Banned Super Bowl Add That Will Change Minds

[ludin]

Probably the same reason gun advocates use fear.


They are not. Why do you have to make dishonest arguments?

Yet the constant push for more and more gun control that only affects honest people.
Seems a bit contradictory.

 

[ludin]

lets explore that. In some communities, honest citizens, especially those without connections or wealth, are disarmed by the gun laws. So the scenario depicted in that advertisement could certainly happen.

We had a rash of home invasions where I lived. After the news started reporting these guys getting shot the number of invasions went down significantly.

 

[TurtleDude]

how many untrained people would you trust to fire at a home intruder in the middle of the night with 95+ percent certainty that it isn't their drunk 17 year old sneaking in? i'm a pretty good shot, and i doubt that i'd be Johnny on the spot in that situation. as for gun laws, it's part of the culture, and i doubt that there's anything to be done about it at this point. i'd rather focus on helping people with job security and health care.

why are you using the term untrained? the average private citizen who legally owns a firearm is less likely to shoot the wrong person and more likely to hit a mope than police are.
In the advertisement being discussed, that sort of scenario is not one where the homeowner is going to be confused. In that scenario the husband is trying to prevent obvious violent intruders from coming into their room while the wife is calling the police. Now if the homeowner had a firearm he's not going to confuse the men trying to break down his door with say his daughter.

 

[TurtleDude]

Not everyone in America is as obsessed with guns as you or your family is.

True, we don't wet ourselves over guns as some do. You seem obsessed with the politics of avid gun owners and your hatred of Trump is evident in your comments about gun owners or the NRA

 

[Helix]

why are you using the term untrained? the average private citizen who legally owns a firearm is less likely to shoot the wrong person and more likely to hit a mope than police are.
In the advertisement being discussed, that sort of scenario is not one where the homeowner is going to be confused. In that scenario the husband is trying to prevent obvious violent intruders from coming into their room while the wife is calling the police. Now if the homeowner had a firearm he's not going to confuse the men trying to break down his door with say his daughter.

my wife and i have discussed whether or not we want a firearm. if so, i would want to be trained in self defense first. while i'm a good shot, i doubt that i'm a good shot while half asleep and terrified.

 

[Redress]

lets explore that. In some communities, honest citizens, especially those without connections or wealth, are disarmed by the gun laws. So the scenario depicted in that advertisement could certainly happen.

This is the US. No one is disarmed except for certain people who cannot be described accurately with "honest citizens". AS I understand it, the law prohibs the following groups from owning guns:

Persons under indictment for, or convicted of, any felony crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year
Fugitives from justice
Persons who are unlawful users of, or addicted to, any controlled substance
Persons who have been declared by a court as mental defectives or have been committed to a mental institution
Illegal aliens or aliens who were admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa
Persons who have been dishonorably discharged from the Armed Forces
Persons who have renounced their United States citizenship
Persons subject to certain types of restraining orders
Persons who have been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence

While those people could be "honest" in that they are not lying, they are all criminals, indicted, insane, kicked out of the military, or under a restraining order. Not what people think when the phrase "honest citizen" is thrown out.

 

[TurtleDude]

This is the US. No one is disarmed except for certain people who cannot be described accurately with "honest citizens". AS I understand it, the law prohibs the following groups from owning guns:



While those people could be "honest" in that they are not lying, they are all criminals, indicted, insane, kicked out of the military, or under a restraining order. Not what people think when the phrase "honest citizen" is thrown out.

are you that IGNORANT of what the laws in DC did prior to Heller?

 

[Redress]

are you that IGNORANT of what the laws in DC did prior to Heller?

No, are you really that dishonest? Here, let me quote from wiki:

The law banned residents from owning handguns, automatic firearms, or high-capacity semi-automatic firearms, as well as prohibited possession of unregistered firearms. Exceptions to the ban were allowed for police officers and guns registered before 1976. The law also required firearms kept in the home to be "unloaded, disassembled, or bound by a trigger lock or similar device";[2] this was deemed to be a prohibition on the use of firearms for self-defense in the home.

SO, in fact, people could own guns in DC. Not all guns, and there where restrictions on storage, but they could own guns, so they where not, in fact, disarmed.

 

[TurtleDude]

No, are you really that dishonest? Here, let me quote from wiki:



SO, in fact, people could own guns in DC. Not all guns, and there where restrictions on storage, but they could own guns, so they where not, in fact, disarmed.

not ones that could be used for self defense. handguns were banned and long guns could not be kept in a state of readiness. Nice try but you are wrong

 

[Redress]

not ones that could be used for self defense. handguns were banned and long guns could not be kept in a state of readiness. Nice try but you are wrong

So you admit they where not "disarmed". See, when you overstate your case and use dishonest wording, you fail as soon as you run into some one who actually knows what they are talking about.

