Fake Gun Store used shaming tactic to convince buyers not to purchase

Dial back the temper a couple notches will you... just trying to get to the bottom of this.
Couple times I asked on here if anybody knew any more details on this scenario, preferably if anybody in NYC had any updates on what happened to this group after shooting the video, since it seems there were visible violations.

Nobody responded so I tried to do some digging.... a couple google search links later and I came to this website
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/03/19/nra-affiliate-is-so-scared-of-this-gun-safety-v/202962

Here are some things I picked up
1. The video was developed by a group called States United to Prevent Gun Violence (SUPGV)
2. All guns used in the video were in fact fake
3. The clerk is actually an actor by the name of Ned Luke who was hired to play the role. Same person hired for GTA
4. NYPD was solicited to monitor the operations of the site
5. I did not see mention of actors playing as fake buyers from the link
6. Still do not know what would happened if somebody legit wanted to buy a gun from that store, whether a camera guy would jump out or the clerk would direct them to the next real gun store.
7. I did not see in their statement where there was call for a new gun law

Like I said, that what I found from the link. Maybe somebody in NYC can shed more light on this.
From those facts presented though this seems like an educational advertisement.
The buyers could just have easily brushed aside the clerks description and gone ahead with the purchase, so why didn't they?

The executive director said this in a statement

I did not see any mention of promoting a particular ant-gun law.
They did mention that they wanted to educate the customer.
And somehow this education convinced them not to buy a gun. So how do you square that?

 

guns were fake.

whole thing was approved by City Hall.

permits were acquired.

it was basically a reality tv show.

 

They lied and told the customers that each of these guns were the actual guns used in high profile shootings, including Adam Lanza's AR.

 

I watched the video again trying to listen out for the word "actual gun", didn't hear it though.
Maybe I'm interpreting what was said in the video differently.

But lets go with your version - the clerk described the gun as the actual one used in the high profile shooting.
Why would that bit of news persuade them to not buy the gun?
Couldn't somebody just as easily have said "Meh, that's horrible.... but I don't intend to use the gun for that purpose"?

Or maybe they edited out those customers, I dunno.
What is your take?

 

I doubt they portrayed it as the "actual" gun, since anyone with common sense knows those aren't for sale.

But to your question about editing, in this post and your previous... of course they only showed the results of the encounters that went the way they wanted.

Probably 10 videos were shot for every one that ended up in the final version.

Funny though that the actor they hired for their anti-gun video is one of the bigger felons in one of the most violent video game series' out there.
lol......

 

Come on Micketto, that's not fair to the first time buyers.
The production crew went all out to try and make it look like a real experience... the first time buyers couldn't tell the difference.
I wouldn't go as far as to say anyone with "common sense" could tell the difference.
Maybe they should have screened the buyers to check if they have "common sense" before entering the shop?

Before somebody posted that on here I did not realize myself.
I see in a facebook comment, he maintains that the his professional gigs and personal life are separate
http://bearingarms.com/desperation-gun-control-group-lies-gun-buyers-attempt-sell-fear/

But I guess actors can't do that in real life.
Brooke and Ridge from Bold & Beautiful must be setting a pretty twisted example in real life then?

Or.... then again, lets say I follow your interpretation of events. I can make this case....
It must be quite a statement if one of the most violent video game protagonists in the world is part of a video trying to educate first time gun owners.

True, every video goes through a lot of edits before it gets to the final version.
No doubt this one had some cut and paste as well.
With my little digging I don't know what was cut out though. I'm hoping somebody in NYC can post up more about this, some details that only people on the ground would now.
Barring that I would be jumping to assumptions..... and you would be jumping to assumptions too.

Or...... It appears I lack common sense

 

They are definitely trying to mislead these first time buyers into believing that these are the actual guns used in these hi profile shootings. The first guy even confirms that "this is the one".
They had to target first time buyers because anyone that knows anything about guns would have figured out the scam immediately.

 

Maybe. But that wouldn't have left them with much of a video.

