ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2018 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Sunday, December 15, 2013

The wrong girl



It appears the gun manufacturers are finally beginning to understand their true growth market. If they want to comprehensively rout the gun grabbers, they need to win over a majority of white women. Although if they really want to sell more guns and properly scare them into thinking straight, they should be using a more statistically realistic bad guy.

Question: The redhead in the commercial is hot. But how much hotter does the Glock make her. I would say a half-point of SMV and two whole points of MMV.

Labels:

88 Comments:

Anonymous castricv December 15, 2013 5:24 AM  

At the 1:07 mark she went from somewhat bony pale girl of decent looks to urban Lara Croft. You hit that on the head.

However, this still misses the mind of the modern American woman. Instead of campaigns that clearly won't play with hipsters and soccer moms (R. Lee Ermey???), all they need to do is hire a not so legal professional goon to terrorize Oprah and/or Ellen Degenerate. Of course both have or would soon have impenetrable security, but the need to be armed (or have those armed around you) would slowly seep in. Continue down the celebrity ladder until a few start speaking out. A few timely book of the months on strong women with guns and a lifetime movie would be helpful as well.

All it takes to win the war in democracy is for Oprah and her ilk to give it some positive light. But alas we are not ruthless like the left.....

Anonymous castricv December 15, 2013 5:44 AM  

As for the commercial itself, consider that it is less geared toward white women as it is toward the fathers of these urban young women. Allow me to explain:

1) The girl is not hip enough or fabulous enough to appeal to hipster whites outside of a Yoplait commercial. A slightly older woman in designer clothes in a trendier apartment would work better. Think Kim Cattrall a few years ago.

2) The encounter with the man was cartoonish, even for something geared to women. A more likely scenario was that the man runs away or gets blasted. The first instance would appease the more liberal natures of women not to harm, but to deter. It would also make daddy happy that she didn't have to fight off the guy or traumatize herself by killing someone. (and despite what many people think, killing someone is a big trauma to all but hardened soldiers and psychos)

The second instance involves far too much gore and distatefulness and would have the effect of making women even more desirous to not deal with this on their own. Daddy might be glad she protected herself, but then a whole world of consequences open up and that is TOO REAL. So instead the doofus passes out and then the cops show up.

3) Notice that even though, she is obviously an adult and single without children, she has to have a very elaborate lock box for getting her piece. In my experience if you need more than 5 seconds to get to your gun and be ready to fire, you are at a complete disadvantage. But of course we have to make it seem perfectly safe and responsible when her having it in her top drawer would have been more efficient.

4) R. Lee seals the deal. Daddy responds to a hard ass marine that's been a tough guy in movies. Girls don't even know who he is and don't care. Daddy likes that the police showed up and got the bad guy without any real effort on her part. The fact that he didn't run away means she doesn't have to live in fear and the fact that she didn't blast him means that she's not traumatized. Tidy.

The problem is most women in the city need a piece AWAY from the home and an ability to use it. For those times when a home invasion happens, especially in a small apartment, the time from being startled to have a ready weapon needs to be in the single digit seconds or its already too late.

Asking women to give up wanting to be protected, even if it is by big daddy state, is futile. The only thing you can hope to do is swap the state for a man of the house and good luck with that in a commercial. Nice try but totally ineffective.

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus December 15, 2013 5:59 AM  

The big thing is to go from a helplessness and denial mentality to a problem-solving mentality.

A gun in a safe may not save you by itself, but as part of a process of taking on the responsibility to defend yourself and getting the tools needed to do the job, it may indeed save you.

Shorter version: "baby steps = good".

Glock is doing the right thing for itself and its customers. This is a smart branding decision.

Anonymous Idle Spectator December 15, 2013 6:41 AM  

I'd buy that for a dollar... 89.

Anonymous Anonymous December 15, 2013 6:52 AM  

Perfect casting with Ronald Lee Ermey.

Blogger Patrikbc December 15, 2013 7:20 AM  

She had a gun?

Anonymous Stilicho December 15, 2013 7:20 AM  

Castriv, you completely missed the power of suggestion used by the commercial which worked very well within the limits placed on the advertiser (whether those were legal or practical limits). 1) no shot/no gore: little Susie rotten crotch would be totally grossed out by the bloodshed if the actress had shot the intruder. Having him faint instead is a good way of avoiding potentially upsetting violence and gore while, at the same time, suggesting it: she aims gun, intruder falls to floor. 2) same with paramedic, R.Lee Ermey: if she had shot the intruder paramedics would have been on the scene putting the intruder on a gurney. The fact that it was done for the fainting episode here does not remove the suggestive power of the ad. I think it works very well for its intended purpose: create new female customers. It demonstrates a need for the product and uses fear, but not so much fear that it actually frightens off the intended audience. To the extent it also appeals to dad on some level, that's just a bonus. If dad was the primary market, you're correct that a different ad would work better. But watch the first half again: that uncertainty and sense of dread is designed to specifically appeal to women. Men don't feel or react that way. This was never intended as a training video, its an ad designed to create the perception of need in the target audience. I'd love to see the effect on Glock's sales to females after this campaign.

Blogger Patrikbc December 15, 2013 7:20 AM  

She had a gun?

Anonymous frenchy December 15, 2013 7:24 AM  

I like the fact that they didn't have her call the cops first, but afterwards.

@ Castricv,

Gotta agree with TDT. Yeah, I know seconds count, but be realistic. How many people walk around the house carrying? The gun safe is insurance. That is to say, insurance from your kids getting it, insurance from your neighbors' kids getting it and you being charged with a giving gun access to a minor even though he stole it out of your house. And it's insurance from a break in and some thief using your gun in a crime.

