Does it irk anyone else when someone cites a tragedy/travesty when promoting a gun?

[Echo40]

Something that I occasionally see online that I find to be in really bad taste is when someone cites a tragedy or travesty as testament to any particular strengths of a firearm.

I really cannot wrap my head around the concept of using an occurrence that is distinctly bad as an example of how good a firearm is.

For example, just the other day I was reading an article on the AK-47 in which the writer praises the rifle for being easy to break down/maintain and uses child soldiers as an example. It's like, um... Yeah, what a great example. That's what I want to think about in association with this firearm, children being forced into combat. It's like, of all the examples you could have given, you chose THAT?!

Another example is when someone uses poachers of an example of how a weapon can be improvised into a hunting role. Honestly, you couldn't find one example of someone in a survival situation, like a soldier who got stranded in the jungle somewhere and had to use his issued weapon to hunt, you chose criminals who hunt animals illegally for profit, often resulting in ecological damage.
Again, what kind of backwards endorsement is that?! "Trusted by top poachers!"

But by far the absolute worst is when someone cites a mass shooting or something as an example of the effectiveness of a firearm or cartridge. Once again, they could cite police or military use, but no, they choose an example of terrorism, assassination, or mass murder.

I honestly have to wonder what side these people are on, what their true feelings towards firearms are, and exactly where there thoughts are centered when the examples they choose to illustrate the ease of use, utility, and effectiveness of firearms by citing decidedly negative things.

 

[johngross]

Gun owners are their own worst enemies. On gun forums it's not unusual to read something like this.

"I went to a gun show looking for a sniper rifle for my arsenal, but all I saw were assault weapons and Saturday night specials."

So in one short sentence they're using all the evil anti-gun code words. Sniper rifle, arsenal, assault weapons, and Saturday night specials.

 

[SnidelyWhiplash]

Even bad publicity is still publicity it seems. I, for one, would much rather see ads for guns be positive in how their use is approached.

The anti-gun people and politicians consistently use criminal misuse of firearms for their own ends and to further their agenda. I see no reason for us to do so to further our ends...I prefer a positive approach.

It's kinda like saying "Napalm only sticks to kids" to make a joke...gallows humor.

 

[ImprovedModel56Fan]

OP,

I see what you're getting at.

Yes, it does raise questions about the person using these cases.

 

[jbull380]

I must be hanging out on the wrong gun pages. Don't recall seeing any of that.

 

[Echo40]

It's not extremely common, just something I've been seeing lately in articles I've been reading that has been bothering me, and I've sren it from time to time on forums as well, albeit to a lesser degree.

I'm just starting to see a lot of patterns emerging lately in regards to the shady new infiltration tactics employed by anti-gunners on the internet to demoralize and vilify firearms enthusiasts.
They really hate it when I point out their dirty tricks though, hence why they instinctively one-star all of my threads on the subject as if that does anything but validate my threads.

But then again, they one-star all of my threads ever since I posted this...
Do you ever wonder if Gun Control Advocates lurk or even sign up on Gun Forums?

 

[mikerjf]

It's like we're shooting ourselves in the foot.

 

[NFrameFred]

The more I'm around people the more I like my dog . . . . . .

 

[smithra_66]

Something that I occasionally see online that I find to be in really bad taste is when someone cites a tragedy or travesty as testament to any particular strengths of a firearm.

I really cannot wrap my head around the concept of using an occurrence that is distinctly bad as an example of how good a firearm is.

For example, just the other day I was reading an article on the AK-47 in which the writer praises the rifle for being easy to break down/maintain and uses child soldiers as an example. It's like, um... Yeah, what a great example. That's what I want to think about in association with this firearm, children being forced into combat. It's like, of all the examples you could have given, you chose THAT?!

Another example is when someone uses poachers of an example of how a weapon can be improvised into a hunting role. Honestly, you couldn't find one example of someone in a survival situation, like a soldier who got stranded in the jungle somewhere and had to use his issued weapon to hunt, you chose criminals who hunt animals illegally for profit, often resulting in ecological damage.
Again, what kind of backwards endorsement is that?! "Trusted by top poachers!"

But by far the absolute worst is when someone cites a mass shooting or something as an example of the effectiveness of a firearm or cartridge. Once again, they could cite police or military use, but no, they choose an example of terrorism, assassination, or mass murder.

I honestly have to wonder what side these people are on, what their true feelings towards firearms are, and exactly where there thoughts are centered when the examples they choose to illustrate the ease of use, utility, and effectiveness of firearms by citing decidedly negative things.

