Salon’s Amanda Marcotte: Gun Industry is Responsible for Congressional Baseball Shooter

Lessons of the “baseball shooting”: Gun violence feeds on itself — and even now Republicans won’t listen, the headline at salon.com proclaims. And if that wasn’t enough to signal a dizzying spin on armed self-defense — what does “feeds on itself” mean? — the subhead drives home the anti-gun message . . .

Guns are largely marketed to right-wing male power fantasies, but this latest tragedy shows that no one is immune. In other words, the evil gun industry is so powerful it even seduces liberals! Like this:

The left-wing views of the alleged shooter might be surprising to some, but they shouldn’t be. The gun industry and the National Rifle Association market guns with promises that owning guns will make a customer feel manly and powerful, and that fantasy has a power that can transcend political boundaries.

And no one knows better than gun industry leaders how feelings of political frustration caused by seeing your preferred candidate lose an election can be channeled into a pitch to buy more guns . . .

Gun marketing, helped along by the political messaging of the NRA, , is targeted largely at conservatives. That said, the emotional buttons being pushed — the wish to feel powerful, the desire to prove one’s masculinity, the appeal of violence as a political shortcut — cannot be contained by something as pedestrian as political partisanship.

Through years of marketing and cultural messaging, the appeal of guns has been crafted into something totemic, even primal — desired by all manner of people who yearn for some kind of cleansing violence to solve their problems . . .

Fears of emasculation, racist anxieties about crime, power fantasies about silencing dissent through threats of violence, and a widespread loathing for liberals and their insistence on rational evidence — all these things sell guns.

The majority of regular TTAG fiskee Amanda Marcotte‘s article talks about the threat of gun industry-inspired white Republican proto-violence. “Proto” because Ms. Marcotte can’t dredge-up a single example of a right wing shooter taking down liberal pols.

But there you have it: another anti-gun rights writer divorced from reality whose idée fixe prevents her from understanding even the most basic truth about guns. Same as it ever was.

comments

  1. avatar Ragnarredbeard says:

    Is the jewelry industry responsible for her mutilating her ears?

    1. avatar Ing says:

      Yes! Don’t you understand the totemic, primal power inherent in shiny jewelry?

      It’s a miracle that I’ve lasted 45 years on this planet without succumbing to the yearning for moral cleansing that only a ritual piercing can provide.

    2. avatar MouseGun says:

      I think it’s just more along the lines of “I want to piss off my daddy.”

    3. avatar Jim says:

      She looks a lot like Lena Dunham, no?

  2. avatar Chip Bennett says:

    And this article brought my weekly occurrence of a TTAG ad hijacking my mobile browser.

    As for the Salon drivel: yet another example of mundane, typical, progressive psychological projection.

  3. avatar Bluesman007 says:

    HFS! Nothing is anyone’s fault. Personal responsibility? What’s that?

  4. avatar Cundalini says:

    She’s Hawt

    1. avatar No one of consequence says:

      Nawt.

      1. avatar No one special says:

        No kidding nawt! The first thing I thought when I saw its picture was a younger version of Caitlyn Jenner.

        1. avatar Rattlerjake says:

          She’a a perfect example of why some women NEED to wear a dress – she looks like the boy next door!

    2. avatar Pete says:

      Doesn’t look bad in that pic but she has crazy-eyes in others

      1. avatar AFGus says:

        Doesn’t look bad in that picture? Seriously?! She/He looks a lot like my stepson looked when he was about thirteen. Get some glasses…..they’re sorely needed.

  5. avatar Bluesman007 says:

    HFS! Nothing is anyone’s fault. Personal responsibility? What’s that?

  6. avatar DrewR says:

    I’m just trying to understand how today’s gun industry is responsible for a 50 plus year old Russian designed rifle. Hmm … perhaps I, too, can “insist on rational evidence.”

    1. avatar No one of consequence says:

      Well, the Morlocks captured HG and went back to start up the WMD programs with Mr Gattling and Maxim, so by the time they evolve they’ll have the right tools to go Eloi-harvesting.

      Then they gifted the time machine to the NRA to use as needed. They keep it under the firing range in their basement at headquarters, right next to the assault clipazines.