 

[NeverTrump]

True, we don't wet ourselves over guns as some do. You seem obsessed with the politics of avid gun owners and your hatred of Trump is evident in your comments about gun owners or the NRA

No that is exactly what you do. Why is it that you all have to turn every conversation upside down into some alternate reality that doesn't exist? Wait nevermind, you think your guns are going to protect you from the ninja warriors left over by the Obama administration, who are going to come sliding down your chimney and take them away. I did not mention the T-baby once during this thread I believe I easily debunked the video which is what this thread is supposed to be about.

Not your undying love for the NRA and guns, which is honestly quite concerning.

 

[TurtleDude]

So you admit they where not "disarmed". See, when you overstate your case and use dishonest wording, you fail as soon as you run into some one who actually knows what they are talking about.

they were prevented from having USEFUL defensive firearms. You can try to resurrect your losing argument by pretending that dissembled or locked up guns are useful for defense but as someone who forgets more about this issue than you have demonstrated you have ever known, that law disarmed honest people. In many apartments or limited space dwellings, a handgun is by far the most practical self defense weapon. Its very difficult to make a long arm compliant with that stupid law that is also readily available. There are NOW many lock boxes for handguns that can be opened ALMOST instantly but for long guns they are far less available. Walk into most gun stores and they have such boxes for handguns -the last four I visited (all in the last two weeks) had no such thing for shotguns or rifles and I suspect when that stupid law was passed, they were EVEN LESS available

 

[TurtleDude]

No that is exactly what you do. Why is it that you all have to turn every conversation upside down into some alternate reality that doesn't exist? Wait nevermind, you think your guns are going to protect you from the ninja warriors left over by the Obama administration, who are going to come sliding down your chimney and take them away. I did not mention the T-baby once during this thread I believe I easily debunked the video which is what this thread is supposed to be about.

Not your undying love for the NRA and guns, which is honestly quite concerning.

why don't you admit your anti gun drivel is based purely on politics and not based on any well reasoned or researched gun issues? Your anti gun posts demonstrate you have almost no understanding of gun issues and are clearly the product of "the people I disagree with like guns so I will hate them"

 

[CLAX1911]

That's silly. My life is not going to end up like that if I don't have a gun. It may, but it's highly highly unlikely.

So at the very, very best, it's misleading potential customers.

All adds mislead customers.

 

[ElChupacabra]

my wife and i have discussed whether or not we want a firearm. if so, i would want to be trained in self defense first. while i'm a good shot, i doubt that i'm a good shot while half asleep and terrified.

The important thing to consider is continued training so you're able to maintain proficiency. Your aim and reaction under stress is an important factor in your ability to use a weapon effectively in self defense situations. The last thing you want is having your weapon being turned against you. Too many people are sold this idea that just owning a gun will make you safer; you'll need to be skilled and disciplined as well.

 

[Redress]

they were prevented from having USEFUL defensive firearms.

Ah, the backpedaling begins. Still not accurate, but at least you admit now you where dishonest when you said they where disarmed. This is why it is impossible to have an honest debate on the issue of guns here, people on both sides have to exagerate, resort to hyperbole, and generally throw out ad homs.

You can try to resurrect your losing argument by pretending that dissembled or locked up guns are useful for defense

I never made that claim. I said they where not disarmed, which is what you claimed. Now you admit that is true.

but as someone who forgets more about this issue than you have demonstrated you have ever known,

You are not doing a very good job of demonstrating it.

that law disarmed honest people.

Except they could own firearms. That is a big "except".

In many apartments or limited space dwellings, a handgun is by far the most practical self defense weapon.

That has nothing to do with what I said. Why build all those straw men?

Its very difficult to make a long arm compliant with that stupid law that is also readily available. There are NOW many lock boxes for handguns that can be opened ALMOST instantly but for long guns they are far less available. Walk into most gun stores and they have such boxes for handguns -the last four I visited (all in the last two weeks) had no such thing for shotguns or rifles and I suspect when that stupid law was passed, they were EVEN LESS available

Difficult is not impossible, so again, not disarmed. Saying irrelevancies that are not in dispute does not make your initial statement any more accurate or honest.

 

[NeverTrump]

why don't you admit your anti gun drivel is based purely on politics and not based on any well reasoned or researched gun issues? Your anti gun posts demonstrate you have almost no understanding of gun issues and are clearly the product of "the people I disagree with like guns so I will hate them"

Why don't you want to talk about a dubious video (thread topic) that claims it's a so-called banned super-bowl ad, and it's only gotten 70K views??? According to their blog, Front Sight claims that they weren't even able to get these crappy ads that they created over to a reputable ad agency to try to sell them to the NFL, and even better, they claim that the reason why is because America isn't "ready." Whatever that means.

https://www.ignatius-piazza-front-s...-see-our-first-quarter-super-bowl-ad/#youtube

The truth? What likely happened is that this was just put together on the cheap, and they used the banned ad title to generate views, and voila nice business returns, although w/70K views, that's a pretty weak return on investment. We know that this is likely because NFL policy states that firearms, ammunition or other weapons companies may not be promoted during broadcasts, as we know from this even more famous case

NFL Calls Daniel Defense Super Bowl Ad Claim ‘Completely Bogus’ « CBS DC

Funny even with the Daniel Defense controversy of 2014, it only ranked up 300K views. It's hardly viral effective marketing. It's now known as "that 2014 ad that was "banned" by the superbowl." Not the Daniel Defense ad.

