Cosmo and Bloomberg's Gun Control Group Invent Term "Gunsplainer"
58 replies, posted
[url]http://www.cosmopolitan.com/politics/a52999/guns-and-relationships/[/url]
[media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a62n78msigo[/media]
[quote]"So can we talk about your guns?"
You've watched pundits and politicos debate the issue. Maybe you've joined in the hashtag chorus, whether #NotOneMore or #ProGun. But in order to truly save lives, the conversation has to get intimate. "We need to start talking about gun safety in our relationships — now," says Rob Valente, vice president of policy for the National Domestic Violence Hotline.
Nearly one-third of all U.S. households had at least one gun in 2014. And those weapons are three times as likely to be owned by a man than a woman, according to a 2013 Pew Research Center report. Does the person you're dating own a firearm? Have you ever talked about gun safety?
For Jessica, a 26-year-old in Sheridan, Illinois, shooting is a shared interest with her fiancé. "We talk about guns openly," she says. "I know that he's responsible." But some women don't even know where to start the conversation. Emily, a 21-year-old college student in Baltimore, says that "most younger people have similar views on issues like sex and birth control so those are generally less controversial topics. But a lot of people my age have different views on guns, so it's something that I'd be less likely to talk about openly."
Cosmo talked to some women who love guns, some who loathe them, and a lot in between. And every woman agreed that she would want to know if the man she was dating owned a firearm. "I don't want to look in a drawer for a towel and instead find a gun," says Crystal, 23, who lives in New York City and is dating a police officer. Hudson, a 21-year-old student from Orono, Minnesota, agrees. "I'd be alarmed if he did not feel comfortable talking about it," she says.[/quote]
And here's the image of this ridiculous, stupid shit:
[img]http://cos.h-cdn.co/assets/16/06/980x1960/gallery-1454954370-gunsplainer.jpg[/img]
I mean really? That Bloomberg ad creates the most ridiculous strawman I've ever heard of, and this "gunsplainer" thing is absolutely retarded. It's literally gun control advocates trying to act superior in the debate by fabricating a strawman they can easily attack and attempt to arrogantly dismiss as if they've just won and argument because they assume they're better than the "gunsplainer."
I will laugh my ass off the day I see this on CNN/MSNBC. I'll laugh my ass off even harder if the NRA hijacks this and turns it around on the gun control lobby.
Is this splainer thing a new thing that someone came up which while I was sleeping last night?
Also I would love a chocolate gun that shoots Hershey's syrup for Valentines.
I'd love that too. We tried searching for chocolate AR-15 lowers at work once and were disappointed to find that none exist. I'd buy one.
[QUOTE=Pvt. Martin;49724322]Is this splainer thing a new thing that someone came up which while I was sleeping last night?
Also I would love a chocolate gun that shoots Hershey's syrup for Valentines.[/QUOTE]
The "-splainer" affix was pushed by the press a few years ago. In theory, it means "belittling know-it-all". Unfortunately, like most contemporary political pejoratives, they're misused to mean "person I don't like".
That's the biggest strawman image I've seen. Wow this is shitty journalism.
I mean, straw man or not I've definitely heard people say things just as insane as that guy. Someone on FP here even said nearly the literal exact sentence "some people seem to believe that having a gun makes you more dangerous". I'm not saying there aren't valid arguments for personal gun ownership but the amount of bewilderingly stupid shit I've heard gun rights supporters say is pretty crazy, and I'm a gun owner myself
[QUOTE=DaCommie1;49724330]I'd love that too. We tried searching for chocolate AR-15 lowers at work once and were disappointed to find that none exist. I'd buy one.[/QUOTE]
i'd imagine because dem obummer went and outlawed chocolate AR-15 lower sales with his unconstitutional chocolate pen signing an order written on the back of a hershey's wrapper
first he'll come for our chocolate guns, next he'll start taking away our chocolate bunnies, then where will we be!
[QUOTE=wystan;49724773]That's the biggest strawman image I've seen. Wow this is shitty journalism.[/QUOTE]
It is Cosmo, what else can be expected?
This screams "We have no valid points, but we still want to feel morally superior." Every response they propose is stupider than the arguments they're responding to.
If I see a news company coin this event as "Splainergate" someone kill me.
This is basically them responding to the weakest possible arguments against gun control that they can find. They should try responding to some of the stronger arguments, that would be a little more intellectually honest.
