Ethics Gun Fetishists

Want to Shoot Your Ex Girlfriend? There’s a Target For That

After Zombie Industries was asked to stop selling their bleeding Barack Obama target at the NRA’s convention this weekend, others soon discovered that the same company also sells a target called “The Ex,” meaning your ex girlfriend. You can shoot her and, if you land a hit, she will bleed.


As Feministing points out, up to 40 percent of women who are murdered in the U.S. each year are murdered by their past or present boyfriends or husbands

Not to make light of it, because this is reprehensible, but Louie CK once touched on this subject and made a serious point about violence toward women.

Where are we going? To your death, statistically.

  • js hooper

    Imagine how fucking INSANE you have to be to think this shit is cool or even in the universe of acceptable.

    Our nation’s gun laws are being defeated by people who openly fantasize about murder.

  • IrishGrrrl

    That mannequin/target is one of the most disgusting things I have ever seen. As usual Louis CK sees humanity so clearly. He really is brilliant, able to take the deadly serious and make it funny by pointing out the absurdity of it.

  • mrbrink

    That’s some sick snuffer motherfucker factor right there. That mannequin appears to have been beaten, tortured, possibly raped first, seeing as how she may have no legs, but she’s not wearing any bottoms, either. So she comes pre-beaten, tortured and raped and all you have to do is finish her off. They’re servicing a severely mentally defective clientele, here, regardless of the sicko novelty of it.

    That Louie CK stand up was brilliant as always, but he mocked the food chain earlier saying that “we’re out of the food chain.” Like, “there’s no cheetah’s at the train station.” I’m laughing just thinking about it, which is certainly the case for men, but he got me thinking by the time he got to this point that when it comes to women, men continue to be a woman’s ‘cheetah at the train station.’

    • Christopher Foxx

      So she comes pre-beaten, tortured and raped

      Make no mistake, this is a sick product. But I don’t see the bruising, cuts, rope marks, black-eyes or anything that would suggest the target shows a woman was “beaten, tortured and raped”.

      The folks who thought this target up and sell it are disgusting. There is a lot to object to. It isn’t necessary to make stuff up to support your disgust.

      • mrbrink

        She’s been stripped. No bottoms. The place where a waistband would be is non-existent. Her shirt is open, exposing her bra, which is something women don’t normally do.

        And this is where you get to STFU and stop lecturing people on what is and what is not the correct lens and the proper view.

        It’s a fucking bloodied, half-naked torso– on a pike.

        Make no mistake. You are wrong. And when you soften the extreme, you are worse than a fucking Wingnut because you should fucking know better.

        • Christopher Foxx

          I’m not softening the extreme (whatever the hell that means) nor lecturing nor excusing the extreme one iota for their actions. I’m stating that don’t see what you do and refusing to use their methods of making shit up.

          In just the past day here I’ve seen a response to a conservative who made offensive comments which consisted of little more than complaints that he looked funny, a response to the latest Republican hypocrisy that contained only grade school playground insults to their intelligence and your claiming additional qualities in a mannequin which is already grossly sick on its face.

          Is that really the best objections folks can come up with? His eyebrows look crooked, they’re doody heads and clearly it’s a woman who’s been tortured?

          To be clear here, based on the description I saw elsewhere of this mannequin and the Obama one as being “blood filled” so that the would “bleed” when hit I assumed the blood was a result of it having already been used for target practice and not part of the original design. If that is the original design, then I concede it is a depiction of someone who has already been severely abused.

          But my objection to childish and hyperbolic responses to things which are easily legitimately criticized remains and I won’t STFU on expecting a higher standard from the (supposedly) non-childish, non-irrational left than we get from the right.

          • mrbrink

            Well, I object to your not-so-well-thought-out objection, clearly. Because your depth perception is cockeyed and you are obviously compiling some sort of cockamamie list of posted insults you find disagreeable to use as some sort of false equivalency for everyone. I just used “cockeyed” and “cockamamie” to describe your observational skills. Write it up as: “No better than Wingnuts.”

            All I can say has already been said, so I’ll let the image of a stripped, bloodied, female torso on a pike that you shoot at speak for itself.

            You can obviously decide for yourself what a sexually assaulted woman looks like and whether or not the mannequin was asking for it.

            All I’m reading from you is: “Yeah, the target is sick, but I can’t see the more deeply disturbing subtext, so you are no better than a Wingnut.”

            You should apologize for wasting my time.

          • Christopher Foxx

            Mrbrink: And this is where you get to STFU … you are worse than a fucking Wingnut

            But, yes, revise it to claim you’re just using terms like “cockeyed” and “cockamamie” and I’m the one to first say “No better than Wingnuts.”

          • mrbrink

            You rearranged my words. That’s cheating.

          • Christopher Foxx

            You rearranged my words. That’s cheating.

            It’s a straight copy-n-paste. You’re lying.

  • nicole

    Evidently they think it’s open season on women. Those fucking bastards.

    • Lady Willpower

      That’s all year round for these fuckbags.