SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Mike McPhate reports in The New York Times that two home shopping industry veterans, Valerie Castle and Doug Bornstein, are set to premier GunTV, a new 24-Hour shopping channel for guns, that aims to take the QVC approach of peppy hosts pitching "a vast array of firearms," as well as related items like bullets, holsters and two-way radios. The new cable channel hopes to help satisfy Americans' insatiable appetite for firearms. The channel's forthcoming debut might seem remarkably ill-timed, given recent shootings at a Planned Parenthood in Colorado Springs and at a social services center in San Bernardino, California but gun sales have been rising for years, with nearly 21 million background checks performed in 2014, and they appear on track to a new record this year. The boom has lately been helped by a drumbeat of mass shootings, whose attendant anxiety has only driven more people into the gun store.
The proposed schedule of programming allots an eight-minute segment each hour to safety public service announcements in between proposed segments on topics like women's concealed weapon's apparel, big-game hunting and camping. Buying a Glock on GunTV won't be quite like ordering a pizza. When a firearm is purchased, a distributor will send it to a retailer near the buyer, where it has to be picked up in person and a federal background check performed. "We saw an opportunity in filling a need, not creating one," says Castle. "The vast majority of people who own and use guns in this country, whether it's home protection, recreation or hunting, are responsible .... I don't really know that it's going to put more guns on the streets."
Critics suggest that Gun TV could make the decision to purchase a weapon seem trivial—on the same level as ordering a Snuggie or a vertical egg cooker. "Buying a gun is a serious decision," says Laura Cutilletta, senior staff attorney at the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence. "If you are going to buy a gun for your home, it's not a decision you should be making at three in the morning because you are watching TV."
(Score: 3, Interesting) by jmorris on Thursday December 10 2015, @08:03PM
"Buying a gun is a serious decision," says Laura Cutilletta, senior staff attorney at the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence.
Why is this here? What does the seemingly mandatory gunbanner quote add to the discussion? Why would anyone consider this person's opinon worthwhile? It would be like going to a PETA representative for a recommendation on the best steakhouse in the area. They reject the entire premise. To a gun banner there is NO possible good way to buy a weapon since there are no good reasons to own one, their answer will thus be utterly unvarying, utterly predictable and thus uninteresting and of zero use to anyone of either side of the debate.
Now to the actual subject. To the extent that any TV shopping channel is lame, this one is no different. No better or worse. If you are the sort who does that sort of thing, go for it.
(Score: 2) by timbim on Thursday December 10 2015, @09:04PM
Maybe it's because we have the highest gun homicide rate of any developed nation. Our rate is 32 times that of Great Britain’s, for example.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by jmorris on Thursday December 10 2015, @09:40PM
Meaningless to mention "gun homicide", obviously if guns are outlawed and a police state sufficiently oppressive to confiscate all firearms and enforce the ban on the law abiding exists, fewer people will be killed by guns. It is not logically valid to jump to a conclusion that will mean less murder. ComparIng murder rates, which is what actually counts, one finds 3.8 for the U.S. vs 1.0 for Britain, which is somewhat less than your hysterical 32 times fearmongering.
It is also a bit invalid to compare the U.S. murder rate to most of Europe since you really have to consider America as at least two entirely different entities. In Red America the murder rate is more similar to England, France and the other 1st World nations, while in the slums of Blue America it more closely resembles a third world country in crime. So as a compromise let us compare the U.S. rate of 3.8 to the European average 3.0 and declare that there isn't a crisis and yet we remain freer than the European by virtue of our self evident Right to Keep and Bear Arms remaining unfringed. And never fear, Auntie Merkel is busy fundamentally transforming Europe so soon enough they too can enjoy the bounty of diversity which will include exploding murder rates.
(Score: 2) by eof on Friday December 11 2015, @12:27AM
It may make more sense to focus on shootings instead of homicides. Only counting fatalities does not fully reflect the harm done by any form of weapon. I don't know how guns would compare to knives when injuries are counted. Guns have more potential for causing multiple injuries in a given incident; knives of various types are more ubiquitous. For one example of thinking of gun violence in this way, see http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/murder-rates-dont-tell-us-everything-about-gun-violence/. [fivethirtyeight.com]
Also, the numbers I have am familiar with suggest that the murder rate in "red" states (I dislike the terminology) is higher than in "blue" states. For example, see http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/murder-rates-nationally-and-state#MRalpha. [deathpenaltyinfo.org]
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday December 11 2015, @02:30AM
Only a hoplophobe wants to compare the "harm done by any form of weapon". My weapons are all well behaved. None of them hops off the shelf when I am absent, to go wandering the streets, searching for a victim. That's because weapons are inanimate objects, with no motive to kill. A human being has to pick that weapon up, and use it, before another person dies.
Murder rates count. Dead bodies count. The weapon of choice hardly matters.
ICE is having a Pretti Good season.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Friday December 11 2015, @08:09AM
WTF, Runaway! Are you _asking_ to be doxed? So far we know, you have guns, they are on a shelf, and you do not expect them to go wandering the streets! Can you not see that this is an invitation to a gun robbery? Where do you think criminals get guns? Can they pass background checks? Oh, yeah, mostly they do. But that is not the point here! Now everyone knows that all they have to to is pin an actual name, and address, and shelf, on Runaway1953 (I am trying to help, security through obscurity) and bingo they have themselves some nice .45 action (seriously! you gave away the model, caliber, and cartridge right here on SoylentNews! My god, man!).
I see only one option now. Stop posting here. Change your real name, move out of your house, and move to someplace like Alaska. Everyone in Alaska is there to avoid firearm theft in the state they come from, so you will fit right in. But keep the large caliber guns, though. 9mm does not stop a Griz, or a Moose, or an Alaskan.