[QUOTE=Elspin;49724797]I mean, straw man or not I've definitely heard people say things just as insane as that guy. Someone on FP here even said nearly the literal exact sentence "some people seem to believe that having a gun makes you more dangerous". I'm not saying there aren't valid arguments for personal gun ownership but the amount of bewilderingly stupid shit I've heard gun rights supporters say is pretty crazy, and I'm a gun owner myself[/QUOTE]
This. It's a minimalist infographic presenting counterargument information, not a fucking treatise in favor of gun control parodying Hobbes' [i]Leviathan[/i]. It hits all the points it needs to, does so correctly, and that's all there is too it. This is just excessive outrage over something insignificant. But it involves guns and Bloomberg, so nobody is surprised that people would get so defensive.
[QUOTE=Govna;49724975]This. It's a minimalist infographic presenting counterargument information, not a fucking treatise in favor of gun control parodying Hobbes' [i]Leviathan[/i]. It hits all the points it needs to, does so correctly, and that's all there is too it. This is just excessive outrage over something insignificant. But it involves guns and Bloomberg, so nobody is surprised that people would get so defensive.[/QUOTE]
You wouldn't be singing the same tune if a pro-gun infographic that targeted weak talking points was made by Breibart.
[QUOTE=CoolKingKaso;49725047]You wouldn't be singing the same tune if a pro-gun infographic that targeted weak talking points was made by Breibart.[/QUOTE]
I wouldn't give a fuck, [i]especially[/i] if it was made by Breitbart. I'd call it stupid, point out how BB produces nothing but bullshit "journalism", and that would be the end of the matter.
[QUOTE=Govna;49724975]This. It's a minimalist infographic presenting counterargument information, not a fucking treatise in favor of gun control parodying Hobbes' [i]Leviathan[/i]. It hits all the points it needs to, does so correctly, and that's all there is too it. This is just excessive outrage over something insignificant. But it involves guns and Bloomberg, so nobody is surprised that people would get so defensive.[/QUOTE]
honestly i just hate the word gunsplaining
[QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;49725090]honestly i just hate the word gunsplaining[/QUOTE]
Agree with you completely about that.
[img]http://i.imgur.com/XM2qmTh.png[/img]
"we all deserve protection" isnt that an argument TO own a fucking gun
[QUOTE=DaCommie1;49724289]
[media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a62n78msigo[/media]
[/QUOTE]
"YOU WOULDN'T STEAL A CAR...
YOU WOULDN'T STEAL A PURSE...
YOU WOULDN'T DATE A MANSPLAINER."
[QUOTE=Judas;49725110][img]http://i.imgur.com/XM2qmTh.png[/img]
"we all deserve protection" isnt that an argument TO own a fucking gun[/QUOTE]
It depends on whether you believe that an ideal country is one where everyone has a gun to defend themselves or no one needs a gun to defend themselves. Clearly their line of thought is the latter?
[QUOTE=Elspin;49725170]It depends on whether you believe that an ideal country is one where everyone has a gun to defend themselves or no one needs a gun to defend themselves. Clearly their line of thought is the latter?[/QUOTE]
Ideal and real rarely coincide.
[QUOTE=Elspin;49725170]It depends on whether you believe that an ideal country is one where everyone has a gun to defend themselves or no one needs a gun to defend themselves. Clearly their line of thought is the latter?[/QUOTE]
Well obviously in an ideal country nobody would need a gun but in this country criminals do, in fact, have guns.
[QUOTE=Elspin;49725170]It depends on whether you believe that an ideal country is one where everyone has a gun to defend themselves or no one needs a gun to defend themselves. Clearly their line of thought is the latter?[/QUOTE]
Not all guns are made for defending. Some are purely for show and history. They can be purely collection, or they could be for survival. Some are for defense.
This countries media feeds off hate and violence. You turn on an American local news station at the beginning of the broadcast is murder. When two sides fight, its always both using hate and intolerance to remove the hate and intolerance of the other. We fight fire with fire. Til people start getting along, meaning understanding our vast differences. Til people start getting the proper recognition and psychiatric help. We're going to be at this impasse.
[QUOTE=Psychokitten;49725192]Ideal and real rarely coincide.[/QUOTE]
Thank fuck for places like Europe then that have managed to make both work, at least where guns, healthcare, and social welfare are concerned. We could be the same way. The trouble is, we don't want to be. Some of us do, but too many of us still don't. That's a pathetic excuse as much as it is an accurate explanation.