And you gotta remember, she had the gun under her bed, where she can easily get it at night.

When I was stateside, I slept with my glock under my pillow, but all of my other guns I kept locked up.

The funny thing about this video though is the door lock. Having been in Europe for so long I swear American houses are designed to be broken into. From window panes by the door to those laughable Schlage locks, American doors, door frames, deadbolts, and door locks are a joke. Every American should go European on their door frames and door locks and make that front door like a vault door (and I don't mean touch pads and combo dials, but reinforcement of the frame, a steel or hardwood door, better hinges, and bolts that secure the top, sides, and bottom).

And one more thing, I recommend every who carries to get one of these for your auto. I have several. This is for when you have to go into one of those gun free zones like a bank or a govt building. It will buy you time that a criminal does not have during a vehicle break in. Definitely more secure than a glove compartment. However, I recommend changing out the cable for a thicker one. I made my own, or you could buy one of those laptop locks.

Blogger Doorstop December 15, 2013 7:34 AM  

I especially liked how she didn't waste precious time dialing the cops rather than going for her piece, and she showed proper trigger finger placement too. However, self-defense is a mentality requiring more than just hardware, and I can cite three amusing personal interactions with white women that make me question their ability to defend themselves:

1. A thirty year-old I offered to take to the indoor pistol range, who initially was skittish until her father told her she should "jump on" the opportunity. After getting over the full-body flinch every time someone touched off a round, she eventually started punching the bulls-eye pretty consistently, and I even got her to go back a 2nd time to try out a subcompact Glock 9mm instead of a Browning .22. But she told me later she was afraid to own a gun because an assailant might disarm her and use the gun against her (?).
2. Another 30-something, a hardcore liberal whom I'd taken shooting only after making the offer as a joke, shot pretty well too. Called me up several months later freaking out because someone had looked in her apartment window, and she had a can of hairspray in her hand to spray him in the eyes if he broke in. Hadn't even thought to pick up a butcher knife from her kitchen until a suggested it. Fortunately it was a false alarm.
3. A 34 year-old who has an interest in guns and joked about borrowing one from me for a trip to Detroit, but really isn't interested in learning. Was discussing home defense and she said she'd probably pick up her favorite meat cleaver. I pointed out how I'd see the swing coming from a mile away, as would most guys, and so she's better off with something pointy like a chef's knife. She's still sold on the cleaver though.

A woman is wired to feel secure when they sleep with a man next to her on the bed. If she doesn't have that then she hopes for a man nearby in a patrol car. I don't think many of them think much further beyond that. Whereas us men know that sometimes it takes something more substantial (and rational) than a warm body nearby to defend oneself.

Anonymous physphilmusic December 15, 2013 7:36 AM  

The redhead in the commercial is hot. But how much hotter does the Glock make her. I would say a half-point of SMV and two whole points of MMV.

Seems like VD likes "action girls" after all, despite all that stuff about Pink SF...as long as they're with guns instead of unrealistic swords or martial arts skills...

Anonymous VD December 15, 2013 7:46 AM  

Seems like VD likes "action girls" after all, despite all that stuff about Pink SF...as long as they're with guns instead of unrealistic swords or martial arts skills...

Actually, VD simply prefers girls who don't freak out at the sight of a rifle or a .357. I didn't suggest the redhead would be similarly improved by a collection of garish tattoos.

Anonymous Salt December 15, 2013 7:51 AM  

Extending the scene a bit: A little Led Zepplin (How Many More Times) would have been cool when she pulls out the Glock.

Blogger Some dude December 15, 2013 8:19 AM  

They would have to make a few more commercials with both white and black hotties. Then they can get away with mixing and matching.

They would also have to have one of a black man being threatened by white folk coming to kill them.

And yes, that does happen astonishingly enough. And yes the black father had a gun, yes he shot the white boy in the head, and no I don't have a problem with it any more than I had when George sent Trayvon back to Hell where he belonged.

Anonymous Anonymous December 15, 2013 8:20 AM  

But watch the first half again: that uncertainty and sense of dread is designed to specifically appeal to women. Men don't feel or react that way. This was never intended as a training video, its an ad designed to create the perception of need in the target audience.

Right. As a guy, I was rolling my eyes at much of it, but I'm not the target audience. I'll be interested to hear what some women have to say about it.

Anonymous castricv December 15, 2013 8:21 AM  

Stilicho and frenchy, I addressed both of those points you made in my two comments at the top. They are the first ones and you replied back, so I would have assumed you read them.

With that being said, Stilicho's points on the gore aspect and what not are valid, even if I did imply that in my post. However, I think you are falling into the trap of only perceiving manliness. We see the commercial and think, "this will totally work for women because it does..." instead of considering that women have an auto shut-off for anything that society has deemed to them as unacceptable or incorrect. Whereas a man will roll his eyes and listen to argument, at least for a while, women treat the entire premise of the commercial as we treat a Michael Moore film; that is we simply don't consider it. It's complete indifference.

Any woman that would even be in a position to watch this and absorb it is already Aunt Maude who carries a small pistol in her purse and .38 special under her bed.

As for frenchy, I specifically addressed the lack of need for a big safety box in my post, namely she is clearly shown as an adult with no spouse or children. etc.... She lives in a tiny apartment with a door that gets kicked in on the first strike. How much time does she have to run to her room, get under the bed, open a lockbox, undo the safety, and prepare herself to fire on someone who will shortly be on her?? In a panic, no less?? Her only chance is to run and close the door and grab a loaded weapon that is at the ready and easily reacheable in a second.

