Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Compare cell phone plans using Wirefly's innovative plan comparison tool ×
Businesses Television The Media

GunTV Aims To Premier 24-Hour Shopping Channel For Firearms 633

HughPickens.com writes: Mike McPhate reports in the NY Times that two home shopping industry veterans, Valerie Castle and Doug Bornstein, are set to premier GunTV, a new 24-Hour shopping channel for guns, that aims to take the QVC approach of peppy hosts pitching "a vast array of firearms," as well as related items like bullets, holsters and two-way radios. The new cable channel hopes to help satisfy Americans' insatiable appetite for firearms. The channel's forthcoming debut might seem remarkably ill-timed, given recent shootings at a Planned Parenthood in Colorado Springs and at a social services center in San Bernardino, California but gun sales have been rising for years, with nearly 21 million background checks performed in 2014, and they appear on track to a new record this year. The boom has lately been helped by a drumbeat of mass shootings, whose attendant anxiety has only driven more people into the gun store. The proposed schedule of programming allots an eight-minute segment each hour to safety public service announcements in between proposed segments on topics like women's concealed weapon's apparel, big-game hunting and camping. Buying a Glock on GunTV won't be quite be like ordering a pizza. When a firearm is purchased, a distributor will send it to a retailer near the buyer, where it has to be picked up in person and a federal background check performed. "We saw an opportunity in filling a need, not creating one," says Castle. "The vast majority of people who own and use guns in this country, whether it's home protection, recreation or hunting, are responsible . I don't really know that it's going to put more guns on the streets."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

GunTV Aims To Premier 24-Hour Shopping Channel For Firearms

Comments Filter:
  • Not ill timed... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Kenja ( 541830 ) on Tuesday December 08, 2015 @01:23PM (#51081941)
    Every time there is a mass-shooting or similar, gun sales go up because the marketing department of the gun manufacturing lobby (NRA) goes into full swing about how the gubement is gona take yer guns. So this is perfectly timed to capitalize on the latest shooting.
    • by cayenne8 ( 626475 ) on Tuesday December 08, 2015 @01:37PM (#51082101) Homepage Journal

      Every time there is a mass-shooting or similar, gun sales go up because the marketing department of the gun manufacturing lobby (NRA) goes into full swing about how the gubement is gona take yer guns.

      Actually, the NRA and gun manufacturers don't HAVE to do any marketing after a tragedy like this...the Democrats, led by Mr. Obama himself, often have their first or second words out of their mouths.."We need 'sensible' gun control"....they want to ban semi-automatic weapons that "look scary", etc.

      The second something happens, many US citizens are afraid with good reason from many of our elected officials, that they want to start banning and removing weapons.

      I added the removing of weapons, in that...if they banned the AR-15 tomorrow and the AK-47....unless they confiscate the existing ones, you'll not see a drop in their numbers for decades upon decades upon decades. There are just too many out there!!

      So, yes, for gun owners, the left start jumping up and down about more restrictive gun laws while the corpses are still warm minutes after a tragedy like this occurs.

      Funny thing is...it appears that overall, gun violence in the US has been in a downturn over the past number of years. It is just these "spree" killings that has seemed to have popped up lately.

      I'm still wanting to know what "sensible" gun laws will be. So far, this last one, happened in CA which has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the US, yet all weapons seem to this point to have been made legally. What laws would they introduce to prevent the recent shooting? Any more changes over the CA laws and you start to seriously impede law abiding citizens' rights to buy, own and use weapons, which are the vast majority of gun owners.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        Funny thing is...it appears that overall, gun violence in the US has been in a downturn over the past number of years. It is just these "spree" killings that has seemed to have popped up lately.

        I hear that multiple-shootings (and other acts of terror, insanity, or political action by violent means) in the US have also declined substantially. (Don't have a footnote handy or I wouldn't have hedged the statement, but it squares with my personal experience.)

        What has increased is news coverage of them when they

        • Here's some data for you so you don't have to rely on "I hear that ..." and "... my personal experience". I picked this one because it seemed to take a measured approach, including a reasonable definition of "mass shooting" than is generally used (in other words, there are more gun-related shootings than presented here because they don't fit the definition). Glancing through this, I don't see a distinct trend upward or downward in either frequency or fatalities. Certainly nothing I'd call "substantial".

          US [motherjones.com]

        • Here is the best analysis of the best data I've seen...

          http://fivethirtyeight.com/fea... [fivethirtyeight.com]

          If only someone with more official access could study this in detail ( http://www.pri.org/stories/201... [pri.org] ) maybe we wouldn't have to guess

    • And it has nothing to do with Hillary saying she wants to take them, right?
    • by k6mfw ( 1182893 )

      Every time there is a mass-shooting or similar, gun sales go up because the marketing department of the gun manufacturing lobby (NRA) goes into full swing about how the gubement is gona take yer guns. So this is perfectly timed to capitalize on the latest shooting.