      I thought everyone knew that. After all, even the lefties have managed to figure some of it out. Bling pigs and acorns, you know.

      1. avatar Nigel the expat says:

        Morlocks are the end devolution of progressives.

        😀

    2. avatar former water walker says:

      You took my comment(+1)…but his boo-lits were maybe new?

    3. Re: antiquity of the SKS:

      You are a generation off. SKS age is closer to 70 than it is to 50.

      However, older generations are irrelevant to millennial snowflakes.

      1. avatar Steve in TX says:

        One thing I remember from poly sci in college was that polls of college students showed two things in the millennial gen:. They were overwhelming democratic supports like most young people but we’re much more conservative on ever topic than there parents except for two things … Pot and gay marriage. Gun control is a lost cause. We have to many, and the only thing the antis have is the media and ignorance of the laws they pass.

        1. avatar Big Bill says:

          Gun control is not a lost cause by any stretch of the imagination. It’s moved down to the state/local level, and renamed itself “gun safety.”

    4. avatar Mark N. says:

      That’s not her theorem; rather she posits that arms manufacturers marketing appeals to lesser endowed males who are seeking an outlet to prove their masculinity. Or something like that.

      1. avatar Big Bill says:

        And she does this using the example of a leftist socialist who used a gun not made or marketed by the arms manufacturers she so loathes.
        Liberal logic.

  7. avatar Chito says:

    I didn’t know the NRA had THAT much power.

  8. avatar Ben says:

    “The gun industry and the National Rifle Association market guns with promises that owning guns will make a customer feel manly and powerful, …”

    I guess I’ve missed that advertisement for the last 25 year of NRA membership…

    1. avatar Lost Down South says:

      My wife doesn’t appear manly. Or emasculated.

      She’s a better shot than me. And owns substantially more guns than I do.

  9. avatar EJQ says:

    Ben, me, too. As a 4’10” female, shooting my .45 1911 at the range, well, it’s not putting any hair on my chest.

    1. avatar Swilson says:

      Amanda Marcotte would probably diagnose you as man in a woman’s body who isn’t “woke” to the fact that you’re trans yet. Your firearms proficiency and ownership is definitely a symptom of such a thing.

      /sarc

    2. avatar TrappedInCommiefornia says:

      Came here to say the same about my wife. She loves to shoot and is still more feminine than miss marcotte, but I’d wager my wife is also more confident and comfortable in her own skin than miss projection is. My wife is also much better looking, and way more intelligent.

    3. avatar Edward Allen says:

      Over the last 2 years I’ve taken 6 women shooting for the first time. I haven’t seen and leanings toward becoming masculine, however, I they did appear to become more confident in their abilities once they got started. They started out small, .22 cal Walther, and worked up to shooting my 1911 and AR platform rifle. The bigger and more powerful, the better.

      Maybe that is the problem. She has never handled a gun before and is simply afraid of the unknown.

  10. avatar NYC2AZ says:

    This incident does seem to paint the political left into a bit of a corner of their own closely held beliefs. The political “progressives” do tend to believe that rhetoric leads to this sort of violence. They blame a flag for an attack at a church. They blame white, male, Christian, NRA members for an attack on a gay nightclub by an Islamist. They blame Palin for an attack on a democrat. They sure seem to believe this rhetoric causes violence but they put similar rhetoric into political platforms, editorial columns, academic grant proposals, classroom lectures, award acceptance speeches, snarky tweets, art, tv and movie plots, comedy skits, and on and on.

    At some point, a person that doesn’t share their viewpoints might begin to wonder if they are hoping their rhetoric will result in violence and that they are simply projecting their own flaws upon those with which they disagree.

    1. avatar Ing says:

      That is exactly the conclusion I’ve reached. Deep down (or maybe not so deep), they want violence.

      They hate their ideological opponents and want them dead, but hate and violence both being Evil (emphasis on the capital E), the only way they can deal with it is through veiled rhetoric, vicarious fantasy, and projecting their own desires onto other people.

      1. avatar Ed Schrade says:

        Ing… They want violence on others that do not share their beliefs as long as someone else will do it FOR them.

