Previous Post
Next Post


“It is the feeling of safety, and maybe a little bit the feeling of power. That is what a lot of Americans say they get from gun-owning, which is ironic because if they looked at the statistics they ought to get a feeling of fear. Protecting your family is a fine notion, but a lot of the time it is in fact the family of gun-owners who get shot.” No, that’s not the lefty Guardian’s editorial page. Instead, it’s the intro to a piece about tendentious images of everyday people with targets superimposed over them intended to drive home the point that, yes Virginia, guns really are bad . . .

To remind people of this – and to make sure the message doesn’t become bogged down in subtlety – the designer Anthony Burrill, the art director Ewoudt Boonstra and the copywriter Zack McDonald have created Innocent Targets, a new series for gun ranges. But in place of the hoodlums and terrorists that everybody loves blowing apart, the team have used pictures of ordinary people.

Yeah, I’m not sure how many gun ranges will stock these targets which feature thought-provoking “statistics” related to each image (for the image at the top, “Abused women are five times more likely to be killed if their partners own a gun.”) Never mind the fact that many facilities already ban targets that features any kind of human image.


As the Innocent Targets web site solemnly proclaims,

There are an estimated 18,000 shooting ranges operating in America today. Many of these shooting ranges sell custom targets featuring thugs, terrorists, aliens and zombies.

The painfully ironic truth is that the real targets of gun violence aren’t these fictional “bad guys” but rather our real-life friends, neighbors, co-workers and children.

Nope, no chance of this hoplophobic trio getting bogged down in anything that will be confused with subtlety. The project is really just a thinly veiled promotional effort for their “creative studio” business. Mission accomplished.

Previous Post
Next Post


    • Since they ignore logic, their next campaign will be against SUVs.

      It is the feeling of safety, and maybe a little bit the feeling of power. That is what a lot of Americans say they get from gun SUV-owning, which is ironic because if they looked at the statistics they ought to get a feeling of fear. Protecting your family is a fine notion, but a lot of the time it is in fact the family of gun SUV-owners who get shot killed.

  1. Will there be a model featuring corrupt politicians, function-less government bureaucrats, and obnoxious internet trolls? Because I’d buy a few packs of those.

  2. they (the anti’s) always seem to spew the kind of vile hatred they are so fond of attributing to the pro-gun side.
    be it inflammatory violent social media posts, threats of SWATing, or the mess shown above. the anti-gun crowd does a pretty good job of promoting more gun control through their own behavior. CLEARLY some people aren’t stable enough to own a firearm. like those who would think to put a young girl’s image on a paper target.

    now, maybe Shannon wants to contribute her image….

  3. A woman dressed modestly, covered with an apron while baking. Just imagine if a conservative artist put that image out there…

  4. I love this! Because the more that the artsy-fartsy set and their hoplophobic enablers do stupid sh!t, the more regular, normal people will think that hoplophobes are full of sh!t.

    When your opponent is overplaying his hand, let him.

    • +1. Remember when the US StateRunMedia went nuts over Sarah Palin’s mention of “targeting” someone, and the supposed bulls-eyes on the website…

      Remember the horrifying targets the DHS had purchased for training- the pregnant woman, the kid, etc? And the reaction to that level of stoopid?

      Just let them play this up a bit more…

  5. “targets featuring thugs, terrorists”, “fictional “bad guys””

    Righttttt, fictional gang bangers and terrorists. Where is my Inigo Montoya meme?!

    I imagine said limey bastages are about to get a whole lot more fictional sharia crammed up their proper brit keisters.

    • because only Whites can be victims in MDA’s twisted world. What part of SHANNON IS RACIST is the forum not understanding??

  6. Accidents count as violence now … ?

    I am too apathetic to their cause to look for confirmation on their 1000 hunters per year claim…seams high. Either drop a zero, or divide by two.

    I’m sure there are word/numbers games being played in the house wife statistic as well.

    • The word game with the battered spouse thing is that there is no mention ever of the actual problem of abuse and the implication that it is better to die from any means except a gun.

  7. “The posters in this series are available for purchase below, with proceeds going to The Coalition To Stop Gun Violence.”

    What a surprise that is…

    • “The Coalition To Stop Gun Violence” – because being maimed or killed by a gun is so much worse than being maimed or killed via other means.

      If they were intellectually honest, they’d change their name to “The Coalition to Stop Gun Ownership.”

      But that won’t happen since they know the only way to push their agenda is to lie.

      I wonder if they have Jonathan Gruber on their speed dial.

      • Don’t you guys know anything!? ONLY guns kill people! Knives and bats and fists don’t kill anyone. Those aren’t weapons! And they don’t shoot bullets, the only known way to kill a human, GOSH!

  8. I don’t know. That guy with the binoculars looks kind of like a creeper. Could be a peeping Tom or potential rapist :p

  9. Yeah, funny how the 10 ring doesn’t shift in the guilty / innocent targets.

    2nd target is too isis-ist for me. Wearin’ his sister’s coat and hat while using his dad’s bino’s, yeah, I’d down him.

  10. “The painfully ironic truth is that the real targets of gun violence aren’t these fictional “bad guys” but rather our real-life friends, neighbors, co-workers and children.”