If she has kids to worry about, then there should be a man there as well especially late into the night. See how a working society kind of sorts most of this silliness out? Appealing to the masses with hatespeak or thoughtcrime is as I said before, futile. You can't fix what is beyond repair.

Anonymous Cranberry December 15, 2013 8:27 AM  

But she told me later she was afraid to own a gun because an assailant might disarm her and use the gun against her (?).

This argument, that an assailant could disarm you, is used by leftists all the time to dissuade women from using guns as the first/last line of self-defense. I've had the argument in college classes, I've had it with co-workers, and with family members. They all imagine a scenario where you are terrified, frozen, and either drop your gun or allow the intruder to get close enough to take it from you. They can't get past it or imagine that you might shoot before the guy has a chance. The concept of "aim for center mass and fire until he's no longer coming at you" means nothing to them.

They can't imagine shooting a gun, much less shooting a person. The only thing they can imagine is being made even more helpless and hapless by mishandling your equalizing force. That is why they will always be vulnerable.

Anonymous Cranberry December 15, 2013 8:34 AM  

castricv, I think a woman would have to be inclined to own a gun in order to be persuaded by this commercial.

Very few gun-shy women are not going to be convinced that they need guns to be protected, in my experience if a woman is not inclined to being comfortable with the idea of a gun, nothing will convince her she should have one.

As for those inclined to own a gun, I'm not sure Glock is where I'd point her, but I'm biased. I find the grips to be too wide and blocky for my hands and found I had poor control versus as Sig. My personal gun is a Sig P250 in .40S&W, but I also love to shoot the husband's Kimber Tactical Pro 1911, if we had the means I'd get another for me. It feels like shooting a .22 target pistol compared to any Glock or H&K I've ever fired.

Anonymous Stilicho December 15, 2013 8:47 AM  

1) People, this isn't a training video. It's an ad to sell a product.

2) The point of the ad is not to persuade the unpersuadable, it is to provide an impetus to buy to those who are or could be receptive to the idea.

3) All women are not raging liberal fem-cunts who scream "nazi!" and run away at the mere sight of a firearm. A lot of women shoot, with more joining the ranks every day.

Anonymous VD December 15, 2013 8:52 AM  

I think most of you are missing the main benefit of the ad. It's the unspoken message. "Hot girls have guns". It's the imagery, and the repetition of that imagery, that matters more than anything.

Blogger Tank December 15, 2013 8:56 AM  

I have that safe. You lose about 1 to 2 seconds. It's a trade off.

I think the commercial works creating an atmosphere that women will understand at a gut level.

Anonymous Cranberry December 15, 2013 9:01 AM  

True enough Vox. Imagine the spreads Cosmo and Vogue might have when Glocks become the fashion accessory of the next decade. Matching your grips to your stilettos is a niche fashion market yet to be exploited.

I jest, but because you're entirely correct. Being hot because of X item is what signals women to purchase any number of items be they practical or not. I am inclined to like the trend of encouraging more gun ownership by young women. It's a much more concrete and far less garish signal of...confidence? hotness? than tattoos or multiple facial piercings.

Anonymous farmer Tom December 15, 2013 9:02 AM  

I was very distracted by the absurdity of the beginning scene.

Now I'll admit that I'm an old married guy who don't know how the hot young woman act these days. But, since when do women who are lounging around watching TV on what is clearly portrayed as a cool/cold evening. She's drinking warm tea, she had been wearing a coat, she has on warm slippers. At the same time is dressed in short shorts and a camisole?

Hell, I'm lucky if I can get the wife to dress that way when it's 90 degrees outside.

I like the purpose of the commercial. I think the red-head is hot, don't get me wrong here. But, any realistic portrayal of this scene would have her in a pair of pink footy flannel PJ's with images of butterflies on them.

Yeah, I may be missing the forest for the trees. But the incongruity of the scene really jumped out at me.

Anonymous Harsh December 15, 2013 9:05 AM  

Seems like VD likes "action girls" after all, despite all that stuff about Pink SF...as long as they're with guns instead of unrealistic swords or martial arts skills...

An action girl would have flipped over the bed, grabbed the gun with one hand, and spouted a pithy one liner while subduing the bad guy and his ten cronies... that was just a hot chick with a gun.

Anonymous Stingray December 15, 2013 9:09 AM  

But the incongruity of the scene really jumped out at me.

Yes, you are missing the forest for the trees. Men who watch this are going to scoff because it's not accurate. Women who watch this video are putting themselves in her place. What women doesn't want to look like that and be strong enough to stop an intruder in that manner?

Even the most strident anti-gun feminists would drool at the opportunity to do that to an intruder. Her strong woman leanings will far outweigh her anti-gun leanings.

Being beautiful only makes the fantasy that much better for the same reason the protagonists in pink-si/fi are beautiful. Notice, she is not stunningly beautiful, but within reason for most women to be able to fantasize about being in her shoes.

Anonymous Stickwick December 15, 2013 9:13 AM  

Stilicho: But watch the first half again: that uncertainty and sense of dread is designed to specifically appeal to women. Men don't feel or react that way. This was never intended as a training video, its an ad designed to create the perception of need in the target audience.

cailcorishev: Right. As a guy, I was rolling my eyes at much of it, but I'm not the target audience. I'll be interested to hear what some women have to say about it.

Stilicho is right. Watching the commercial, I started to feel that sense of dread I used to feel at night when I was single and living alone. It was pretty effective.