Still, I didn't hear claims of "actual guns".... but I may have missed them since I only skimmed the vid.

Meh... I just find it funny on behalf of the message they're trying to send. Wasn't judging the guy, in case you thought he needed defending.
Nothing wrong with playing both sides of the fence... unless you want people to take you seriously.

No idea what that meant.

We'll probably never know. I assume things like messed up script reading, or someone saying "OK, how can I buy that?" and the actors becoming dumbfounded, or the dozens who probably said "Uh, you don't have the actual gun".

Which is why I say things like "probably", "I doubt", or "I assume".

I can't answer that one for ya.

 

An anti-gun actor who stars in violent films or video games that glorify the use of firearms is a hypocrite: End of story. To say that his "professional life and personal life are separate" in this matter is lunacy. It would be like an physician who performs abortions every day saying, "My professional life and personal life are separate, and in my personal life I am actually a staunch pro-life supporter."

In fact, it is hard to find better examples of hypocrites than these vocally anti-gun actors, who are protected by armed bodyguards who carry "extended magazines" while staring in movies that promote the most reckless use of firearms, all the while making the firearms that they are brandishing in these movies cool and appealing.

It reminds me of Richard Donner, a huge anti-gun guy, who directed the 'Lethal Weapon' films. 'Lethal Weapon' was an nothing less than a commercial for the Beretta M9 (or Beretta 92FS), since it had Mel Gibson in his prime raving about his Beretta throughout the movie. There is no doubt that Richard Donner sold more M9 handguns than Beretta's advertising division could ever hope to. It boggles the mind that these anti-gun people do not see the extent of their own hypocrisy.

 

Absolutely.

Always love when some actor speaks out with their anti-gun BS... when on break from using them in their movies.
Penn, Wahlberg, Stallone, etc.

 

You mean facts about gang bangers? remove gang related homicides and you're talking an new realm of statistics. Also, lets not forget these gang bangers aren't legal gun owners either.

So yeah, you remove gang related homicides (or murders/gun crime in the ghetto) from the equation and the gun crime would drop 75%+.

Legal gun owners aren't running around killing people or committing crimes with guns - gang banger punks are.

 

Correct.... the bulk of our gun violence stats are not from legal gun owners.
Anti gunners have trouble distinguishing between legal owners and illegal owners.

 

They're also incapable of doing that because that would require the progressive anti-gun nuts to admit that blacks are responsible for the majority of homicides by gun in the United States, which is obviously something they will never do.

Of course instead they would rather ignore the gang violence and attack middle class gun owners, as if we're the ones pulling the drive by's.

 

Agree; hey, don't I know you from somewhere?

 

all the anti gun "studies" deliberately confuse legal and illegal gun owners. for example, many of the studies that claim a "gun in the home" is X times more likely to shoot a family member" nonsense involves illegal guns in crack houses or cases where a criminal BRINGS the gun to a home that has no legal weapons and then shoots an occupant. in some areas, almost every murderer or murder victim has a record that precludes legal gun ownership: nationally, the number is around 75-80% (its hard to gauge the total since juvenile offenders or victims' records are usually sealed but many have what would be called felony records if they had committed the crimes as adults)

 

Now I will admit, I used a somewhat similar tactic when I sold guns, and with the full support of the owner of the store.

We sold pistols and rifles, and prior to making a sale we always questioned an individual as to why they wanted to buy a gun, and what their background was. And on more then one occasion if somebody said something like "Oh, I will not use it, I want to just scare a burglar if they come in my house", I would then refuse to sell them a gun. We also refused to even sell a BB gun if they said it was for defense, better to have no weapon then to try and confront an intruder with nothing but a toy.

Most gun stores are very responsible, and take the sale of guns very seriously. Like car salesmen, it only takes a small minority to give the entire profession a bad name.

But if I had heard of this I would have gone in and actually attempted to purchase a weapon. Then sue for false advertising and fraud when they refused to sell one to me (in adition to incorrectly describing the past of the weapon).