      I don't think they have to fire up their marketing dept, more people go to gun stores shortly after a mass shooting anyway. There are ***only two*** political positions. One group wants more regulation, the other wants less. Each group is so opposed to the other's views there will never be agreement (really, take a look at the replies. All are "you are anti-American, part of the problem," etc. and this is why nothing will ever get done). The more shootings the more gun sales, and the more drive for various

  • by Lumpy ( 12016 ) on Tuesday December 08, 2015 @01:26PM (#51081963) Homepage

    Cheaper than Dirt is where most guys that really like guns go as you can get all the parts you need. Cabela's lets you fondle them and will have prices better than most gun shops. And ordering a gun online or from a shopping channel will have to be picked up with the added fees at a local gun dealer anyways so unless they are 30-50% less on everything than normal sources it will be an epic failure of a channel.

    • Yes, I guess that is the issue. Enthusiasts are probably not going to shoot themselves cleaning their gun. Someone that is talked into buying a gun on television? A bit scary if you ask me.
    • by PopeRatzo ( 965947 ) on Tuesday December 08, 2015 @01:32PM (#51082043) Journal

      Cabela's lets you fondle them

      But not naked. I know because I've tried.

    • Cabela's is a beautiful store instead you stop and think, "Everything for sale in this huge, overdecorated store is dedicated to one purpose: to help people kill things!" (Ok, maybe some of the kid's toys are an exception.)
  • by xxxJonBoyxxx ( 565205 ) on Tuesday December 08, 2015 @01:28PM (#51081989)

    >> debut might seem remarkably ill-timed, given recent shootings at a Planned Parenthood in Colorado Springs and at a social services center in San Bernardino, California

    The market for this channel (hunters, rural or suburban gun owners) isn't the demographic that kills for its political beliefs (Planned Parenthood), religious beliefs (San Bernardino), shoots up schools, or is involved in street gangs. Selling more guns and accessories to these folks won't increase violence one iota.

    • Holy shit, somebody that gets it. It's a miracle.

    • by PopeRatzo ( 965947 ) on Tuesday December 08, 2015 @01:38PM (#51082117) Journal

      The market for this channel (hunters, rural or suburban gun owners)

      How would you know that? TV shopping channels are all about impulse purchasing. That's why they have so many deals that have a timer on them.

      The demographic they're going for may well be people who are sitting home alone watching cable TV at three in the morning, half-drunk and pissed at their ex-wives, angry at the boss. Let's face it, a lot of "GunTV viewers will be people channel surfing after an evening of watching Fox News and looking for solutions to their problems that are all focused on "them people out there".

      • TV shopping channels are all about impulse purchasing. That's why they have so many deals that have a timer on them.

        Because to see those timers, you have to be watching the channel, and the intended market for those who will be watching the channel are exactly as the OP said. Who cares if a decent, law-abiding citizen buys something from that channel because he wanted to beat the timer to get a good deal? He's not going to decide to go shoot up a school just because "I got this gun with 32 seconds left on the Flash Deal on Gun TV!".

        The demographic they're going for may well be

        it may well be exactly as stated. You putting motives in their mouth doesn't make it true.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      Sort of like how letting all the Syrian refugees come to the the US won't increase violence one iota since the demographic of Syrian refugees isn't terrorists.
    • by OzPeter ( 195038 )

      Selling more guns and accessories to these folks won't increase violence one iota.

      So the bell curve doesn't exist on your planet?

  • "Valerie Castle and Doug Bornstein, are set to premier GunTV, a new 24-Hour shopping channel for guns" " I don't really know that it's going to put more guns on the streets." I'm pretty sure those two things are mutually exclusive. I'm not sure how them selling a metric shit ton of more guns will not put more guns on the street, unless they are being very specific. Not many people store their guns on the street, so maybe that's their angle.
    • Because 'the street' is neither going to be watching GunTV, nor going to their local gun store and getting the background check.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 08, 2015 @01:34PM (#51082061)

    "Guns Are for Pussies," [thepaincomics.com]
    Timothy Kreider, February 8, 2013

    One of several reasons why the “debate” over guns, like a lot of other debates in this country, has been so intractable for so long is that neither side trusts in the other’s honesty or good faith. Each side believes its own stated arguments to be, quite simply and truthfully, their real arguments, and sees their opponents’ arguments as transparent smokescreens for their "real," more insidious agendas.

    In my more charitable moods I ascribe gun owners’ passionate attachment to these weapons to fear. Their fear is grotesquely distorted--cultivated by the media and exacerbated by their own chosen propaganda--and guns are a delusional means of placating that fear, a semiautomatic security blanket. But fear is at least a motive I can empathize with. But I also suspect that some gun owners are driven by something deeper and creepier—a kind of castration anxiety or overcompensation, for which guns serve as fetish objects.

    It’s clear enough to me that gun-owners’ need for their guns is just that—not a liking or a right but a need, something irrational and scary, the sort of thing that, when you try to take it away, makes them not just sorry or mad but frantic, insane, dangerous. They remind me of those types on the other end of the political spectrum for whom the legalization of hemp is the single most important issue in the United States today. It’s not that I disagree with those guys, exactly--our nation’s drug laws are ridiculous and unjust, a waste of resources and a crime against all the people in prison for a piddling offense, and by now pretty much everyone from the President of the United States on down has done bong hits, so it obviously should’ve been legalized decades ago--it’s just that I don’t think any of those perfectly valid reasons are the real reason the issue is so important to them. It’s because they’re addicts. In fact gun advocates' behavior is scarily similar to that of addicts when you try to gently divest them of their required substance: they offer up every good argument in the world why this thing is harmless, beneficial, even, it's vitally necessary, a God-given right, and it’s none of your goddamn business anyway, until finally they abandon all pretense of debate and bare their teeth and start foaming at the mouth threatening to kill someone.

    It’s sort of a pro forma convention of editorials about gun control to insert a disclaimer about how you, the author, grew up in some backward gun-happy Red state and owned your first rifle when you were twelve and enjoyed many happy hours sitting in a duck blind with your grandpap. Unfortunately my parents were Mennonites and pacifists and I grew up thinking of people who owned handguns as fearful and weak, and of people who killed animals for fun as sick. To be fair, I have met some gun owners in adult life who’ve given me cause to moderate these judgments, like my friend Randy, who worked with me going door-to-door for the environment back in the day, campaigns for local Democratic candidates, and makes his own excellent barbecue sauce, and once shot a 600-pound boar, an animal so large there was literally not one room in his house big enough to contain its mounted head. Or Erik, who is cooler than me for many, many reasons, including, obviously, having the same name as the Phantom of the fucking Opera, as well as being the front man of a punk band, a Baltimore City public school teacher, and a collector of Orwell first editions, but also because he has a sleek steel G-man briefcase that turns out to contain several handguns cushioned in custom-contoured foam rubber, including a .357 Magnum, the kind Dirty Harry uses.

    Erik once took me to an indoor shooting range in Baltimore, where I got to fire a rented Thompson gun (it’s Baltimore—you can do anything there). I was

  • by Nidi62 ( 1525137 ) on Tuesday December 08, 2015 @01:34PM (#51082065)
    Now, I could be different from most gun owners, but I don't really see the draw for something like this. As the summary notes, if a firearm were purchased like this it would have to be shipped to an FFL that the buyer could pick it up from, but most FFLs charge a fee for handling transfers like this. And for me, before I purchase a firearm I want to hold it and inspect it. Even when I have purchased firearms off the internet the actual transaction was done in person so I was able to inspect the weapon before completing the transaction. Also, in the case of (most)gun shops, you know exactly what gun you are buying because the saleman takes it off the rack or shelf and hands it to you for you to look at, then will walk it over to the register or process the transaction there. I really would not want to purchase a firearm sight unseen.
    • I don't really see the draw for something like this

      One look at this will explain it all for you:
      https://www.google.com/search?q=hot+chicks+with+guns&biw=1600&bih=731&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjiiPmm58zJAhUBRWMKHdOZAYsQ_AUIBigB

    • That's really been the only thing stopping me from buying at gunbroker.com so I know what you're saying. The fees aren't huge but everything adds up. You buy the gun and the price is most likely not anything special. I mean, maybe it's a little bit cheaper but mostly the prices there are in line with anywhere else you might look. Then you pay shipping for it and if the seller happens to be a business in your state you even pay tax. Finally they ship it to a gun dealer near you and you go pay that guy too. I
      • by dbc ( 135354 )

        That, and the fees charged are fixed by law. So doing the DROS paperwork without making the sale is a net money loser for the gun dealer. I like to support the local guys as much as I can, and most of them are happy to order anything special that you might want from their distributors anyway.

  • by sjbe ( 173966 ) on Tuesday December 08, 2015 @01:40PM (#51082137)

    The boom has lately been helped by a drumbeat of mass shootings, whose attendant anxiety has only driven more people into the gun store.

    Which is among the most bizarre reactions ever. I'm amazed how many people have the delusion that they are going to defend themselves with a gun despite the clear evidence that it almost never actually happens. Do you really want to live in a world where everyone is packing at all times? I sure don't. I have no problem against people owning firearms (I have some myself) but I think everybody arming themselves out of fear is anything less than insane.

    The proposed schedule of programming allots an eight-minute segment each hour to safety public service announcements in between proposed segments on topics like women's concealed weapon's apparel, big-game hunting and camping.

    Which is pretty much akin to Anheuser-Busch having anti-drunk driving messaging right after an ad showing how much fun you'll have with their product. More than a little hypocritical and arguably a mixed message. The NRA is nothing more than a (very effective) lobbying arm of the firearms industry. It's remarkable how many people have bought into their propaganda.

    "The vast majority of people who own and use guns in this country, whether it's home protection, recreation or hunting, are responsible . I don't really know that it's going to put more guns on the streets."

    The fact that most gun owners are responsible is true but irrelevant. The problem is that some people ARE killers and we can't tell who they are in most cases prior to them putting bullets into people. It just takes one unhinged person to commit a mass murder. You can do all the background checks you want but they aren't perfect and the simple fact is that would-be criminals continue to have easy access to firearms and continue to commit murders at an alarming rate. It is simply ludicrously easy for mentally ill people to get firearms and ammunition and groups like the NRA fight even the most reasonable efforts to contain the problem tooth and nail.

    • by Indy1 ( 99447 ) <spamtrap@fuckedregime.com> on Tuesday December 08, 2015 @01:51PM (#51082245) Homepage

      "I'm amazed how many people have the delusion that they are going to defend themselves with a gun despite the clear evidence that it almost never actually happens. "

      Clear evidence? Hate to say it, but even the Department of Justice under Clinton (no friend of lawful gun owners) says there are several million defensive uses of firearms per year.

      Also check the studies by Kleck out of FSU.

      https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles... [ncjrs.gov]

      • by sjbe ( 173966 ) on Tuesday December 08, 2015 @02:08PM (#51082491)

        Clear evidence? Hate to say it, but even the Department of Justice under Clinton (no friend of lawful gun owners) says there are several million defensive uses of firearms per year.

        "Several million"? Did you actually read what you linked to? It directly contradicts what you are claiming. The estimates from a variety of sources vary wildly and many are no where near the millions. Furthermore the numbers were from a PHONE SURVEY which is detailed in the document. If you think that is a reliably way to estimate this problem you don't understand the problems with phone surveys. If you need to see a badly designed survey look no further. The numbers from these surveys are easily demonstrated to be nonsense. It says point blank that the estimates you indicate are clearly nonsense.

    • by Nidi62 ( 1525137 )

      The boom has lately been helped by a drumbeat of mass shootings, whose attendant anxiety has only driven more people into the gun store.

      Which is among the most bizarre reactions ever. I'm amazed how many people have the delusion that they are going to defend themselves with a gun despite the clear evidence that it almost never actually happens. Do you really want to live in a world where everyone is packing at all times? I sure don't. I have no problem against people owning firearms (I have some myself) but I think everybody arming themselves out of fear is anything less than insane.

      I think it's a combination of 2 things, and both are actually kind of illogical ways of thinking. The first is, as you said, protection. They want to protect themselves and so want to get a gun. Now, as a gun owner myself, I don't expect to ever have to use on of my guns for protection (I do keep one by my bed though, just in case). However, most people who rush out and buy one for this reason might go to the range once or twice and therefore wouldn't have the skills or training necessary to protect the

    • by ScentCone ( 795499 ) on Tuesday December 08, 2015 @03:59PM (#51083505)

      Which is among the most bizarre reactions ever.

      Yes, it seems bizarre because it's the writer deliberately misrepresenting the situation. People don't run out to get a firearm because of rare mass shootings, they run out to get one out of concern that low-information voters and/or disingenuous politicians are going to make it harder to get one in the future.

      I'm amazed how many people have the delusion that they are going to defend themselves with a gun despite the clear evidence that it almost never actually happens.