Glock is making a good move with a commercial like this. Personally, I would not rely on a handgun for home protection -- I would have had my Benelli 12 ga. pointed at the door -- but most female newbies are probably going to be too intimidated by a shotgun, so it's a selling point for handguns.

Doorstop: A woman is wired to feel secure when they sleep with a man next to her on the bed. If she doesn't have that then she hopes for a man nearby in a patrol car. I don't think many of them think much further beyond that.

I can't speak for most women, but, yeah, I feel much more secure with a man next to me in bed. However, I feel even more secure if he's armed. My husband sleeps on the side of the bed closest to the door, and he's got a shotgun and a handgun located in strategic places. Maybe I'm more reality-based than the average female, but I feel way more secure knowing the man next to me in bed is not going to have to grapple with anyone in the dark, should someone break into our house.

Anonymous Harsh December 15, 2013 9:15 AM  

but I feel way more secure knowing the man next to me in bed is not going to have to grapple with anyone in the dark

Not even you?

Sorry, I couldn't resist.

Anonymous Stingray December 15, 2013 9:18 AM  

I started to feel that sense of dread I used to feel at night

Yes. Then only thing that would have made the commercial more effective is if they made the intruder more true to life instead of another bumbling man commercial. Though, I suspect that is just me. For many women maybe that is too much fear. Making him a bit bumbling like so many other commercials keeps her confidence high, even though it may be a false confidence.

Blogger Nate December 15, 2013 9:25 AM  

Glocks are like panties.

That look awesome on women.. but on guys? trainwreck.

Anonymous Stickwick December 15, 2013 9:27 AM  

Harsh: Not even you?

" ... , should someone break into our house." Count me out of the weirdo subset of women who get aroused by highly dangerous situations.

Stingray: Then only thing that would have made the commercial more effective is if they made the intruder more true to life instead of another bumbling man commercial. Though, I suspect that is just me. For many women maybe that is too much fear. Making him a bit bumbling like so many other commercials keeps her confidence high, even though it may be a false confidence.

The choice of intruder seemed to fit the somewhat jovial tone of the commercial. I think you're right that making it more realistic would've undercut the effectiveness of the message for most women. Personally, I resented the fact that the intruder had a beard. Beards are fabulous. And if movies have taught me anything, it's that the men you really have to watch out for are the ones with meticulously-groomed stubble.

Anonymous Stingray December 15, 2013 9:30 AM  

Personally, I resented the fact that the intruder had a beard. Beards are fabulous.

Ha ha! I thought the exact same thing the very moment I saw his beard!

Blogger Nate December 15, 2013 9:39 AM  

" Right. As a guy, I was rolling my eyes at much of it, but I'm not the target audience. I'll be interested to hear what some women have to say about it."

While I agree her actions are frustrating to a male... that doesn't mean they aren't realistic. When she goes and gets the gun and puts it down beside her on the couch and goes back to watching TV... that is classic female behavior. She's trying her best to ignore the scary thing at the door and the gun is there to provide her with a little more confidence so she can accomplish that. Its only when the thing at the door finally forces her to engage it that she gives up trying to pretend acts.

You can never under-estimate how powerful the "I'll think about that tomorrow" is with women.

Anonymous Shutterbug December 15, 2013 10:23 AM  

To really make inroads into female gun ownership, create commercials featuring frizzy-haired soccer mommies blowing away the perv trying to lure her kids at the mall or taking out the school shooter when she stops by the school to drop of the band uniform her son forgot.

Iowa has a law that prohibits people convicted of domestic violence from owning guns. That's worked well (cough). One single mom I know with a violent ex-husband was whining about how she was afraid because he won't obey the law (gee, ya think!) I suggested the law is backwards - that the state should arm victims of domestic violence (vouchers for guns and training and a free CC license for those who can't afford them). She just looked at me. The concept went over her head.

And no, I don't really think the state should provide vouchers for guns, etc. to victims of domestic violence. I was just trying to get her to think. People are responsible for defending themselves with their own resources. If a person who is genuinely in danger cannot afford a firearm and training, they need find some help with getting them from friends and family.

Blogger LibertyPortraits December 15, 2013 10:45 AM  

Video would have been more accurate if the cops were cuffing the redhead in the background and stealing her gun as evidence, and THEN her virtuous libertarian neighbors come over and gun down the police.

That being said, it would be a shame if a redhead like that didn't pass on her genes.

Anonymous The other skeptic December 15, 2013 10:51 AM  

Still too many unrealistic tropes.

Really, the guy is going to faint?

However, once that market gets more realistic, then gun advertisements can become more racially realistic.

Blogger James Dixon December 15, 2013 11:04 AM  

What I found interesting was that the gun was obviously already loaded. She didn't insert the clip or chamber a round.

Anonymous VD December 15, 2013 11:04 AM  

Really, the guy is going to faint?

You're missing the point. Look at how he's even splayed out in the cartoon yellow-tape position. He's being symbolically shot and that is the message that is conveyed to the subconscious.

Anonymous Salt December 15, 2013 11:06 AM  

I thought he was swooning at the hot redhead with the Glock.

Anonymous Noah B. December 15, 2013 11:41 AM  

"He's being symbolically shot and that is the message that is conveyed to the subconscious."

I think it's a huge mistake for anyone to have an expectation that simply pointing a gun at someone is going to solve anything. Do you think the commercial would have come across as too scary to women if she had actually fired and hit the man?

Anonymous Noah B. December 15, 2013 11:44 AM  

"He's being symbolically shot and that is the message that is conveyed to the subconscious."

I think it's a huge mistake for anyone to have an expectation that simply pointing a gun at someone is going to solve anything. Do you think the commercial would have come across as too scary to women if she had actually fired and hit the man?

