Targeted: Exposing the Gun Control Agenda (2016) Online

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

At least on Netflix it advertises itself as talking about both sides of the debate.

It does not. It instead hints at a liberal-socialist conspiracy to disarm the American population in an effort to control them and introduce a new Soviet style fascism. It's a message heard in rhetoric only and void of any substance.

It points to the lose of one life because of Obama's policies on guns, and ignores the rash of mass shootings that plague America.

And when it does mention the Mass shootings, it only implies that they happened because of a gun free zone. Instead of questioning how the shooters legally purchased their guns, and then used them to massacre unarmed people, it implies that the shootings wouldn't have happened at all had there been more guns.

Kind of like say that the best way to put out a fire is to pour gasoline on it.

And then it addresses the US government as Christian and, more specifically as Calvinist Christian.

So yet again, we have conservatives skipping over the 1st Amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech, assembly, and religion, in an effort to make the 2nd Amendment the only factor in our nation's freedom and excuse themselves of the Constitutionally guaranteed burden of allowing for the differences that make us free.

Netflix says that this title shows debates from both sides of the argument. It grasps at any positive message about gun control and it's connections are broad enough for a conspiracy theory, then grasps at any negative message they can find for the argument that guns are bad. Completely biased from the beginning when you see the interviewer with a gun and is clearly "Targeting" any way to defend the freedom to bare arms to make his daddy proud of him. To make this a more balanced documentary it would have been better to see the interviewer try to defend his point against a parent of a child killed in the sandy hook massacre. (Which some believe is a conspiracy itself and I hope they enjoy their lives the best they can while not honoring the deaths of twenty children.) Although it's an interesting perspective, to see the creators of this documentary take 5% of information on guns in America and present it as God's message of hope to all Americans is hilarious to watch. A grandiose message obviously born of the creators emotions pertaining to the subject.

I couldn't help laughing my ass of when a man is shown making a death machine and angelic music is played in the background. That's my bias.

The three stars is just to reward the money and effort put into the film and nothing else.

As a math teacher the statistics in this documentary made me angry. There is no sources and scaling was all off. Not to mention the young man goes and talks to white mostly men about gun control. Why not go talk to some one who has a different opinion than you and actually listen to them. So horrible.

Skilled filmmaking and editing throughout, yet this approach to a "personal journey" to "understand" is really a red herring approach. As a documentarian it's really unbalanced.

You realize pretty quickly it's weighted to gun ownership with no restrictions. Armed with our constitutional rights, which should not be questioned or regulated we go from one talking head of authority to the other beating the same drum.

Fine...you made your point within 12 minutes of the film with a whole 55 minutes to go. It becomes boring pretty quickly.

Rapid fire statistics while nicely animated, will only always serve the viewpoint of the message at hand. Regulation is bad and crime goes up because of it. Message received.

While I have my own views about the issue at hand (I'm an archer not a gun owner) I'd say if you love guns you'll be nodding your head "yes" to everything but there's a chance it's ground you've heard covered before.

If you don't love guns, you'll probably be angry and bored.

If you sort of like guns you'll probably be bored and move onto something else.

Good luck.

This is a rare find. It seems as though most documentaries support the media's official story of what is happening (not just on guns). The liberal bias is so strong in the US that at this point people will look at statistics and facts, and instead of questioning the world around them, they will believe lies. The statistics speak for themselves. Mass shootings are awful, but the truth is...all it would take is one person with a gun to stop it. The media never mentions the mass shootings that are stopped by a gun carrier. (Yes! It does happen. Look it up.)

Do politicians have agendas? You bet! Conservatives have agendas. Liberals have agendas. (Neither is right all of the time.) It does no good to ignore statistics, and the right and left both do this. This is not propaganda (as some have claimed). It is gun control from the perspective of a gun owner. The other reviews demonstrate the effectiveness of the media propaganda machine. This movie seems to mainly give affirmation to gun owners in order to let them know they are not alone. That being said, this is exactly what makes this documentary weaker in my opinion.

