Gun safety group States United to Prevent Gun Violence staged a creative event to educate people about the dangers of firearms in the home. They opened a storefront that appeared to be a retail gun shop in Manhattan. However, when customers inquired about the merchandise, they learned more than they were expecting.
The guns in the store were the same models that were used in some of the most notorious recent crimes involving guns. The salesman would begin his pitch describing a weapon in a typical fashion. But he would conclude his description by revealing the horrible truth about the types of weapons that were “for sale” in the store. For instance…
Salesman: Like I was showing your wife – the first gun I showed her was this revolver. It’s the easiest gun we have to use. It’s our most popular one. It’s a .22 caliber six inch revolver. It’s also a gun that a five year old found in his parents bedroom and went down and shot his nine month old baby brother with it.
The shock displayed by many of the patrons (video below) speaks to the powerful impact that this information has when people learn about the common tragedies that result from the proliferation of deadly weapons. While most Americans believe that having a gun in the home is effective protection, statistics show that it actually increases the likelihood of a homicide, suicide, or fatal accident. And massacres like Sandy Hook would not be possible without easy access to weapons designed for mass killing of people.
Predictably, the National Rifle Association was outraged at what they called “a tasteless PR stunt designed to further an anti-gun agenda.” Other gun advocacy groups charged that the store violated New York state laws for possession of handguns. There were even accusations that the store was an unlicensed firearms dealer. At Fox News they portrayed the campaign as an attempt to “sell gun control, guilt potential buyers.”
The idiocy of those complaints is almost comical. In effect these pro-gun groups are attempting to use laws that they oppose to silence the gun safety campaign. But even setting that hypocrisy aside, the store doesn’t need any permits other than those that are granted for filmmaking. It seems ridiculous to have to explain this to them, but it was a fake store. The guns were fakes. There was no ammunition. It was filmed for use in a gun safety campaign video. By the logic of the pro-gun folks Clint Eastwood is a multiple felon.
Additionally, the hypersensitivity to a gun safety group producing a harmless video to educate prospective gun buyers is freakishly overblown when those same people have no problem with open-carry advocates brandishing real, loaded weapons at Walmart, McDonald’s, and outside of parks and schools. Considering the fact that there have been actual murders in all of those places, but there has never been one at a fake store, the unrestrained fury on the part of NRA types seems to be somewhat of an overreaction.
The “proprietors” of the Manhattan gun store have also set up a website where people can get more information. Visit Guns With History to see what the sad, but all too real, truth is about the consequences of a gun-crazy society.
Strangely similar to the ploy used by anti-abortion groups use by setting up “pregnancy clinics” to talk women out of getting an abortion. The only difference is the fake gun store points out actual results of the use of guns while the clinics use lies and intimidation.
The other big difference – the right to bear arms is actually noted in the bill of rights – abortion is no where to be found. Another – “Gun Safety” being the goal is a lie too, but that is Mark propaganda specifically – he is too much of a coward to just say the real goal – an outright ban of whatever leftists can get. Of course that second one would make the 2 groups similar.
I was pointing out a similarity in tactics used by two different groups. While some groups want to ban guns, as done in Australia, others want laws to keep guns out of the hands of certain people, like terrorists and the mentality unstable. The same can be said about so-called CDCs that want an outright ban on abortions.
About States United To Prevent Gun Violence
WHO WE ARE
States United to Prevent Gun Violence is a national non-profit organization dedicated to making our families and communities safer. Our mission is to support state-based gun violence prevention organizations and to bring new partners into the movement. Together with our 27 state affiliates – and our combined 150,000 grassroots supporters – we are working to build healthy communities by reducing gun death and injury through stronger laws, community education and grassroots action.
WHAT WE STAND FOR
Americans have the right to live in a country free from the fear, loss, and grief caused by gun violence. Whether we live on the South side of Chicago, in bucolic suburban Newtown or in rural Virginia, we all have the right to be safe in our homes, schools, and communities.
Steve, which well regulated Militia are you a member of?
meomyo, I was just going to write that when I saw his comment.
All males from the ages of 18 to 45 are members of the militia. The acts that authorized the militias, added and changed the rules and organization of the military up to the Dick Act of 1903 have never repealed that status of U.S. citizens who qualify as members of the militia.
Just because the government no longer expects militia members to supply their own weaponry and regularly drill does not mean if you fit the criteria you are not a member of the militia.
You’ve fallen for another wingnut scam: http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/dickact.asp
Dick act of 1903 would be a very appropriate name for that act if it were true.
Btw, qualifying for being a member of a militia doesn’t mean you automatically are one.
You are free to own all the muskets, flintlocks, and single-shot dueling pistols you want… as the Founders intended. You are also free to not have an abortion if you don’t want one. A little PR stunt is a long way from banning anything.
Using your logic, only printing presses that used human strengh to press out one printed sheet at a time would only be currently be allowed; no radio, television, or other electronic media would have First Amendment rights as those media didn’t exist at the time the Constitution was ratified.,
Yes, exactly. That’s why I roll my eyes every time somebody claims to know the Founders’ “original intent” on any subject.
Holly makrel
I like what you have done here. I am signing up.
This entry has been posted to MMFA’s Rachel Maddow segment thread with your headline as the tease at 9:35p. Mon CDT.
This video is that great!! Thank you for sharing.