Anonymous sawtooth December 15, 2013 11:57 AM  

Aw, I was hoping to see Miss Smokin' Hot Redhead holding the smoking gun while Beard Boy gets turned into a ghost.

Anonymous toothy December 15, 2013 12:12 PM  

Iowa has a law that prohibits people convicted of domestic violence from owning guns.

Iowa may have a law as such, however, federal law precludes firearms ownership for LIFE for a DV conviction...

Anonymous automatthew December 15, 2013 1:01 PM  

I didn't realize that Roosh had changed his approach tactics.

Anonymous VD December 15, 2013 1:05 PM  

I think it's a huge mistake for anyone to have an expectation that simply pointing a gun at someone is going to solve anything. Do you think the commercial would have come across as too scary to women if she had actually fired and hit the man?

It is abundantly clear that you don't work in advertising or marketing. What you're saying isn't even wrong, it's just totally irrelevant. And yes, it would have come across as far too scary to actually have her fire the gun.

THIS ISN'T A TRAINING VIDEO. It is advertising and propaganda. Accurately teaching people the best way to solve certain situations is no more relevant here than a detailed explanation of the infield fly rule.

Anonymous Josh December 15, 2013 1:15 PM  

Although if they really want to sell more guns and properly scare them into thinking straight, they should be using a more statistically realistic bad guy.

If they use a more statistically realistic bad guy, the only thing that happens is a huge GLOCK RACIS! shitstorm. And then all the PD's that buy Glocks have to answer questions about why they're using such a racis supplier.

Anonymous Stickwick December 15, 2013 1:16 PM  

Noah B.: I think it's a huge mistake for anyone to have an expectation that simply pointing a gun at someone is going to solve anything.

That's counter to the common lore in the pro-2A community, which says in most of the 2+ million incidents annually in which guns are used defensively no shots are ever fired.

Anonymous Josh December 15, 2013 1:31 PM  

The gun safe is in the ad so that Glock doesn't get attacked for promoting irresponsible gun ownership.

Same reason alcohol ads say "please drink responsibly".

Anonymous Godfrey December 15, 2013 1:38 PM  

Feminism has NEVER been about liberating women. If it was, feminists would support gun rights.

Feminism is and always has been about destroying the family, reducing population levels and enslaving women to the corporate State.

Anonymous Josh December 15, 2013 1:39 PM  

Still too many unrealistic tropes.

Dude, it's a freaking ad. Are the bud light ads that say a perfect 10 hottie is going to sleep with you because you drink bud light realistic?

Anonymous Jack Amok December 15, 2013 1:44 PM  

@castricv

You're overthinking this one. The point of the ad is to frighten women with the specter of danger and then reassure them that there's a way to protect themselves without letting some creepy beta guy sleep with them. They can empower themselves with a gun. And also, as VD pointed out, "hot girlz have gunz".

Sure, it won't work with all women, sure there are counter-messages like "they bad guy will take it away and use it on you", and sure relatively few women will actually go out and buy a gun after watching this.

But it plants in their head the idea that someday they might want to buy a gun to protect themselves, and heaven help the poor politician who tries to take a choice away from a woman once she's realized she has it, even if she never expects to use it.

Anonymous 445supermag December 15, 2013 1:45 PM  

"But how much hotter does the Glock make her?"

Not nearly as hot as a Glock 20 or 21 would have made her. The 19 is for cops and drivebys.

Anonymous Jack Amok December 15, 2013 1:48 PM  

Glocks are like panties.

That look awesome on women.. but on guys? trainwreck.


And it was a 9mm Parabellum too. But hey, at least she's not bidding up the price of my ammo.

Blogger Nate December 15, 2013 1:50 PM  

Note to self: never discuss marketing with libertarians.

Anonymous Josh December 15, 2013 1:54 PM  

Note to self: never discuss marketing with libertarians.

This is why libertarians never win elections or actually threaten the political system.

They're all lining up to ritually denounce Rand because Rand is really good at marketing libertarian policies to mainstream Republicans.

Anonymous Josh December 15, 2013 1:56 PM  

Feminism has NEVER been about liberating women. If it was, feminists would support gun rights.

Newsflash: most women really aren't feminists.

They want to be married and stay at home mommies with cute fat babies.

Anonymous lozozlo December 15, 2013 2:07 PM  

"and despite what many people think, killing someone is a big trauma to all but hardened soldiers and psychos"

I wonder how much of that is due to the feminization/scalzification of modern society.

Was there ever a mention of PTSD or this related stuff before modern times? I mean, "Saul killed his thousands, and David his tens of thousands" and such, and no mention of PTSD anywhere. As far as I know, the same deal in classic literature as well...

Anonymous Noah B. December 15, 2013 2:17 PM  

I'm not saying that it's an ineffective commercial, just that being unprepared to actually fire a weapon is a potentially deadly mistake, and one that seems to be especially common among women. Selling more guns and changing attitudes about guns is great, and if that's all that can realistically be accomplished with a commercial like this, it's still forward progress for gun rights advocates.

Stickwick, while I do agree with your point that most incidents of armed self-defense don't involve actually discharging a weapon, being psychologically prepared to fire is still essential. For one thing, I think you will present a very different demeanor to an attacker if you are fully prepared to shoot. Predatory humans seem to pick up on fear just like dogs do. Also, the most dangerous attackers aren't likely to give their victims much time to contemplate whether or not to fire their weapon.

Anonymous Noah B. December 15, 2013 2:21 PM  

"Dude, it's a freaking ad. Are the bud light ads that say a perfect 10 hottie is going to sleep with you because you drink bud light realistic?"