I wish this movie had been geared more toward educating liberal leaning non-gun owners, which brings me to my only complaint. It fails to address the root of the problem which is ignorance concerning guns. It's clear that a large portion of left leaning individuals (civilians and politicians) need to be educated on guns. The media does not give the full story concerning gun violence. This documentary seems to assume the person watching knows and understands guns...as well as the history of the 2nd amendment. For instance, it shows a media clip of a senator incorrectly describing a homemade automatic rifle (which no amount of legislation can ever prevent a crazy criminal from making insane weapons). Many people who have no experience with guns would watch these clips and believe them without a second thought. (Either the clips are blatant anti-gun propaganda, or the people in these videos are just ignorant concerning guns.) Anyway, he never explains what is truly wrong with what is being stated in these video clips. Of course, what is being stated by the politicians in these videos is so ridiculous he assumes people will see and understand just how ridiculous it is. Unfortunately, a lot of people will not understand. People need to be educated on guns in order to understand. He even says this at one point (when the politicians are invited to a gun show). I think his argument could have been enhanced if he had explained all the terms used within the anti-gun argument: "assault rifle," "clips," "automatic," "semi-automatic," etc. The other reviews on this movie demonstrate the fact that people do not understand these terms. Also, one review falsely insinuates people used to own guns for hunting, and that's why the 2nd amendment exists. This is just plain false. The 2nd amendment was put in place to protect people from the government. The British began taking guns around 1774, and it can be argued that this led to the Revolution. It was a power grab on the part of the British, and this is why the founding fathers bothered writing the 2nd amendment. The constitution was written in response to British occupation. Obviously, a little 2nd amendment history may have helped some viewers. I wish he had explained all of this a little better. That way ignorance would not be the reason for so many bad reviews.

Unfortunately most of the media forums today cater more to a liberal agenda which is unapologeticly biased & ignorant in their philosophy towards firearms and "gun control". I was surprised to find an unbiased documentary on netflix on the philosophy of use of firearms and self defense today. I found Targeted to be refreshing, informative and honest. It explores a lot of what most already know. However it also brings to light clear underlying motives to disarm law abiding citizens by exploiting mass shooting tragedies that often could nor have been prevented even with the most extreme anti gun policies. Highly recommended.

The movie has all valid points but isn't presented for mass consumption. Already knowing everything brought up in this movie, I found it entertaining to finally see some unbiased facts, guys like Rand Paul, and some examples of firearms used in self defense, and the exposure of the fast and furious scandal presented on film. The parts in Switzerland were really interesting - actually presented the moral of the story in a more emotional, person to person kind of way. It really was the highlight of the movie for me.

But in general - it's too alarmist(even if it's rightfully so) and cold for the sunny ways general public. It isn't your average agenda driven film with a lighthearted presentation to ease you into their view. It comes out swinging and that's going to turn people off. A lot of these politician and the general public aren't acting in malice, they just don't know any better. The media feeds them bs 24/7 and you can't really be surprised at the results of that. Some sympathy for their ignorance goes a long way.

If you watch this doc and are intrigued, give this a watch too, Hidden Influence: The Rise of Collectivism

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.

This is by no means an unbiased presentation, but it's worth watching, particularly if you support gun control, to understand the other side of the conversation. Unfortunately, most of those for gun control will probably be turned off. Even as a straight up defense, there are aspects for which he could have given a more in-depth explanation. Included in the people he talks to are law enforcement officers who have dealt with violent crime and legal and Constitution experts who offer a perspective on what the 2nd Amendment says. I would like to have seen more discussion on the existing laws compared to what gun control advocates say they want, as that is often left out of the conversation. Much of what is continually proposed already exists. He throws out some statistics which I would have liked to see some discussion of, as well as his source and why he considered it valid. Valid statistics are actually quite difficult to find. Most of what is available is biased info from sources like CPRC and Bloomberg. He also touches several times on the idea that our founders believed our rights were given by God and, therefore, could not be taken by government. Again, I would have liked a more in-depth discussion, or at least more explanation of the religious/spiritual beliefs of the time and those that influenced their thinking. For instance, though Jefferson did not subscribe to Christian dogma in relation to the divinity of Christ, he did have great respect for the moral teachings, even penning two works on the subject. I do think he does a fair job of contexualixing the 2nd Amendment and why it was so important. He only alludes to the fact that many politicians advocating for gun control have no clue what they're talking about. An explanation of their errors and how they affect the issue would have been helpful. The shots of the craftsman making the gun stock is beautiful, but the message is too subtle. I think what he was going for was to show the skill and care it takes, as well as relaying the idea that for many gun enthusiasts a well made firearm is a work of art. Probably the best part of the film is his trip to Switzerland and the discussions with people there. We so often here about other countries with more stringent gun control laws. Seeing the issue from the perspective of a people who value the right to bear arms as we do was very enlightening.

Not a gun worshiper or anything, but Id like to ask everyone, including the archer and statistical geniuses... What are you gonna do when someone or multiple people try to break in your home and they are armed??? You think the police will get there in time to save you? Look at police response time statistics, start there, please... (Retired) Or you gonna get your bow and arrow? A baseball bat? A knife? Try to make a phone call? Hit your panic button on your alarm and hope they run away? GOOD LUCK! What if they aren't there to just take your valuables? Are you seriously that naive to reality? Turn off the news, put down the newspaper please and get over your fear of guns. Go get "training" on one because guns aren't going away, and neither are the criminals that have them. Do you think if the government says "no more guns or else" that it makes it all better and safer? AGAIN... GOOD LUCK...