?

Where are you reading these things? I'd highly doubt that a reputable organization is putting that out.

 

[Echo40]

I would link directly to the articles or at least name the websites who hosted these articles, but alas, I've gotten in trouble for that before, so I really can't. It's just something I've seen a lot lately while reading articles on rifles such as the AR/AK.

 

[Mike SC Hunter]

Buy the gun............NOT the story.

 

[old bear]

Gun owners are their own worst enemies. On gun forums it's not unusual to read something like this.

"I went to a gun show looking for a sniper rifle for my arsenal, but all I saw were assault weapons and Saturday night specials."

So in one short sentence they're using all the evil anti-gun code words. Sniper rifle, arsenal, assault weapons, and Saturday night specials.[/QUOTE

Statements like this are the same as shooting yourself in the foot. Please forgive the pun, but it's true. We firearm owners have to walk a fine line, we have to play nice, but hold the line.

 

[Echo40]

To me, it seems rather ridiculous having to tiptoe around by using creative terms to make weapons of war sound less threatening and more sporting...

"It's not a Sniper Rifle, it's a Precision Rifle."
It's not a Tactical Rifle, or a Battle Rifle, and it's most certainly not an Assault Rifle, it's a Modern Sporting Rifle."

I'm honestly surprised that nobody has come up with a similarly silly euphemism for Handguns yet. Or maybe they have and I'm just not aware of it yet...

Either way you look at it, it's a farçe, with one side desperately trying to vilify firearms and those who use them while the other desperately tries to convince everyone that such firearms exist strictly for recreational/sporting purposes, then proceed to participate in lengthy discussions/debates on what "Modern Sporting Rifle" is the best choice to "incapacitate" someone with.

Firearms Enthusiasts would be better served being honest by acknowledging that firearms exist primarily as weapons, but emphasizing their use as defense weapons to protect people from those who use them strictly for criminal purposes, and pointing out that sports/recreational shooting is fun, rather than making up euphemisms to make weapons sound less like weapons.
You don't see folks trying to pass off fighting knives as "Contemporary Culinary Cutlery" or battle axes as "Humble Hunting Hatchets" so why are we trying to pretend that long-range precision rifles weren't designed nor intended for sniping and that modern military rifles weren't designed nor intended for combat?

Honestly, it's unnecessary and just makes those who wish to uphold their Second Amendment appear disingenuous from the outside looking in. It isn't helping the cause, it's hurting it.

 

[adwjc]

Poor terminology

Probably something seen on the less respectable forums - not this one.

My son was just discussing a story he saw where a bunch of posters were complaining that the NYSP arrested a guy for "high-capacity magazines" loaded with 17 mixed rounds of 9mm, and the confiscated his $5,000 + in mixed bills that he was carrying, (in a known drug area).

I can't see sympathizing with a drug dealer, but some guys want to take 2A to ridiculous extremes. What are they thinking?

 

[BSA1]

The AR is not a Modern Sporting Rifle. It is Americas Rifle that should be owned by the militia which according to George Mason "The Militia is the whole of the people". I own my firearms to protect my family and myself against the abuse of power by Government which includes local, State and Federal. To use a current politically correct term like Modern Sporting Rifle is a disservice to the intent of the 2A. IMO the head of every household should own a firearm with a AR being a top choice.

 

[Ackley1952]

Why only the head of household ?

 

[rwsmith]

I would stop reading any ad or article....

...that exhibited such poor taste.

 

[Baltimoreed11754]

The role of a firearm can change from being a weapon of war or being used to commit a crime to a means to defend yourself from the criminal or from a dangerous animal to a means to feed your family or to a competitive sporting toy as quickly as you read this sentence. It's the man or woman using the gun that determines the role of the firearm, not it's caliber, configuration, color or ammo capacity. Men should be judged not the firearm for the evil they do. But its much easier to write laws about things than it is to strictly enforce laws broken by evil men or women. Case in point, one of Manson's gang got paroled last week. Was sentenced to life but the parole board said release her, Manson and his gang should have all been hung.

 

[tmd17]

...We firearm owners have to walk a fine line, we have to play nice...

When I look back on how much we have allowed to be taken from us as we politely smile and make "reasonable" compromises, it leads me to ask the following.

Why do we have to play nice with those that would disarm us if given the chance?

 

[BSA1]

Why only the head of household ?

Plenty of room for other family members but it is the responsibility of the head of a household whoever they may be (Father, Mother, Grandfather, Uncle, Aunt, etc.) to be a role model in the cause of gun rights.