I thought the idea was that they would sleep with you because they drank bud light.

Anonymous Josh December 15, 2013 2:25 PM  

half the responses to this ad: 2/10 would not bang

Anonymous vryedenker December 15, 2013 2:49 PM  

I won over a female anti-gun co-worker by asking her this simple question: If a large Somali man decides that you are his girlfriend, but you don't agree, wouldn't a gun be much more convincing than simply saying "no"?

Anonymous TLM December 15, 2013 2:56 PM  

Nate- I've never heard why you don't like the Glocks? I find that amusing from a Taurus guy (at least that's what I recalled you written about in the past). I always thought Taurus semi-autos are just a poor man's Beretta. I hate the fact that cops use Glocks. They are the last people that should be using them as Glocks work best for experienced and accomplished shooters which we know cops are not. But Glocks are fine weapons. The G27 is a marvel. Outstanding accuracy and power from such a small frame is something all the other manufacturer's still can't get right.

Anonymous paradox December 15, 2013 3:01 PM  

Meh... now if she was blonde and had a compact Beretta Inox or full size Inox, that would be hot. At the very least a CZ 75.

Anonymous dw December 15, 2013 3:56 PM  

"half the responses to this ad: 2/10 would not bang"

It's just that...she got pointy elbows

Anonymous Stickwick December 15, 2013 4:02 PM  

lozozlo: I wonder how much of that is due to the feminization/scalzification of modern society.

I know hardened combat vets, and can tell you that it has nothing to do with the feminization of modern society. Any man who is not a psychopath will be affected by killing someone. It's not regret, but it exacts a toll, and it's not something to be taken lightly. Anyone who arms himself and thinks he's prepared to take a life in self-defense had better keep that in mind.

Anonymous Jack Amok December 15, 2013 4:14 PM  

I wonder how much of that is due to the feminization/scalzification of modern society.

Was there ever a mention of PTSD or this related stuff before modern times?


PTSD is a real thing, though like so much in our modern victimhood society it gets exaggerated. Our bodies respond chemically to stress, and it's generally a very powerful chemical response. It's meant to give us an edge by temporarily boosting our ability to function, not just the adrenaline speed/strength thing, but also (and this is probably the most critical where PTSD is concnered) it creates an emotional imperative to act. Fight or flight, do something to end the danger. But those chemicals are meant to be there temporarily only. Stew in them too long and they cause physical and mental damage.

Specifically in respect to combat, the first mentions of PTSD was the "Shell Shock" of WW I trench warfare. Soldiers would be subject to days of continuous artillery barrages, with no option other than to sit there and take it. They couldn't fight - leaving whatever cover they had and entering no-man's land was certain death. They couldn't flee - they'd be shot or hanged by their own leaders if they made it out of the barrage alive. All they could do was cower and wait while their stress responses were going full tilt. Eventually the continuous buildup of stress chemicals would drive them mad.

Even if the situation is resolved in less time, the buildup still matters. Think of stressors as toxins. Your body can process them out at a certain rate, but if the incoming rate is larger, you'll eventually succumb to the toxin. In WWII, they called it "the thousand yard stare." There were estimates that the typical infantryman could handle two hundred days of actual combat before the effects of what we now call PTSD would manifest. I don't know if those estimates have been updated since then. I've never gone back and figured out the numbers, but I suspect Roman Legionaries didn't typically face 200 days of actual combat very often. Lots of marching around and then a pivotal battle. I love it if someone with more study of ancient warfare could confirm or correct me on that.

Modern life is often bad too, it places us in too many situations where neither fight nor flight are viable options, so the stress toxins build up.

Anonymous bearspaw December 15, 2013 4:30 PM  

R. Lee Ermey...oorah!

Anonymous Jack Amok December 15, 2013 4:39 PM  

I suppose though there is one sense in which you could blame the increase of PTSD on feminized society. It reduces the options to fight, thereby creating more situations where a guy is forced to remain in a stressful situation instead of being allowed to resolve it.

Blogger Patrikbc December 15, 2013 5:02 PM  

Stickwick:
Any man who is not a psychopath will be affected by killing someone. It's not regret, but it exacts a toll.

Depends what you mean by "affected", for some it may only mean having a new perspective on the reality of the world we live in and a portion of the people we share it with, just a grim truth.
Some people need killing, I'm sure some law enforcement officers have seen their share of people who just need to go and wouldn't be traumatized by helpin them along.
I'm pretty certain I wouldn't lose a wink of sleep over sending someone who wanted to harm my family on to the twisting nether.

Blogger Patrikbc December 15, 2013 5:39 PM  

If they dont sell more guns, at least maybe they will raise awareness about the dangers of using interior door mechanisms to secure exterior doors.

Anonymous Stickwick December 15, 2013 5:56 PM  

Patrikbc: I'm pretty certain I wouldn't lose a wink of sleep over sending someone who wanted to harm my family on to the twisting nether.

Talk to someone who has taken another person's life, and you might not be so certain. No good man loses any sleep over the prospect of killing to protect his family, or the righteousness of it, but you can't possibly know what it's like to take a human life -- even an evil one -- until you've pulled the trigger. The more up close and personal it is, the worse it is. None of these men I know regret any of what they did, but every one of them was deeply, personally, affected by it. As I said, it exacts a toll.

Anonymous Mavwreck December 15, 2013 8:06 PM  

Tank - how much was that safe? I'm still looking for Christmas gifts.

Blogger RobertT December 15, 2013 8:26 PM  

"it exacts a toll."

