. Jenoch Apr 2014 #53
I don't even care ....what difference does that make to the overall message? VanillaRhapsody Apr 2014 #54
Capture attention? Straw Man Apr 2014 #58
When did you see a clown on a McDonald's television advertisement? Jenoch Apr 2014 #25
What difference does THAT make....this AD was not on TV VanillaRhapsody Apr 2014 #37
They had a thief in their TV commercials too. Jenoch Apr 2014 #38
Obviously not a point you have been reading along with.... VanillaRhapsody Apr 2014 #39
Technically that graphic is not an advertisement. Jenoch Apr 2014 #40
Google gives me other versions of this without the typo - I'm guessing petronius Apr 2014 #5
So? Prophet 451 Apr 2014 #10
They're not missing the point. This is the type of misdirection that proliferationists are schooled villager Apr 2014 #15
How can this thread be misdirected when the entire Jenoch Apr 2014 #27
There is sweeping accusation heavily & obviously implied... Eleanors38 Apr 2014 #16
not many people Niceguy1 Apr 2014 #17
Wait a sec...it happened again? mokawanis Apr 2014 #18
Right? tazkcmo Apr 2014 #19
All regressives know is that "guns kill people"....what do you expect? ileus Apr 2014 #20
Keep your children SevenSixtyTwo Apr 2014 #21
Another Gun Lover has difficulty understanding figurative symbolism. CBGLuthier Apr 2014 #28
So to defend this poster, you point out that it's as accurate a depiction of guns as a Bugs Bunny Jgarrick Apr 2014 #32
Gonna get $50,000,000 worth of this mis-informed bs. geckosfeet Apr 2014 #41
A prominent anti-gun activist has recently explicitly admiited that her side's arguments are based Jgarrick Apr 2014 #43
Admitted? It is obvious. There is nothing but fear, hate, disdain and paranoia. geckosfeet Apr 2014 #47
I would have made it look just as dumb for half the price. Bloomberg should call me. nt Nuclear Unicorn Apr 2014 #64
For those who are down with this sort of exaggeration for effect... friendly_iconoclast Apr 2014 #42
I find it more offensive sarisataka Apr 2014 #45
That is a ridiculously long bullet. Longer than the cylinder itself. Skeeter Barnes Apr 2014 #57
I was against the other add. clffrdjk Apr 2014 #60
More dumbing down of Americans on display here derby378 Apr 2014 #61
Really what difference does it make? Packerowner740 Apr 2014 #62
here are eight good reasons gejohnston Apr 2014 #63
Quite a lot, actually. Straw Man Apr 2014 #65
 

Jgarrick

(521 posts)
4. Oh, I get its point, I assure you.
Thu Apr 24, 2014, 01:43 AM
Apr 2014

The poster implies that pro-gun activists are potential child killers.

Nuclear Unicorn

(19,497 posts)
22. Is it seriously your assertion tht anyone who is against criminalizing anything that kills children
Thu Apr 24, 2014, 08:58 AM
Apr 2014

aid and abets the killing of those children?

lastlib

(23,377 posts)
24. well, they certainly aren't inhibiting it.
Thu Apr 24, 2014, 01:01 PM
Apr 2014

Certainly your buds in Georgia and other states are removing the barriers. I would definitely call it enabling.

Nuclear Unicorn

(19,497 posts)
35. Let's define this --
Thu Apr 24, 2014, 01:45 PM
Apr 2014
"If a things kills more than _______ children annually it shall be _______ ."

Please supply a QUANTITY for the first blank and a LEVEL OF RESTRICTION for the second blank.
 

villager

(26,001 posts)
46. Exactly. Precisely the same as buying booze for an alcoholic then feigning surprise when...
Thu Apr 24, 2014, 03:30 PM
Apr 2014

...the inevitable car wreck comes.

The bodies, for the proliferationists, are just acceptable collateral damage.