(Score: 2) by eof on Friday December 11 2015, @04:14PM
Reading comments on this site, I don't know if you are kidding or not. Just in case, I will edit my offending sentence: Only counting fatalities does not fully reflect the harm done done by humans using any form of weapon.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by curunir_wolf on Thursday December 10 2015, @11:58PM
Not true, you're just spouting propaganda. The US does not have the worst firearm murder rate - that prize belongs to Honduras, El Salvador and Jamaica. In fact, the US is number 28, with a rate of 2.97 per 100,000 people. I guess you're qualifying it with "developed"? Maybe you don't consider Argentina "developed"? The rate there is 3.02, higher than the US (though only slightly). It's 18.1 in Brazil, which Brazilians would certainly argue is "developed". And while Liechtenstein's rate at 2.82 is somewhat lower than the US, it's pretty close.
The point is, if you try to ban guns in the US like was done, for instance, in Australia, the rate would go way up, because the murderers (the gang bangers and the police) will NOT be giving up their guns, and it just leaves the citizens defenseless. That's where the worst murders happen - where citizens are left defenseless (for instance, public schools, San Bernadino
I am a crackpot
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday December 11 2015, @02:26AM
Again - Great Britain is about the size of one of our states. How does our homicide rate compare to ALL OF EUROPE?!?!?!
Please stop repeating the dishonesty.
ICE is having a Pretti Good season.
(Score: 2) by Nollij on Friday December 11 2015, @05:04AM
One of you doesn't know the definition of "rate". [thefreedictionary.com]
If we are 50x the size, and we have 50x the gross, then we have the same rate.
If we are 50x the size, and 100x the gross, then we do not have the same rate.
Since you asked, this has a nice breakdown by country [wikipedia.org]. The US has a significantly higher rate (per capita) than anywhere listed in Europe, but lower than many parts of South/Central America, and parts of Africa.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday December 11 2015, @02:40PM
And Chicago has a much higher rate of gun murder than the rest of the nation. Remove Chicago from the US rate, and we move much, much closer to that of Great Britian.
Of course, there is dishonesty about Britian and Europe's "civilized" nations murder rates. Great Britain simply doesn't count their murder rate the same as we do.
When we start comparing apples to apples, I'll be ready to join the discussion. So long as the "progressive" element of our society insists on comparing apples to alligators, we can have no discussion.
ICE is having a Pretti Good season.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 10 2015, @09:07PM
A banner is a flag, or in this context, part of a web page. Try not to use confusing words. Not being a smartass; you literally confused me.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Friday December 11 2015, @02:29AM
A banner is a flag, or in this context, part of a web page. Try not to use confusing words. Not being a smartass; you literally confused me.
It's a "jmorrisism", he often confuses everyone, including himself. We have talked to him about this, but it seems other influences, such as Rupert Murdoch and unbridled paranoia, are more determinate in this case. But yes, I too, was confused. I literally thought: "Why would someone make a banner out of guns, when vinyl covered canvas would be so much more practical?" \\
Soylentistic Memes: "Jmorrising Ethanol_fueled down at the Turkey Farm."
(Score: 2) by eof on Thursday December 10 2015, @11:12PM
I think your reaction is over the top. I am only familiar with the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence from its web page, which I visited because of your post. Your characterization of them is not consistent with their stated purpose. They do not appear to be interested in banning all guns. Instead they seek ways to limit gun violence through the enactment of laws. From their web page [http://smartgunlaws.org/]:
Can you provide any evidence that they are interested in a blanket ban?
Given the organization's focus, a quote from their representative seems appropriate.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday December 11 2015, @02:35AM
"Your characterization of them is not consistent with their stated purpose."
I'm not familiar with this particular site, but many organization's stated purpose is at odds with their real purpose. Both left and right have their "think tanks" and such, with high sounding stated goals and purposes. Dig under the surface, and many of them are rabid followers of crazy doctrines.
ICE is having a Pretti Good season.
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Friday December 11 2015, @07:20AM
Nobody can say I ain't a giver. Google is yer bud, learn to use it. Allow me to demonstrate. According to motherjones.com (your team) Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence was founded as Legal Community Against Violence in SanFran (full of pinks) in consultation with Handgun Control Inc, I'm sure you what name they operate under now. A more wretched hive of scum and villainy won't be found outside Mos Eisley. Google will also show you joint projects they undertake. In short, a Brady front group. What is it with the constant name churn? Same reason as the endless front groups, old Communist Party tactic, look that up in Google while you are confirming what I'm telling ya. Can't find current funding and most important WHO is bankrolling them but in 2013 they took in about $1M. But do we really need to invest the time to discover what we already can guess with a high degree of certainty? Same funders as Brady.
In penance, you get to do the next part of the research. Here are the top five principles I dig up on LCPGV, you go look them up and see how many links to the rest of the Prog hive you find. Bonus for every one also directly working for other Brady, Bloomberg or Soros related groups.
ROBYN THOMAS
FREDERICK BROWN
CAROL KINGSLEY
RODERICK THOMPSON
CHARLES EHRLICH
I am only familiar with the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence from its web page..
You took their web page at face value? I don't know whether to give you a pitying look or doubting one. But I'm being generous tonight so pity it is. So here is some free wisdom. They are SJWs. Everybody, one more time, what do SJWs do?
The Three Laws of SJW:
1. SJWs always lie.
2. SJWs always double down.
3. SJWs always project.
(Score: 2) by eof on Friday December 11 2015, @04:19PM
Again, an over the top response. You have indicated name changes and made an implication it is done for nefarious purposes. This suggest more an axe to grind on your part rather than any indictment of the organization. I have yet to see any suggestion that they want to have an outright ban on guns; there is no evidence of this on their site. So you know, I don't care what anyone believes on this issue. I do care that statements made are supportable.