Well maybe not on everyone. Psychopathy is a continuum. We're all on that continuum. The difference between your pastor and Ted Bundy is where on that continuum they lie. One of the things people don't understand about psychopaths is they generally rank very high in empathy because they can read the hot buttons. Another thing is they are very rational. So when both of those line up, I don't think some people will have any trouble at all in putting out someone's lights, especially if they meet your description and the threat is to your family. Bingo, bango, bongo.

Anonymous haute December 15, 2013 8:53 PM  

I note the gap between the responses between what the men said and the more saccharine/emotional handwringing of stick wick/the woman.

Anonymous Res Ipsa December 15, 2013 10:01 PM  

Vox,

Is this post your way of agreeing with Nate that Glocks are for girls?

Anonymous Stickwick December 16, 2013 12:07 AM  

RobertT: One of the things people don't understand about psychopaths is they generally rank very high in empathy because they can read the hot buttons.

Psychopaths are noted for their lack of empathy. One can be very empathetic and still have a high capacity for cruelty, but that's not the same thing as psychopathy.

haute: I note the gap between the responses between what the men said and the more saccharine/emotional handwringing of stick wick/the woman.

There is no handwringing or emotion. I have absolutely no problem with the use of lethal force for self-defense or defense of others. What you are noticing is the difference between someone who understands the consequences of using deadly force versus those who don't. If you are interested in pursuing this topic, it's discussed at length on many pro-2A forums where experienced LEOs and soldiers describe to the uninitiated what comes after the use of deadly force. I am not advocating that the emotional toll should be a reason to refrain from using lethal force, only emphasizing that castricv (presumably a man, btw) was correct that there is trauma involved. Every armed person should be aware of that, just as s/he should be aware of the legal consequences.

Anonymous FP December 16, 2013 2:06 AM  

"445supermag December 15, 2013 1:45 PM

"But how much hotter does the Glock make her?"

Not nearly as hot as a Glock 20 or 21 would have made her. The 19 is for cops and drivebys."

I do love the .45 fanatics and their delusions. Not as bad as the .40 fans at least. 10mm might knock her over onto her pointy elbows. Cops and driveby enactors shoot badly no matter the gun.

An ad for the .45 fans though, made me want to buy a 1911:
Carry On-Jessie Duff

Oh and regarding the red head, 10/10 would bang her despite pointy elbows. Chicks with guns are hot.

Anonymous Toby Temple December 16, 2013 2:13 AM  

Well I'll be da....

Libertarians suck at marketing!?

Blogger JCclimber December 16, 2013 3:17 AM  

I can't get past the fact that the redhead looks too much like my ex wife.

Freaks me out a little, okay, a lot. Nate, going to take your advice and avoid Glock, just because of this commercial. Bastards.

Anonymous VD December 16, 2013 3:24 AM  

One of the things people don't understand about psychopaths is they generally rank very high in empathy because they can read the hot buttons.

You have it completely backwards. Psychopaths have no empathy. That's what makes them psychopaths. In fact, they have almost no genuine understanding of others; emotions are a magic black box to them. One of the ways they can be detected by experts is that they go into a "simulation" mode and do things like wave their hands a lot when they are talking about emotional things.

Anonymous A. Nonymous December 16, 2013 12:15 PM  

Video would have been more accurate if the cops were cuffing the redhead in the background and stealing her gun as evidence, and THEN her virtuous libertarian neighbors come over and gun down the police.

Accurate to what, outside of libertarian revenge fantasies, exactly?

That being said, it would be a shame if a redhead like that didn't pass on her genes.

That much I can wholeheartedly agree with, though I'd add the caveat "with a man of similar genetic profile" not because I imagine you'd think anything else, but rather because some "anti-racist" troll might see an opportunity to snark, otherwise.

Blogger mina smith December 16, 2013 1:37 PM  

I liked the video when it came out.

I like it even better since I became a redhead and got a full pistol course for my concealed carry.

But, I am Sig girl. No Glock for me.

Anonymous Edward Waverley December 16, 2013 3:20 PM  

White perp? Bitch please...

Anonymous haute December 16, 2013 6:51 PM  

"trauma"

As Jack Amok so excellently pointed out what we call PTSD and these related 'traumas' seem to be more a consequence of the battle conditions of the modern world than some sort of 'oh no I killed that rapist/murder so now I should feel bad' "trauma" like you were talking about.

I do not know *all* ancient literature, but no where that I have ever seen mentions the "trauma" of which you speak or similar notions, nor is this anywhere in the Scriptures.

I suspect that this is a phenomenon of the modern world - effeminacy, learned helplessness, and the comfort of being coocoonned in a nice, soft womb of prosperity and safety, contrary to the conditions of most people in history. In school and anywhere else violence is totally condemned (unless done by state agents to enforce progressive values, of course) and victims of bullies are punished for protecting themselves, and often more than the perpetrator. Ours is a society in which the victim is held up the highest object, and passivity and feminine behavior as the moral standard.

Those LEO's and soldiers, badass as they may be compared to us, are still a product of the west, which was been effeminiate for a long time, and becoming ever more so.

The (anti)-cathedral wants a society of weaklings who will bellyache and whine about killing even the worst scumbag, while its' enforcers will have no such qualms. You are a woman so I expect you to feel that way, but the problem is in our society even the men are basically women.

Anonymous The CronoLink December 17, 2013 12:45 AM  

One of the ways they can be detected by experts is that they go into a "simulation" mode and do things like wave their hands a lot when they are talking about emotional things.

Interesting, I didn't knew that.