Warpy

(111,456 posts)
55. No, they just leave loaded guns around all over the place
Thu Apr 24, 2014, 05:23 PM
Apr 2014

and let the kids kill each other.

And you're trying to nitpick the art to death to make sure everybody misses that point.

Fact: kids are dying at a pretty good clip out there because adults in the house are stupid about their guns.

And that's what you're trying to nitpick away.

 

Jgarrick

(521 posts)
56. The poster says nothing about unsecured firearms.
Thu Apr 24, 2014, 05:40 PM
Apr 2014

It says "We fear you'll take our children."

It's not speaking of a four-year-old shooting his sister. It's equating pro-gun activists (the "you" of the first sentence) with child killers (the "you" of the second sentence).

Which makes it a vile, despicable message while also being graphically inept. Quite the achievement.

 

NYC_SKP

(68,644 posts)
34. Pretty much the same, a false equivalency that would make any researcher cringe.
Thu Apr 24, 2014, 01:18 PM
Apr 2014

"I love my children, therefore YOU can't have anything that might hurt them, even if you keep it in a safe or locked up. Because I'm a mom. With children."

 

Lizzie Poppet

(10,164 posts)
29. Technical accuracy doesn't always matter...but sometimes it does.
Thu Apr 24, 2014, 01:10 PM
Apr 2014

In the case of gun control advocacy, being clueless about how guns work might or might not be relevant. If the advocacy is for something like universal background checks or better enforcement against straw purchasers, an advocate's ignorance about firearms technology isn't really germane. However, a lot of gun control proposals target specific features of firearms. It obviously behooves advocates of that sort of measure to know what they're talking about.

melm00se

(4,998 posts)
59. i wouldn't say that at all
Fri Apr 25, 2014, 04:16 PM
Apr 2014

What I would say is that the creator of the ad lacks the attention to detail which immediately calls into question their attention to other details (like the ones that may, or may not, support their case).

 

VanillaRhapsody

(21,115 posts)
3. what was "their point" were they trying to precisely accurately depict a gun being fired?
Thu Apr 24, 2014, 01:42 AM
Apr 2014

was that the "point" they were "missing" because how a gun looks when it shoots is not the message I took from that ad.

Straw Man

(6,627 posts)
6. It speaks to credibility.
Thu Apr 24, 2014, 02:01 AM
Apr 2014

Or more precisely, the lack thereof. It's very pertinent when much of the legislation that the prohibitionists would like to enact has to do hardware -- a topic about which they apparently know next to nothing.

Oh yes, and the "gun owners = child killers" meme is patently offensive and guaranteed to confirm gun owners of all persuasions in their opposition to any kind of regulatory compromises.

Can you say "culture war"? I knew that you could.

 

VanillaRhapsody

(21,115 posts)
7. credibility? A gun being "accurately depicted" in an advertisement MUST
Thu Apr 24, 2014, 02:08 AM
Apr 2014

reflect precisely reality.....

Did I call anyone a "child killer"?

Can you say "hyperbolic"? There....I knew that you could....

Straw Man

(6,627 posts)
8. Yes, credibility.
Thu Apr 24, 2014, 02:16 AM
Apr 2014
A gun being "accurately depicted" in an advertisement MUST

reflect precisely reality.....

Ignorance is ignorance. Public displays of it tend to negatively affect credibility. It's really that simple.


Did I call anyone a "child killer"?

No, you didn't. However, the poster clearly does equate gun-rights advocates with child killers. The "you" in both sentences does that, plainly.

Can you say "hyperbolic"? There....I knew that you could....

I can say it all day long, but it does not apply. I merely stated a fact. Don't tell me you are going to try to deny the above equivalence as established in the poster. That would be an insult to both of our intelligences.
 

VanillaRhapsody

(21,115 posts)
9. So McDonalds isn't "credible" because it uses a clown in its advertisements instead of a
Thu Apr 24, 2014, 02:17 AM
Apr 2014

normal person? I hate to think of your feelings on the Gieco gecko! Don't tell me....you think the E-trade baby is really trading stocks too!