Like Richard said:
[QUOTE=Richard Simmons;49725279]This countries media feeds off hate and violence. You turn on an American local news station at the beginning of the broadcast is murder. When two sides fight, its always both using hate and intolerance to remove the hate and intolerance of the other. We fight fire with fire. Til people start getting along, meaning understanding our vast differences. Til people start getting the proper recognition and psychiatric help. We're going to be at this impasse.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Psychokitten;49725192]Ideal and real rarely coincide.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=phygon;49725276]Well obviously in an ideal country nobody would need a gun but in this country criminals do, in fact, have guns.[/QUOTE]
Missing the point entirely. I don't think they're necessarily saying that having a gun would not necessarily provide you with a better capability to defend yourself. I think what they're trying to say is that just suggesting that victims should be carrying firearms to not be hurt is a terrible solution because the reality is many people are not responsible enough to own a firearm or do not want to carry the responsibility. Plenty of countries are much safer with way less firearms so suggesting that it's some idealistic fantasy is demonstrably ridiculous, and while it cannot be said for certain that it would work in the US with the immense volume of firearms that are present there's not really any empirical evidence that it could not work, either.
[QUOTE=Richard Simmons;49725279]Not all guns are made for defending. Some are purely for show and history. They can be purely collection, or they could be for survival. Some are for defense.
This countries media feeds off hate and violence. You turn on an American local news station at the beginning of the broadcast is murder. When two sides fight, its always both using hate and intolerance to remove the hate and intolerance of the other. We fight fire with fire. Til people start getting along, meaning understanding our vast differences. Til people start getting the proper recognition and psychiatric help. We're going to be at this impasse.[/QUOTE]
Not sure what this strange speech is trying to come across, you start off by saying that not all guns are for defence and then talk about how the media is making things seem worse than they are? If you're trying to say gun owners are misrepresented by the media, that's probably fair because the media's job is to make you aware of things that could affect you and by nature those are usually bad things. However, America's per capita homicides by firearms are [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate#List]insanely high[/url] at over 5x Canada's and 46x the UK and while I've heard claims that a high percentile of those homicides are self defence of some sort most of those claims have either been backed up by highly untrustworthy sources or no sources at all.
What a weird and forced attempt at bringing gender into this debate. Guns aren't a male privilege in any meaning of the word.
In fact, I'm pretty sure there's more male gun related deaths than there are female.
[QUOTE=Pvt. Martin;49724322]Also I would love a chocolate gun that shoots Hershey's syrup for Valentines.[/QUOTE]
Gives new meaning to the phrase "eat a gun".
[QUOTE=Elspin;49725620]
Not sure what this strange speech is trying to come across, you start off by saying that not all guns are for defence and then talk about how the media is making things seem worse than they are? If you're trying to say gun owners are misrepresented by the media, that's probably fair because the media's job is to make you aware of things that could affect you and by nature those are usually bad things. However, America's per capita homicides by firearms are [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate#List"]insanely high[/URL] at over 5x Canada's and 46x the UK and while I've heard claims that a high percentile of those homicides are self defence of some sort most of those claims have either been backed up by highly untrustworthy sources or no sources at all.[/QUOTE]
Okay, you missed my point. Fair enough, I was probably not concise due to my lack of sleep due to my apartment complex felling some trees.
First of all, not everyone is buying guns for defense or hunting. So lets get over that bit. Others like them for sport, look, and/or their engineering/historical attributes. Theres a bunch of reasons why people buy guns. Not just to shoot them at the robber who came in busting through your door.
Secondly, our mass media is violence focused. Its what sells. It makes them a lot of money to instill fear. Its sometimes hard to see on the other side of the fence, I don't know how your media is but I hear its timid. I also hear you guys have healthcare that actually takes care of people with mental disorders.
I am aware that our gun crime is higher than yours, and the UK's. Everyone knows this, these are facts. I am not going to deny the obvious numbers, and I don't need wikipedia to reinforce what I know for living in this country for nearly 30 years.
The US needs to educate its population better and needs much better mental health care. Merely throwing more gun control won't solve shit.
[QUOTE=wystan;49724773]That's the biggest strawman image I've seen. Wow this is shitty journalism.[/QUOTE]
Cosmo isn't journalism.
There's desiring more structure and control when it comes to sale, distribution and possession of firearms, [B]THEN [/B]there's half-assed politician solutions, and finally then there's [I]THIS[/I].
You can probably guess I go from [I]"good"[/I] to [I]"bad"[/I] and lastly to [I]"holy shit what the fuck where you thinking you idiots"[/I]
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.