This documentary from Wintons Motion Pictures asks and answers the increasingly tough questions regarding gun control in America.This documentary from Wintons Motion Pictures asks and answers the increasingly tough questions regarding gun control in America.This documentary from Wintons Motion Pictures asks and answers the increasingly tough questions regarding gun control in America.
- Director
- Writer
Photos
Storyline
Did you know
- TriviaIn February 2017, Writer/Director Jesse Winton wrote a piece on the Medium publishing platform publicly expressing regret for producing Targeted. In the piece, he said: "So, I regret making Targeted. I regret that it was fundamentally biased toward a particular viewpoint. I regret that it lacked empathy towards anyone that wasn't a supporter of the Second Amendment, instead judging their motives as evil. I regret that it was endorsed by someone who said that Rosa Parks' contribution to civil rights was 'absurdly inflated.' I regret that it was endorsed by someone who's sense of class prompted him to compare pictures of Hillary and Chelsea with pictures of Melania and Ivanka with the caption 'Make America Hot Again.' I regret that it lacked any empathy towards people that have lost loved ones to gun violence. I know that facts are facts, but I also know that the fact remains that people die through gun violence every day. I don't understand that experience, and I hope I never will, and while I still think freedom is the best form of government, I can't judge the people like the Sandy Hook parents. Saying all of this doesn't mean that I'm anti-gun, I'm not. It doesn't mean that I hate the NRA, (but I kind of do). It doesn't mean that I don't think that this is an important issue still, all issues of freedom are important. All it means is that I regret this project, and I wish that it wasn't what it was.
I can't change the past, but you can be pro-freedom and still pro-person. Regrettably, I didn't find the right line."
Featured review
Good filmmaking but laughably biased, misleading and/or uninformed film
This film is a propaganda piece. The typical gun lobby and pro-gun politician talking points are front and center. There is a middle ground where people would like some sensible gun laws without supporting the prohibition of all guns but that is not seen here. The argument of this film, and pro-gun people in general seems to be that we can never stop people from getting a gun because they will get one no matter what the law is. Strangely those same people have no problem backing laws against illegal drugs or just about any other crime. The fact that setting a goal that legislation correct 100% of the problem is an impossibility that nobody would, or should, expect is not mentioned. Facts and figures are cherry picked without context. For example, a reduction in violent crime statistics between 1992 and 2011 is cited without mentioning that it occurred when the overall crime rate consistently dropped and, perhaps more importantly given the topic of the film, the federal assault weapons ban was in effect for 10 of those 20 years. Whether or not that ban helped with the crime drop we can't know for certain just as we can't know if the "loosening of gun restrictions" the filmmaker references during that same period affected the crime rate. What is clear is that an assault weapons ban, similar to the one gun control advocates want now, during this period could not be classified as a "loosening of gun restrictions." There are no opposing viewpoints offered except for unintentional ones. For example, there is quite a bit of time spent reiterating that criminals will get guns no matter what the regulations are and yet when a Fox News reporter is interviewed about the "Fast and Furious" operation that resulted in a Border Patrol agent being murdered with one of the guns ATF lost track of during that operation, she states that the death of the agent was "a direct result" of the operation. She seems to be saying that if ATF had not given the cartel the gun, the agent would not have been shot dead. I think it is safe to say, and several of the interviewees did, that the cartel would have found the firearm somewhere else without ATF's help. The Fast and Furious operation was clearly wrong but the practices that underpinned the operation (selling guns to criminals as a means to later arrest and convict them) began in 2006. Of course, that is not mentioned because a Republican was president at the time. If it's wrong for Democrats it is wrong for Republicans too and vice versa. That is something that seems to be lost on people these days.
So many things in this film are glossed over or misrepresented. The gun show loop hole is mentioned but the argument against doing anything about it seems to be that some gun control advocates were invited to a gun show but declined to go. I think the suggestion was that since they did not attend the gun show they don't know what they are talking about. The gun control loophole is not an opinion, it is a fact. There is no mention that the loophole it is used to sell firearms without a background check. The law was never meant to allow a person to sell a firearm to a complete stranger at a gun show but that is exactly what happens (in states where the state law has not already closed the loophole) at many gun shows.
Perhaps the most ridiculous argument to be made is that the government wants to take away all guns so they can control people. The idea that the government needs to remove the firearms of citizens to control them is laughable. The intent of the 2nd amendment may have been for the people to have the means to rise up against oppression but the fact the technological advances between what citizens owned vs what the government could muster against them has progressed to the point where the power and weapons of the government could easily oppress the citizens without taking away any firearms at all. This is even more obvious when one realizes the majority of citizens do not own a firearm and a paltry 3% own more than half of all guns.
Yet perhaps the most absurd comment is made regarding the city of Chicago. The fact that Illinois has strict gun laws but Chicago has high rates of gun deaths is theorized to occur because the city is "full of gangs and serial killers." This comment reflects perhaps a mixture of ignorance and unconscious racism.
Finally it is ironic that the filmmaker doesn't seem to realize that his home state (California) has some of the strictest gun laws in the country while also having one of the lower rates of gun deaths per capita.
This film offers nothing that couldn't be seen in a pro-gun segment on Fox News.
helpful•610
- gregtmaclean
- Dec 20, 2018
Details
Box office
- Budget
- $250,000 (estimated)
- Runtime1 hour 7 minutes
- Color
- Aspect ratio
- 16:9 HD
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content
Top Gap
By what name was Targeted: Exposing the Gun Control Agenda (2016) officially released in Canada in English?
Answer