        1. avatar Ing says:

          Right you are. Projection isn’t the only way they distance themselves from their own homicidal (genocidal?) impulses, and it’s not the most dangerous either.

    2. avatar Big Bill says:

      I think you’re wrong on who/what they blame.
      It’s not a flag or any particular person, but rather the evil gun that seduced these people to believe that the flag or other people wanted them to commit violence. That’s what I hear from the cited article.
      The guns are marketed to people who want to commit violence, and they do this violent only after the gun is sold to them. These people are invariably, according to her, whit conservative males.
      Of course, this rhetoric fails miserably in the example of violence that brought on her article, but damn the facts, she just drove on anyway.
      The fact that so few actual acts of violence that are politically motivated are done by the people she thinks the evil gun manufacturers are targeting totally escapes her, because it doesn’t fit the agenda she has been steeped in.
      She even ignores the many news articles about liberal people (including WOMEN) who feel the need to arm themselves, because those people aren’t conservatives.
      This article is a fine example of someone who hasn’t actually thought out what she says, but simply puts forth some talking points that do not meet reality.

  11. avatar RSic says:

    We need to fight them the same way they do, It’s the democratic parties fault, weren’t, all or most, mass shooters here in the U.S. democrats, and this last idiot was a hard Sanders supporter, so it’s the Democratic Party fault, the leadership needs to be held accountable

  12. avatar Swilson says:

    I know you can say it about just about any zine or site but who the F is reading Salon in 2017?

  13. avatar J says:

    Like all leftist women, it looks like a man in drag

  14. avatar stateisevil says:

    Why would the gun industry want more shooting homicides and injuries? Now the HPA, “sporting purposes” repeal, and reciprocity are dead, which will hurt their bottom line.

    The shooter was responsible for the shooting.

  15. avatar Joe R. says:

    Gun violence feeds on itself???

    How the F can they even get a seat at the diner counter, when there’s too many POS Communist (D) hogging the trough.

    ANOTHER CASE OF THE “WE’RE F’D UP, WE NEED TO FIX YOU SO THAT WE CAN DO TYRANNY”.

    How does Salon get so much play here? How is it not conveyed as “Fake News said fake sh_t, details at 11.”

  16. avatar DaveW says:

    I blame it on the vilification of the right by the left, attacking a supporter of the Socialist (read commie) Burn ears until his mind cracked from believing all their crap about how everything must be paid for by others so those who believe can enjoy free stuff.

  17. avatar pieslapper says:

    10 pounds of derp in a 5 pound sack.

  18. avatar CLarson says:

    Aww poor Amanda is butt hurt her that idealogical compatriot, the would be assassin Bernie bro, embarrassed himself. It’s a poor craftsman who blames his tools. Stop being such a whiner, Amanda.

  19. avatar Serpent Vision says:

    If anyone is guilty of cultural messaging to men that guns empower them, make them manly, and bestow the power to blast away all one’s opponents and shoot their way to a happy ending, it’s Hollywood, not the “gun lobby”.

    1. avatar Mark N. says:

      BINGO! I was going to say the same thing. Hollywood, for all its purported aversion to guns, has more movies with more guns than anything on TV. She talks about all of this industry marketing. Well, I hate to break it to her (and the industry), but I don’t read gun ads. Reviews yes, and news releases, but not ads. To get those, you’d have to read gun mags, and those are becoming dinosaurs. I think she thinks all gun owners think they are operators–and sorry lady, but that is simply not the case.

      1. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

        The gun industry doesn’t even have much in the way of marketing. If you want to see a gun ad, you have go find it.

      2. avatar Big Bill says:

        “I think she thinks all gun owners think they are operators–and sorry lady, but that is simply not the case.”
        Just to make this more about me…
        I have a beard, but since I’m too lazy to shave off my neck beard, I know *I* am not an operator.

  20. avatar Avid Reader says:

    I wonder how far up her backside she had to reach to come up wtih that reasoning?

  21. avatar Ing says:

    You know what else feeds on itself? Leftist progressivism. It’s a progressive disease.