    And if you believe even the most conservative number, 48% of violent crime is gang-related. From the FBI National Gang Threat Assessment

    Gangs are responsible for an average of 48 percent of violent crime in most jurisdictions and up to 90 percent in several others, according to NGIC analysis. Major cities and suburban areas experience the most gang-related violence. Local neighborhood-based gangs and drug crews continue to pose the most significant criminal threat in most communities. Aggressive recruitment of juveniles and immigrants, alliances and conflict between gangs, the release of incarcerated gang members from prison, advancements in technology and communication, and Mexican Drug Trafficking Organization (MDTO) involvement in drug distribution have resulted in gang expansion and violence in a number of jurisdictions.”

    Painfully ironic indeed.

    • No irony at all NYC2AZ. You just demonstrated with a simple, irrefutable fact that violent criminals (usually members of criminal gangs) are responsible for the lion’s share of violent crime in our nation.

      Thus, if violent criminals are responsible for almost all violent crime, mild mannered people who happen to own firearms are not likely to harm their family, neighbors, and friends with those firearms.

      • And by far most gang violence has to do with drugs, which people fight over only because of the falsely-named “War on Drugs” — which means that the government is subsidizing the creation of violence in this country.

        Your tax dollars at work.

  11. There are a surprising number of squares (especially on the left) who can’t tell the difference between fantasy and reality.

    Shooting a target like this would be in poor taste, but it doesn’t hurt anyone.

    And yet these people who confuse fantasy and reality have problems with kids playing video games. Hmm. I smell projection.

  12. Innocent my hat! That woman is clearly trying to poison you with e.coli-containing raw egg cookie dough.
    FMJ is too good for the likes of her!

  13. I dunno.

    That target with the dude looks like he might need shot. He got rape beard and the binos aren’t helping his case. Situational I guess. Out on a hike, A-OK. In a tree in my backyard looking my kids’ windows, pew, pew pew…


  14. I don’t know if I would call those two “innocent” she’s obviously suffering from münchausen by proxy and is slowly poisoning her kid and new husband. The guy is an obvious peeping Tom and we know that’s only going to escalate to rapist.

  15. “Protecting your family is a fine notion, but a lot of the time it is in fact the family of gun-owners who get shot.”

    A similar comment came up in “The Blacklist” in season 1. Something along the lines of “A homeowner is more likely to get shot with their own gun than not” or some such…

    Anybody have insight into the origin of the “numbers” that lead to folks to make such statements?

    • If it is true at all it is dependant on the fact that most gun owners are highly moral people who go to lengths to avoid hurting people. Their argument is a false pro/con statement where the con is obviously the dead or hurt innocent and the only supposed pro is a dead/wounded assailant. Another handy set of numbers from iirc the FBI indicates that over 90% of defensive gun uses happen with no shots fired, these are legitimate defense scenarios where lethal force was found acceptable. But the defenders avoided applying that force at often great risk. The next time someone tells you those “odds” ask him how it can be true if the Brady campaign it’s self estimates some 80,000 cases of self defense a year? For their claim to be true some 40,000 innocents would have to die yearly above and beyond the actual gun homicide numbers.

    • Yes. It is quite simple. You are more likely to get shot by your own gun than if you don’t own a gun.

      It’s a manipulation of words and language.

      John Lott has talked about this further. One extension is that some studies have shown things like guns in a home result in someone in that home being more likely to be shot. What Lott has specified, however, is that what is NOT quoted along with that stat is that no distinction is made regarding WHO is shot. The studies can include a home invader being shot in the act of committing a violent felony by the homeowner defending his and his family’s lives.

      In other words…it’s ALL based bullsqueeze. The Anti’s Lie….about EVERYTHING. They never miss an opportunity to manipulate and lie about what happens.

      Note that they NEVER include a citation to the actual studies/data to support that assertion.

    • They start by only counting firearms uses where people are killed — driving the bad guy away, or wounding him so the cops can find him better, or holding him for teh badges don’t count.

  16. I think they are right, fictional “bad guys” are not shot for real very often. I don’t think we are supposed shoot anybody real at the range though. Also, maybe they hope to sell these to people who want to shoot ‘our real-life friends, neighbors, co-workers and children.’

  17. If they got hipster targets I’m getting them, too.

    The chick looks to me like of them Stepford wives and she ain’t even stirring that stuff in the bowl anymore. Drop her toot-sweet.

    The dude is either a creepy pedophile type who hasn’t updated himself in the state’s offender registry lately and is out wandering around, or he’s a “special operator” recently discharged for severe PTSD and scoping out your crib for ‘hadji in the wire.’ I’d drop him.

    And thanks for the laffs tonight; I needed some.

  18. Note a couple of things about this:
    – The numnuts who designed and produce the posters are BRITISH; there is no dog in the fight.
    – The CSGV is getting buckets of grief from their own members over the poster series.

    Karma can be a bitch sometimes.

  19. It’s painfully ironic that these Artist-Provocateurs in a revealing oversight, have not a single person of color among their innocent. Given that people of color are disproportionately the victims of violence…


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here