Anonymous Stickwick December 17, 2013 4:34 AM  

haute, you are confusing two separate things. I am not talking about PTSD from combat or any state of victimhood, I'm talking about the profound psychological effect a person experiences the first time he takes a human life.

One of the men of whom I speak is one of the toughest and most violent men I know. He grew up in a violent country where physical fighting for young men is the norm from the time they go to school. He's been in countless street brawls and worse, is head-to-toe scarred from being involved in fights with chains, knives, hammers, and fists, and none of this gives him even a moment's pause. In fact, he seems to recall all of this "youthful exuberance" with some amusement, and frequently says he doesn't understand the current American attitude of zero tolerance towards violence. However, this same man has told me of the effect killing other people had on him when he was in combat. I'm not talking about PTSD or battle fatigue or whatever else you can call it -- Jack may be correct that those mostly describe a relatively recent phenomenon born of modern developments in warfare -- I'm talking about something else entirely. This man struggled to come up with words to describe what happens after a first kill, and all he could manage was "it affects you." It's counterintuitive to those who have never killed, which is why I don't hold it against you or anyone else here who thinks it's some artifact of modern society. You might reasonably think that killing an enemy, someone who is, after all, trying to kill you, would not effect you. It was counterintuitive to me, as well. But after listening to this man and to others who've also killed in the line of duty, I am convinced they speak the truth.

Having said that, I agree that to a significant extent aversion to killing is a product of modern, Western, Christian society. The Israelis in the Old Testament, the Romans of old, the plundering Vikings, etc. all lived during brutal, pagan times in which life was short and cheap. Those hardened people were necessarily products of their harsh environments. It's like an acquaintance of mine described growing up in Africa: death is so commonplace that people naturally grow to feel not much of anything about it. We no longer live in such harsh times in the West, thanks almost entirely to the influence of Christianity, so there is no need for people to become so hardened, nor is there really a mechanism by which it could happen. (An exception to this is the American inner cities.) There's a reason a significant fraction of modern men are averse to using lethal force even in the most compelling of circumstances, and it's not necessarily due to feminization, but a consequence of relative societal peace and prosperity. Ironically, thanks to the feminizing influence of modern secular society, the West may return to a brutal, pagan environment in which life is once again short and cheap, and the aversion to killing is far less significant. (Again, cf. American inner cities.)

Now, here's my point. Irrespective of what sort of society we live in, the fact is, unless a man is a bonafide psychopath, the first time he uses lethal force against another human being, it is literally a psychological trauma, a shock to the system. And I'm almost 100% certain that was true even of men in ancient times; the only difference is that ancient men became inured to it far sooner and far more quickly than men today. But in similar fashion, the men I know got past the initial trauma of killing in order to keep doing their jobs. None of them would hesitate to use lethal force again if necessary, but neither would they be dispassionate about it. Like it or not, this is as hardened as men will get in a Christian society. You want men to be ultra-hardened warriors who feel nothing about killing? You're talking about the pagan world.

Anonymous haute December 17, 2013 6:51 PM  

You did not answer my points at all…I was hoping for a better reasoned response.

All of your examples were very recent/modern, so they don’t contradict (and potentially support) my thesis.

Moving on to your bizarre metaphysical certainty about this ‘trauma’ in ancient peoples - how are you so certain that this affected men in ancient times when no writing mentions this? If this affected most, if not all people, you’d think someone would have mentioned it somewhere at some point. It is strange that you have ‘near 100% certainty’ about something about which you provided no evidence whatsoever.

You correctly do attribute modern prosperity and comfort as a major factor in this ‘trauma’. You also correctly credit Christianity with leading to the aforementioned peace and prosperity. Where you go wrong is that you conflate Christianity with safety and prosperity – i.e. you take the softness and ‘trauma’ towards violence endemic to a safe and prosperous life, and you conflate acting contrary to that softness with violating Christian morality and becoming a brutal pagan.

I find the following passage absolutely hilarious “Irrespective of what sort of society we live in, the fact is, unless a man is a bonafide psychopath, the first time he uses lethal force against another human being, it is literally a psychological trauma, a shock to the system.” This is a sweeping claim that you offer no proof for. Many Christian kings and their soldiers killed in defense without hesitation, and no indication of having some ‘trauma’ or regret that they needed to get over.

Have you ever considered that whatever ‘trauma’ occurs may not have to do with the killing itself, but rather the fear that comes with a life-threatening situation in general (which just about any case of justified killing would be)? Would someone have the same ‘trauma’ after having narrowly avoided death from some other means that did not involve killing, such as narrowly escaping from an enemy as opposed to killing them?

A little bit of fun reading on the topic, if you are so inclined.

I knew it was a waste of time debating something with a woman - Vox and his assessment of a woman's powers of logic and reason are spot on, as you have shown in spades.
I'm done here - good night and go bake a pie or something.

Anonymous haute December 17, 2013 6:53 PM  

When I say that I'm done here, I mean that I am finished debating with a woman - if you think the issue so important, since you are one of the regulars here you can probably bring it up in one of the more current posts and people will discuss it.

I would prefer to see more manly (in so far as the west isn't totally feminized) views on the matter. Jack's post were an excellent start.

Anonymous FrankNorman December 18, 2013 12:45 PM  

Notice the doublethink in Feminism, common to Leftist causes. On the one hand they deny that men and women are in any way different, on the other they regard women as better than men. A and B are equal, while at the same time B is better than A?

And in reality they probably believe neither of those assertions. As CS Lewis's Screwtape put it so well, no one who says "I'm as good as you" believes it; she would not say it if she did.

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts