Targeted: Exposing the Gun Control Agenda (2016) Reviews

• Freedom to love your gun

  alienrobotboy2017-04-16

  The words 'Free' and 'Freedom' are spoken about 200 times in this so called documentary. I hate those words. The reason? The sunshine and lollipop idea people have of the meaning of those words does not exist in this world. Gun owner or not. It does not exist. Their biggest point in this documentary is that 'good gun owners' keep 'evil gun owners' at bay. When has a 'good' gun owner ever taken action in one of the hundreds of mass-shootings that have occurred in the US over the past few decades? Never. Not once. They run, like most people would, and the police go in and take control. A lot of 'good' gun owners buy assault rifles and hand guns without any formal training at all. In fact most gun owners in the United States have ZERO training in how to use a gun properly. There are no laws that require this. Now that is insane. The second amendment never had the concept of assault rifles or semi-automatic pistols in mind. It was written at a time when guns were used almost strictly for hunting. Stricter gun laws are badly needed in 2017, and that is not unconstitutional. Hunt all you want but Joe Blow from Atlanta does not need an assault rifle or semi-automatic. Its insanity. This documentary also fails to point out that the United States has, by far, the most guns crimes/death/murders/accidents of any nation on Earth. In fact you can add all of the other 'Free' nations of the world together and they don't come close to the number of gun crimes the US has. Baltimore alone has more gun crimes in a week than Canada has in a year. Those are the facts.

  More

• Biased and Faulty

  cgstein2018-02-09

  In my high school debate class, we are discussing gun control and my teacher chose to show us this documentary. The bias towards the more conservative side of American politics is displayed almost immediately, and is consistent throughout the entire piece. All of the people Mr. Winton interviews are extremely pro-gun, and their credibility is questionable, with a famous outdoors celebrity and pastor being cited as experts on the issue. The absence of the other side of the argument is glaringly obvious, almost to the point of distraction. Not one person that holds an opposing view appears throughout the entire film. There is factual evidence presented, however, it is generally vague and refers to "studies" but does not cite any one specific study, which calls into question the validity of this evidence. These "studies" also conveniently support every assertion he is making, one of his sources being a Fox News correspondent. These loose claims and flimsy evidence are a common trend throughout the film. Faulty analogies are often made, with the "Cars are deadly, shouldn't we ban them too?" As well as comparing the gun situation in Switzerland to the gun situation in America. The entire rhetoric of the film is extremely emotionally driven, with vague patriotic statements made to evoke a feeling of nationalism or pride. The caricature of the government and the left as tyrants that only wish to take away the freedom of the people only contributes to this emotional agenda. This documentary is quite a divisive piece, clearly catering to one side while demonizing the other. As you may have been able to tell, I lean more towards the left when it comes to politics. However, I have been curious as to what the other side thinks about the gun issue, and I was hoping that watching this documentary in-class would show me this new perspective I was hungering for. I feel like this film made some valid points. The absence of knowledge on the left when it comes to guns, in my opinion, is an issue, to name one point. However, the obnoxiously blatant errors and fallacies present within this piece overshadows any kind of objective reasoning this documentary was trying to bring to the table, if at all. A true documentary that explores both sides of the issue maintains objectivity throughout. Without that objectivity, it cannot and should not be taken seriously. This film only illustrates that truth even more. If you are looking for an objective piece on the topic of gun control in America, this is definitely not for you. If you are looking for an over-dramatic and biased inflation of "the truth", you will love this.

  More

• A Polemic, Not a Documentary

  kmburc2017-08-05

  Please give the title of this documentary full attention when considering whether to watch —the words "targeted" and "agenda" were not chosen lightly. If, by assumption or misguidance, you were expecting a balanced exposition of each side of the gun control debate, this is not the place to look. The filmmaker's sympathies are clear from the outset, and he does little—by which I mean nothing—to challenge them. Gun ownership is traced back to the time of the American Revolution and the Constitution (and later to other countries), while the movement for gun control is presented as if it materialized in the last decade and not over the last century. Evidence-based argument begins with anecdotes, but even when statistics are presented, they are at lightning speed, without critical context, and of questionable veracity (e.g. no consideration for developed/industrialized vs. non-developed/industrialized nations, vague remarks as to regulatory trends without examples). The filmmaker exclusively gives voice to those who agree with his own leanings, while the opposition is represented via a montage of carefully-selected, unflattering television clips. "Taking away all guns" rhetoric isn't questioned whilst the filmmaker ponders why the other side seems blind to "facts" and conclusions he believes are "obvious." One interview subject nearly made me quit the film completely due to the twisted rationale of him being an "expert" on the perversion of information, despite his career putting him directly in the class of people the filmmaker wanted him to criticize. (The expert's complete failure to conclude his point due to becoming distracted by self-satisfaction mid-anecdote didn't help, nor did his former position lend credibility.) The most frustrating moment comes when the filmmaker interviews a veteran police officer whose experience—career and in the context of the story he shares—could easily serve as an illustration for some of the most common proposed gun reforms (e.g. stricter screening, stronger/ongoing training requirements). It seems like a gross lack of insight to not recognize such as a point of weakness in his approach, not that more should be expected given how blind the filmmaker is to any alternate view throughout. The lack of debate weakens the central premise by never presenting a challenge and the result is a 70+ minute polemic. The number of minds this film will ultimately sway? Likely zero. Not due to closed- mindedness, but due to the fact that it caters shamelessly to an audience that doesn't require convincing.

  More

• Film is based on false premises

  caveat-933432017-05-06

  The file practices revisionist history , uses false analogies and anecdotal situations. It sounds allot like an evangelical sermon. The abuse of statistics and a poor or misguided understanding of history makes this file intellectually dishonest. The constant reference to the founding fathers and the declaration of independence as being devout Christians or inspired by Christian ideals is a patent falsehood. The founding fathers were mostly deists and agnostics and better read than many members of the present day congress. They insisted on the separation of church and state as they were aware of the European conflicts and upheavals caused by religious zealots. The gun culture in the U S. is nothing to be proud of but rather the a symptom of a deeply disturbed society in need of help.

  More

• A Film Is Far From Neutral and Filled with Bias

  dfwenigma2017-02-26

  I like to follow the money because it tells you a lot about people. Money is the great aggregator. Friend or foe, good or bad, money says a lot. Jesse Winton is 21 years old. His first major foray into filmmaking cost $250K to make according to IMDb. How did a 21 year old obtain a quarter of a million dollars to make a film? Where did that money come from and why? A modicum of research reveals Mr. Winton is the child of a Bluegrass Christian family who have made a consider amount of money in religious music. Randy Winton appears to be the producer and with a bit of research one finds Mr. Randy Winton affiliated with Christian Home Industry. Mr. Jesse Winton mentions "freedom" in his monologue. The voice-over for his film is decidedly programmed. His perspective is that of an individual who has grown up thinking and believing in what his peers and their parents call a "Christian lifestyle". Not to say they aren't Christian or to disparage them. What I am stating unequivocally is that when you live in a bubble – right and wrong, good and bad, freedom and enslavement are obvious. And you see the world through that lens. So travel, viewing things from someone else's perspective, is very difficult because critical thinking is discouraged. In fact there is no balance in the film Jesse Winton has made. But what's more disturbing about the mindset is how easily taken in people would be who subscribe to this framework. Mr. Winton pretends to be "exploring" and "learning" but in fact he began his film from a certain socio-economic and political stance and he sought facts to reinforce that stance. He claims, as others have said, to view the gun control issue from multiple perspectives. But what Mr. Jesse Winton and his father Randy found in their interviews were people of like mindsets. They both are experiencing "boiling frog", that concept that says a frog will literally boil rather than move and think for himself because that's what the frog has always done. If Mr. Jesse Winton received a classical education and were forced to face his belief system critically, then he could say that he could make films that are of independent thought and neutral stance. Sadly, a large distribution network like Netflix is moving from a more liberal social stance to one that is decidedly more conservative, perhaps in response to its market. This is unfortunate since originally the company appeared to reach out to new and exciting producers and directors who absolutely were making Indie films. This film is Indie from a technical perspective, but it reinforces the thinking of the status quo. Far from coming from a perspective of freedom, democracy and social justice, this film reinforces both the gun control lobby and its proponents. Mike Huckabee, for instance, received substantial donations from PACs and SuperPACs as well as industry donations which were in support of the gun lobby, which closely align with is personal philosophy and those of his constituency. That Jesse Winton sought him out and didn't seek out someone who was diametrically opposed really shows the lack of quality of this film. The Christian- centric, Calvinist, right-wing community will closely identify with this film because it reflects their socio-economic values. Largely supported by white, middle and upper class white neocons, the fringe support for this type of edutainment is sadly broad – in those constituencies. And sadly, more to the point, the Donald Trumps, the Mitch McConnells, the Ted Cruz's align themselves closely with these groups who support and provide succor for rather disturbing political stances which do not protect our democracy and freedoms but instead expose them to the potential for right-wing sponsored hate crimes and fascism.

  More