Straw Man

(6,627 posts)
11. If you are suggesting that this ad has the same credibility ...
Thu Apr 24, 2014, 02:27 AM
Apr 2014

... as Ronald McDonald and the Geico gecko, I'm right there with you.

Cartoonish bullshit is cartoonish bullshit, no matter what it's peddling.

 

VanillaRhapsody

(21,115 posts)
12. Yeah....Ronald McDonald has had ZERO impact....
Thu Apr 24, 2014, 02:33 AM
Apr 2014

and that Geico....sure is going bankrupt because of that lizard.

Who pays attention to THOSE guys....

Straw Man

(6,627 posts)
13. So the clown has you convinced ...
Thu Apr 24, 2014, 02:45 AM
Apr 2014

... that Micky D's is the place to eat? And you buy your insurance from Geico because the lizard has a cute accent?

Please don't tell me that your political choices are similarly motivated. Please.

 

VanillaRhapsody

(21,115 posts)
36. Not I....but he sure HAS sold alot of burgers....no realistic representation required
Thu Apr 24, 2014, 01:50 PM
Apr 2014

Please tell me that YOUR political choices are better than your apparent love for guns....You do realize that Common Sense Gun Regulations ARE a part of the Democratic Platform right?

Straw Man

(6,627 posts)
44. Sold a lot of burgers -- to children and idiots.
Thu Apr 24, 2014, 03:01 PM
Apr 2014
Please tell me that YOUR political choices are better than your apparent love for guns....

My belief in the right to keep and bear arms is one aspect of my political choices. My political choices are not driven by clowns, talking animals, or propaganda posters.

You do realize that Common Sense Gun Regulations ARE a part of the Democratic Platform right?

Yes. Where I believe you and I may differ is in what constitutes "common sense."

Straw Man

(6,627 posts)
49. Creative license is supposed to be "creative."
Thu Apr 24, 2014, 04:18 PM
Apr 2014

What exactly is creative about technical inaccuracy? How does it enhance the message?

You're just making excuses for stupidity.

 

VanillaRhapsody

(21,115 posts)
50. No creative license in advertisement....is meant to capture attention.....
Thu Apr 24, 2014, 04:24 PM
Apr 2014

it has nothing to do with accuracy....Do you still believe in Santa Claus? Because you know he was really just a marketing gimmick...

What do you have against Mickey Mouse? Are mice really 7 feet tall like they are at Disneyland? Do they wear clothes like Mickey does (after he got a little older anyways).

Its marketing....its all marketing

 

Jenoch

(7,720 posts)
51. So far, all of the advertizing you have mentioned
Thu Apr 24, 2014, 04:32 PM
Apr 2014

has been the use of humor and fun. Tell me what about that graphic (again, not advertising) is funny or fun?

 

VanillaRhapsody

(21,115 posts)
52. What difference does THAT even make?
Thu Apr 24, 2014, 04:34 PM
Apr 2014

like I said before....then do you expect those that oppose gun ownership to just do "accurate depictions" of the horrible things guns do to the human body? Would you prefer that? Because that would also be "accurate" wouldn't it?

No you prefer them to be an advertisement FOR guns! And this is NOT that quite the opposite....they are selling what guns can do....therefore the gun doesn't NEED to be accurate....its not the gun that they are trying to sell!

 

Jenoch

(7,720 posts)
53. In each case in which you posted 'gun' I believe you meant "cartridge'.
Thu Apr 24, 2014, 04:38 PM
Apr 2014

I don't really care what that organization does in their graphics. Why do you seem to care so much that the inaccuracies are being pointed out?

 

VanillaRhapsody

(21,115 posts)
54. I don't even care ....what difference does that make to the overall message?
Thu Apr 24, 2014, 04:40 PM
Apr 2014

None that's what....the gun nor the "projectile" need to be accurate....its the DEAD part they are trying to sell.