      What? It happens at least tens of thousands of times a year, and depending on how you want to measure it, hundreds of thousands (brandishing a gun to prevent or end an assault, for example, is a common use of a firearm in self defense, even though shots aren't actually fired). What's your definition of "almost never?" An Uber driver in Chicago - who has a conceal carry permit - used is personal weapon to end a "mass shooting" event on Friday. The only injury was to the guy with the illegal gun who was starting to shoot at a bunch of people on the sidewalk. Didn't hear about that one? Yeah, I didn't think so. Near here in Baltimore yesterday, a couple of guys stomped into a retail store waving a shotgun around and announcing a robbery with threats to kill anyone who resisted. Someone in the store shot the one guy dead, and the other ran (and was eventually arrested). This stuff goes on all the time, and it's only your deliberate choice to ignore it that (or more likely, pretend that you don't know about it) that makes you comfortable saying "never actually happens." It happens all the time. Start googling for women home alone who fend off home invasion assaults with a family firearm: I'm sure the long list of those women you think don't exist are very glad to have had the means to defend themselves.

      The problem is that some people ARE killers and we can't tell who they are in most cases prior to them putting bullets into people

      Yup, just like people driving cars. Some are irresponsible or even malicious, and between them, kill far more people that murderers with guns. People with pipes, clubs, and bare hands kill more people every year than those with all shotguns and rifles of any kind combined (says the FBI).

      It is simply ludicrously easy for mentally ill people to get firearms and ammunition and groups like the NRA fight even the most reasonable efforts to contain the problem tooth and nail.

      Now you're just lying. The NRA fully supports purchase blocks do to mental illness. What you're complaining about is that families, friends, and coworkers who know that somebody is dangerously unstable won't bother to subject those people to legal/medical scrutiny. That's a political correctness problem that is WAY up stream of the retail gun purchase layer.

      • I agree with all of the above and I'd add when it comes to statistics it's very hard to put a number on the amount of times a person displays a weapon to discourage a violent confrontation and never reports the incident. I don't know anyone personally who has fired a weapon in defense, but I've heard many stories in my personal circle where a violent encounter was averted by the potential victim displaying a weapon. These incidents often go unreported.

  • Have we really failed to progress so much that TV Shopping is still a viable thing? No browseability, no price comparisons, not enough resolution for detailed tables, options lists, specs, etc? Are there people just sitting on their couches, credit card in hand, waiting for some guy on the TV to wave a gun and tell them what number to call to Order Now, Supplies are Limited!

    Between Ye Olde in-person purchases, catalogs, and the internet; who is buying from what is basically a stream of infomercials? Espe
    • Between Ye Olde in-person purchases, catalogs, and the internet; who is buying from what is basically a stream of infomercials? Especially modestly expensive gear like guns; surely you do a little looking around, rather than just impulse-buying whatever happens to be in front of you?

      Lonely people. Sad, lonely people.

  • What a lot of techies who are largely city folk don't realize is that there is a huge market for this in the rest of the country. The NRA is in a full-on marketing push scaring people into buying guns because they're worried about gun control even being talked about. I think something like a gun shopping channel might push some people who are on the fence into buying weapons "for protection" -- mild-mannered exurban moms or dads might be persuaded by a "think of your children" sales pitch, especially if you

    • "Most gun owners are anti-government?" do you have facts to back up this ridiculous assertion? Most gun owners are no more anti-government than you are. They vote, serve jury duty, and respect the law and obtain their firearms by legal means.

  • If this shows up on my cable box, it'll be the first channel I ever bothered to block (aka Parental or whatever). First, tho' I'll call Xfrackity and threaten to terminate all services if they don't kill the channel entirely.

    Won't help, but it'll make me feel better.

  • I can see how bullets are gun-related. Same with holsters and other accessories. But why two-way radios?

  • by ewhenn ( 647989 ) on Tuesday December 08, 2015 @01:56PM (#51082315)
    Billy Mays here for Glock. Act now and get your Glock 19 with a FREE carrying case! But wait there's more....
  • Can't wait for the first accidental shooting right on the air.
    It's *going* to happen. More people are accidentally wounded by their own guns than *any* other form of gun violence. It's sad to say, but the vast majority of gun owners don't know squat about how to handle a gun.

  • ... The channel's forthcoming debut might seem remarkably ill-timed, given recent shootings at ...

    It is very well known that every mass shooting actually creates a spike in gun sales, run on the ammunition stores. My friends, yes I do have a few gun enthusiast/nutcase friends, were complaining that they could not get any ammo, especially 0.22 after Newtown.

  • (Your fucking) God fucking bless fucking America.

  • by fred911 ( 83970 ) on Tuesday December 08, 2015 @02:22PM (#51082611)

    How can any sensible person agree that it is prudent to deny any constitutional right based on a list that:

    #1 Is not public domain.
    #2 Has no real process of removal.
    #3 Has no real specification for entry.

    I can't believe we have a president that believes the public is so stupid as to place trust into an organization that repetitively breaks the laws it was designed to uphold.

"Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods." -- Albert Einstein

Working...