  22. avatar Ralph says:

    Wow, that Amanda Marcotte is one man-hating, left wing harpie stooge.

  23. avatar TrappedInCommiefornia says:

    If I were an unwed man…. I still wouldn’t take her in a manly fashion. Or an unmanly fashion. Or in any fashion at all. I wouldn’t take her anywhere, in any way.

  24. avatar John says:

    Hell No!

  25. avatar MarkPA says:

    Obvious solution is to add the voter rolls records of Democrat partisans to the NICS system. There, problem solved: No guns for Democrats (except in actual service in the Federal armed forces or a State-organized militia).

  26. avatar TyrannyOfEvilMen says:

    They deny the existence of spirits yet insist that inanimate objects hold power over men.

    Well, White men at least.

    The only thing missing now to make Anti-gun a full-fledged religion is some snappier clothes and a funny hat.

  27. avatar Keystone says:

    “power fantasies about silencing dissent through threats of violence”

    I wonder if this idiot realizes the admission she made in the heat of all that projection.

    Hey, Amanda, we know you and the rest of your rabid liberal friends can only think of using a gun to silence dissent. Your comrade proved it on Wednesday.

  28. avatar Darkman says:

    In a word SNOWFLAKE…

  29. avatar Andrew Lias says:

    I believe that conservatives aren’t targeted specifically by gun companies, but rather people who are interested in a tool that enables self sufficiency rather than reliance on the government or other powers that be own guns. Although this doens’t exclude all liberals it certainly excludes a large portion; In a lot of ways I believe that “responsible gun ownership” is a gateway to conservatism.

    In terms of the “evil” gun industry seducing anyone perhaps not? I mean, he’s definitely not tacticool in appearance, nor is his choice of weaponary such. I mean, there’s not a lot of pic rail on the typical SKS to hang mall ninja stuff from.

    The primal part is not a violent cleansing but rather survival. We all want the best tools we can to enhance our chances of surviving in a world full of predators. The majority of people don’t want to maim/attack/kill, but rather survive to live their lives out peacefully.

  30. avatar The Rookie says:

    Marcotte bears a frightening resemblance to a younger Pamela Smart. Including the crazy eyes.

  31. avatar W says:

    Shorter, less evasive Marcotte: The right was shot by the left. Let’s blame the right. It will make us feel better about ourselves and worse about them.

    1. avatar Big Bill says:

      “The right was shot by the left. Let’s blame the right. It will make us feel better about ourselves and worse about them.”

      Very well put.

  32. avatar ahwatkins says:

    Yawn. That’s the usual sort of pablum one should expect when stooping to read a gush-fest such as slo-lane.com.

  33. avatar FB says:

    That article is ridiculous. Never in the history of the NRA or gun industry have i ever read any promising or marketing that owning firearms will make me more manly and or powerful.
    That article is purely made up claims.

    1. avatar Big Bill says:

      I remember seeing, a bunch of months ago, an arms maker showing their product in a combat situation, where they were rescuing what looked middle-eastern people from a perilous situation that included both incoming and outgoing small arms fire. The good guys, rather obviously, were using the advertiser’s guns, and saving the day.
      The ad ran on mostly the outdoorsy channels.
      So yes, such ads have been shown. In my observation, though, they are a distinct minority.
      Another example is ads showing a particular gun being used in a home invasion scenario, although that type of ad has also been used to show the need for legally being able to do so, so not an actual ad for a particular gun in those.
      And, of course, Gunny showing how a certain handgun [cough… GLOCK] is particularly suited for use against all sorts of stupid perps.

  34. avatar DaveL says:

    It’s funny that she ascribes such power to the marketing mojo of the gun industry. One little problem – well, one among many – where is this marketing? It’s not like there’s a whole lot of Ruger or Glock commercials on prime time TV. Really, the only time I see ads are in specialty magazines or targeted web ads. The gun industry’s media presence is paltry compared to the disarmament lobby’s.