Straw Man

(6,627 posts)
58. Capture attention?
Thu Apr 24, 2014, 11:52 PM
Apr 2014

How does a technically inaccurate picture capture the attention better than a technically accurate one? Again, you're just making excuses for an illustrator who was too ignorant and lazy to get the details right.

Mickey Mouse? When did I ever say anything about Mickey Mouse. You are very confused.

 

VanillaRhapsody

(21,115 posts)
37. What difference does THAT make....this AD was not on TV
Thu Apr 24, 2014, 01:52 PM
Apr 2014

was it a literal representation of a man in their advertisements selling hamburgers or not?...

 

VanillaRhapsody

(21,115 posts)
39. Obviously not a point you have been reading along with....
Thu Apr 24, 2014, 02:07 PM
Apr 2014

or you would get it....

My point is that in advertising.....creative license is regularly taken..nuff said.

petronius

(26,613 posts)
5. Google gives me other versions of this without the typo - I'm guessing
Thu Apr 24, 2014, 01:47 AM
Apr 2014

this was a first draft. Wonder how many milliseconds it took between pressing 'Post' and the "Oh, damn!!!"

Prophet 451

(9,796 posts)
10. So?
Thu Apr 24, 2014, 02:24 AM
Apr 2014

Look, I'm not anti-gun but picking holes in a photoshopped image is the equivelent of dismissing Shakespeare for typos i.e. completely missing the point.

 

villager

(26,001 posts)
15. They're not missing the point. This is the type of misdirection that proliferationists are schooled
Thu Apr 24, 2014, 02:50 AM
Apr 2014

in.

They learned it at the propagandistic knees of their NRA forebears.

 

Jenoch

(7,720 posts)
27. How can this thread be misdirected when the entire
Thu Apr 24, 2014, 01:03 PM
Apr 2014

point of this thread is to point out the fallacy of the reality in the image produced by those who wish to attack the U.S. Constitution?

 

Eleanors38

(18,318 posts)
16. There is sweeping accusation heavily & obviously implied...
Thu Apr 24, 2014, 03:10 AM
Apr 2014

in the poster's text; but what dignity that slur has is further undermined by a fart-in-church technical error. Poster art visuals are the story: a blunder in the focal point ain't no misspellin.

Niceguy1

(2,467 posts)
17. not many people
Thu Apr 24, 2014, 03:19 AM
Apr 2014

Buy the propaganda anyways. ..not from the nra or the prohibtionists...

Most americans are somewhere in the middle.

And the hammer is wrong, too. Lol

mokawanis

(4,455 posts)
18. Wait a sec...it happened again?
Thu Apr 24, 2014, 04:30 AM
Apr 2014

They've done it twice??? Man, that's outrageous! What if it catches on and other people start using unrealistic images in ads? I mean, it's only the anti-gun crowd that does that, right?


tazkcmo

(7,306 posts)
19. Right?
Thu Apr 24, 2014, 05:33 AM
Apr 2014

Forget about all the pictures of food in ads, you wouldn't want to actually eat it because it has paint and lacquer on it, or it's actually raw, etc. Also, forget about the message because the picture is inaccurate. Or, or, or...

ileus

(15,396 posts)
20. All regressives know is that "guns kill people"....what do you expect?
Thu Apr 24, 2014, 06:45 AM
Apr 2014

Is this even real? Or is there some new spelling for multiple children?

 

SevenSixtyTwo

(255 posts)
21. Keep your children
Thu Apr 24, 2014, 07:13 AM
Apr 2014

out of trouble, out of gangs and out of my house at 2am and you'll have nothing to worry about.

CBGLuthier

(12,723 posts)
28. Another Gun Lover has difficulty understanding figurative symbolism.
Thu Apr 24, 2014, 01:06 PM
Apr 2014

I imagine you also point out the inaccuracies of Elmer Fudd's shotgun loudly in front of children.