Seems like Front Sight would LOVE to recreate whatever success they think Daniel Defense garnered from that controversy back then, but failed to do so since that video both videos are from 2014!!

Just a little bit of insight as to the shady marketing practices these local defense companies go through to try to cause controversy and stir up business for themselves. At least the website is still operational.

 

[zsu2357]

Reasons this is not a banned super bowl ad

1. Quality.
2. Budget.
3. it' got no well known celebrities
4. It's a local firearms service in Nevada.
5. Quality.
6. Shaky cam
7. Bad quality Scare tactics
8. Not specifically a NRA TV production.
9. The person who made this didn't have enough money to buy a 15 second Superbowl ad, let alone a 2 min one.
10. It's not Scientology or Doritos.

So of course it could never ever happen right? Dead ass wrong. THAT can happen to anyone anytime.

 

[NeverTrump]

All adds mislead customers.

But not all ads claim to be banned Superbowl commercials when they aren't.

 

[zsu2357]

WTF? Leaping to conclusions much? I live one town over from Newark NJ, but in a safe neighborhood. I never felt the need to own a gun. Also if you have your guns locked up and proper in the basement they aren't going to do jack S*** when these guys come barging through the front door.

WTF? What's this in the basement BS? Oh you forgot the ammo and magazines (bullets and clips) locked in separate boxes.

 

[Redress]

Why don't you want to talk about a dubious video (thread topic) that claims it's a so-called banned super-bowl ad, and it's only gotten 70K views??? According to their blog, Front Sight claims that they weren't even able to get these crappy ads that they created over to a reputable ad agency to try to sell them to the NFL, and even better, they claim that the reason why is because America isn't "ready." Whatever that means.

https://www.ignatius-piazza-front-s...-see-our-first-quarter-super-bowl-ad/#youtube

The truth? What likely happened is that this was just put together on the cheap, and they used the banned ad title to generate views, and voila nice business returns, although w/70K views, that's a pretty weak return on investment. We know that this is likely because NFL policy states that firearms, ammunition or other weapons companies may not be promoted during broadcasts, as we know from this even more famous case

NFL Calls Daniel Defense Super Bowl Ad Claim ‘Completely Bogus’ « CBS DC

Funny even with the Daniel Defense controversy of 2014, it only ranked up 300K views. It's hardly viral effective marketing. It's now known as "that 2014 ad that was "banned" by the superbowl." Not the Daniel Defense ad.

Seems like Front Sight would LOVE to recreate whatever success they think Daniel Defense garnered from that controversy back then, but failed to do so since that video both videos are from 2014!!

Just a little bit of insight as to the shady marketing practices these local defense companies go through to try to cause controversy and stir up business for themselves. At least the website is still operational.

Ummm...TD said the video was not banned from the Superbowl...That would be talking about it.

 

[NeverTrump]

Ummm...TD said the video was not banned from the Superbowl...That would be talking about it.

Can you quote that? Because I don't see him admitting that the ad is not a superbowl ad on this thread.

 

[Redress]

Can you quote that? Because I don't see him admitting that the ad is not a superbowl ad on this thread.

Here:

Oh I agree with you there. Front site or whatever isn't in the league of organizations that can afford Super Bowl ad times.

 

[zsu2357]

i made it 30 seconds in before it turned into the fear mongering that i was expecting.

i grew up around guns, so i'm not unsympathetic to gun hobbyists and their single issue obsession.

Well I grew up around guns to,but not all gun owners are "hobbyist" as you put it. What is this single issue obsession you speak of?

however, i could just as easily make a poorly crafted video in which a marital fight turns fatal with a gun,

So when in doubt turn it about? Here's the thing. The video wasn't about a marital squabble it was about a home invasion.

a five year old shoots his brother, some idiot shoots off his toe, or a dark night of the soul turns into suicide.

Now that is fear mongering. Yeah it COOULD happen but the home invasion is more likely. Since most of us gun owners are responsible. Somebody is gonna jump on that "most".

also, i doubt that this was banned from the Super Bowl, unless it was banned because it was filmed with a VHS video camera.

Do you really think quality matters? What matters is the message conveyed. But ask yourself would it have been banned if the guy accidentally shot his wife. No probably not because I don't think they aren't exactly pro-gun.

 

[zsu2357]

it seems that way, at least where online message boards are concerned. i'm sorry to hear about this tragedy.

Tragedy? She was shot in the shoulder. The real tragedy is she had a dumb ass boyfriend.Read it this afternoon myself.