  35. avatar The Brig says:

    She’s actually complaining that one of her own went ahead and acted out on the fantasies of violence that they’ve all been talking about? A quick look through her posts–and I need a shower now–doesn’t show jack as far as denouncing the leftists’ rioting and vandalism. She was only triggered (heh!) by one of her comrades taking their psychotic methods to the next logical step. I find it telling that she’s upset that her little tovarisch used a gun, not that he committed violence against conservatives.

    Remember kids, use bombs or knives. They’re much more acceptable to socialist revolutionaries.

  36. Ad hominem alert
    The only thing worse than a guy with a mullet?
    A girl with a mullet.

  37. avatar Chip in Florida says:

    Why is this woman not being openly and frequently mocked for her stupidity? When she opens her mouth and says something anti-gun we should just laugh and walk away. Pointing would be good, but optional.

    There are 300 million or more firearms in private hands in this country, if the firearms really were the problem there would be no Amanda Marcotte’s left in the world.

    I am serious…. laugh and walk away. It won’t take too long for them to get the idea that their ideas are not as popular as they think.

    1. avatar AFGus says:

      I agree with you 1000 percent Chip. Salon is not journalism, and people who write for it are not journalists. Point, laugh, snicker, laugh some more, walk away shaking your head. Anything else is a complete waste of energy.

    2. avatar WhiteDevil says:

      Agreed. It is pointless to engage in reasonable debate with someone like this. Nothing about her thinking is reasonable nor remotely resembles intelligence. Just laugh at abject stupidity like this. Also, using her “logic”, the UFC is responsible when someone is beaten to death.

  38. avatar Big Bill says:

    If I remember my estimates correctly, there are somewhere around 100 million gun owners in the US.
    If, as she says, these are conservative males, the Democrat party is definitely in the minority, so someone must have voted twice in 2016. Anyway…
    If all these conservative males have fallen for the gun maker’s and NRA’s ads, wouldn’t there be a lot less people like Marcotte around? Surely they would all have been shot by now, not to mention the Democrat legislators and judges who are (in her mind) the victims of all these male conservatives who just can’t control their rage.
    No, if we were the problem, they would surely know it. Instead, the problem (as has been said far too many times, and ignored as many times) is that we have too many madmen walking our streets. And being a leftist does not guarantee that you aren’t among them.

  39. I have come to the conclusion that registering as a ‘DEMOCRATE’ is causing ‘GUN VIOLENCE’ or once you become a ‘DEMOCRATE’ you become indoctrinated into ‘GUN VIOLENCE’. Wouldn’t you say that, since almost all the mass shooters have been ‘REGISTERED DEMOCRATS’, am I right? So why aren’t they (The Left) doing something to correct this PROBLEM. They need to focus on their Own, before they start Shooting each other and then there won’t be a DEMOCRATE party.
    It would be like a Day without War, or a Day without a single Shooting in the streets of ‘CHICAGO’.
    By the way, I am a Latino, Independent party, Conservative, Christian.
    But ‘AMERICAN 1st.’

  40. avatar Mike says:

    Leave it to a feminist to be wrong about EVERYTHING. Always. Again. Still. Her words have the same intrinsic value as a dog turd baking on the sidewalk under the hot July sun.

  41. avatar Richard Vickerman says:

    I have said it many times over and over that guns do not injure people, people injure people! Cars do not injure people, the people driving the car is the element that injures another! Knives do not injure people, people wielding a knife could injure someone but the knife itself has never injured anyone by its own action alone! People using instrument(s) can injure people and do injure people using instrument(s) but the instrument does nothing by itself as it is an inanimate object with no actual brain and no actual way to motivate itself! I shoot my guns all the time but my guns have never ever shot anything or at anytime by themselves, whether loaded or not loaded!

  42. avatar Russ H says:

    I’d love for Marcotte to explain her “theories” to my wife who is as girly as it gets, carries a pistol wherever she goes and owns an AR-15, a 45, and a lot more.

    More stupid lefty lib propaganda. How much you wanna bet she’s never even touched a gun? Somebody take her out shooting and convert her – converts are the best pro-gun advocates of all.

  43. avatar PeterK says:

    Right wing nutjobs are the right wing’s fault! Also left wing nutjobs are the right’s fault!

    Right. Well, glad we cleared that up.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email