 

Jgarrick

(521 posts)
32. So to defend this poster, you point out that it's as accurate a depiction of guns as a Bugs Bunny
Thu Apr 24, 2014, 01:16 PM
Apr 2014

cartoon? Far be it from me to disagree...!

geckosfeet

(9,644 posts)
41. Gonna get $50,000,000 worth of this mis-informed bs.
Thu Apr 24, 2014, 02:31 PM
Apr 2014

Maybe they will wise up afer a while but for now it seems that the desire create some type of emotional reaction is overiding any desire or need for technical accuracy.

Can't wait to see the kinds legislative proposals that this type of willing departure from reality spawns.

 

Jgarrick

(521 posts)
43. A prominent anti-gun activist has recently explicitly admiited that her side's arguments are based
Thu Apr 24, 2014, 02:42 PM
Apr 2014

on emotion.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2014/04/can-50-million-buy-michael-bloomberg-gun-control/

“Moms are afraid our children will be taken away and in the end, I think that’s the emotion that will win the debate."

geckosfeet

(9,644 posts)
47. Admitted? It is obvious. There is nothing but fear, hate, disdain and paranoia.
Thu Apr 24, 2014, 04:01 PM
Apr 2014

Last edited Fri Apr 25, 2014, 05:04 AM - Edit history (1)

When one of your main talking points is focused on someones penis I'd say you are arguing from a weak position.

sarisataka

(18,924 posts)
45. I find it more offensive
Thu Apr 24, 2014, 03:09 PM
Apr 2014

that the implication is that any gun owner is out to kill childrren.

Nor do I miss the either/or paradigm that it is painting the issue; of course no one is actually talking about banning anything beyond "reasonable" bans...

Skeeter Barnes

(994 posts)
57. That is a ridiculously long bullet. Longer than the cylinder itself.
Thu Apr 24, 2014, 05:43 PM
Apr 2014

And the shooter should always follow through, so to speak, and hold the trigger back after firing while the gun is recoiling. Phenomenal recoil control on the part of this shooter, though. One handed, too!

 

clffrdjk

(905 posts)
60. I was against the other add.
Fri Apr 25, 2014, 04:37 PM
Apr 2014

This one is accurate enough for me.
That is not a cartridge. That is a bullet that has been photo shopped to show forward motion.
The trigger being forward, meh it does not bother me.
The proper argument against this add is to show that my ownership of firearms has never harmed another person, and to show that what is true for me is true for nearly 100% of legal owners.
A secondary argument can be made for an increase in firearm education. ( abstinence only education does not do anything to reduce teen pregnancy/std transmission why should we expect complete ignorance to reduce accidental gun deaths) then maybe point out that removing a feature of a firearm could not possibly reduce accidental death, but that is weaker in that it invites greater restrictions.

This add is bad in that it accuses me of being a potential murder, not because it is inaccurate.

derby378

(30,252 posts)
61. More dumbing down of Americans on display here
Fri Apr 25, 2014, 04:41 PM
Apr 2014

Moral: Science matters. If you're going to make an anti-gun poster, do it right the first time.

gejohnston

(17,502 posts)
63. here are eight good reasons
Fri Apr 25, 2014, 09:33 PM
Apr 2014

including this one

It undermines the group’s own cause, and betrays the trust and loyalty of contributors, members and allies. The ad makes gun control activists look like silly, unserious fools….which, sadly, a critical mass of them are.

you can read the rest here
http://ethicsalarms.com/2014/04/22/pop-ethics-quiz-whats-wrong-with-this-picture/

Straw Man

(6,627 posts)
65. Quite a lot, actually.
Sat Apr 26, 2014, 12:18 AM
Apr 2014
A bullet is deadly, regardless of how it is illustrated.

Wrong. In the poster, one sees an intact cartridge. The bullet has not separated from the casing, meaning that the powder has not ignited. The only way for a cartridge in such condition to fly through the air would be propulsion from an external force: for example, being thrown by hand or catapulted from a slingshot.

Not deadly at all.
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Gun Control & RKBA»An anti-gun poster shows ...