NY Daily News: Gun Shows - Fun for the Whole family!

[brooklynite]

Aw shoot, they're cute

The NRA's flyer at gigantic weapons fest screams: 'Acres of guns! Bring the family!'

MILWAUKEE - The flyer for the 135th annual gathering of the National Rifle Association said to "bring your whole family" to see "acres of the latest guns."

...snip...

Among the gun lovers who had indeed brought their families was Peggy Irving of Missouri. She stood with her baby daughter cradled in a Snugli sling next to a display of the third-most-common gun on the NYPD list, the Smith & Wesson 9-mm. automatic.

...snip...

Her daughter is named Katie, and she is 16 months old, just a little younger than the Bronx 2-year-old who was killed Easter Sunday by a stray round from a 9-mm. Little Katie now reached out and touched a compact 9-mm. that was on display.

"Mama loves these," Irving told her.

http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/419718p-354357c.html

[Poll_Blind]

1. Could be worse, could be a holy book in her hands.

Gun ownership does not imply irresponsible gun use.

If people want to bring their children to gun shows, fine. I've known hundreds of persons, like myself, who grew up and were exposed to firearms which were used to hunt for food. I think some of those who shrink back from images like the one posted above don't understand that it is only the minority of gun owners who misuse these tools to "resolve" disputes or enforce criminal behavior.

A child with a holy book in their hands- now that makes me cringe. Though an athiest I support sky wizard worship 100% among my fellow citizens. However, I also believe that they are much more likely to hurt someone as a result of a misinterpretation of The Word of Ghod than if they are raised to use firearms responsibly.

PB

[1620rock]

2. This is creepy. eom

[Skittles]

3. nothing surprises me about gun nuts

they are one sick breed

[benEzra]

4. Our family has been to gun shows together...

and I went as a teenager with my dad. So?

At least a quarter of Dems, and at least that many indies, own guns, you know...

[yellowcanine]

5. So it is stupid to teach a baby that a handgun is something to be fondled.

What does that have to do with how many Dems own guns?

It is stupid and wrong for parents to teach children of any age that guns are toys.

[benEzra]

6. We are very careful to teach our kids that guns aren't toys...

but allowing a child to hold an unloaded firearm under close, careful parental supervision is not the same thing as teaching them to "fondle" the gun (whatever the hell that means), or teaching them that guns are toys. One thing it DOES do is demystify the object and take away the "secret forbidden fruit" aspect of it, though. We also store our guns in a safe when not in use, FWIW.

Our children (7 and 5) are allowed to handle toy guns only under our supervision, and when doing so they must obey the Four Rules of gun safety as if they were real guns (always point in a safe direction, finger off the trigger until ready to shoot, etc.). Good way to teach responsible gun safety habits, IMHO. When they're older and can differentiate between toys and the real thing, maybe we'll allow them to play with water pistols and such, or maybe not. That bridge has yet to be crossed.

BTW, my 5-year-old daughter has already informed me that she has dibs on the Ruger mini-14 with the Butler Creek stock when she turns 18... :)

[yellowcanine]

7. Look at the dang picture. That is a baby reaching out to touch the

handgun. That woman is not teaching gun safety to the baby. Nor is the baby capable of seeing the handgun as anything other than a pretty object. Give me a break.

[benEzra]

8. You think the camera that took that photo was just sitting on the table?

And just happened to catch a family letting their toddler touch a gun?

The newspaper photog obviously posed that shot, after finding someone willing to do so. "Hey, get your cute kid in the newspaper! Pose with mommy and her gun! Little to the left there...can the kid touch the grip? Thanks..." AS IF everyone who takes their young child to a gun show will be handing them guns...guns that aren't even theirs...

That photo isn't a candid shot; it was set up by the photographer for one reason only--one the family probably wasn't aware of--and that was to reinforce the article's underlying message that for a family to go together to a gun show is grotesquely wrong, a parody of all that's good. Evil NRA and its mindless drones, and all that.

I'm a writer; I see the story for what it is--a very well done persuasive essay, complete with staged photo set up for shock value. That photo wasn't trying to give you insight on gun-owner family dynamics; it was intended to make you cringe. The text and the photo constitute the type of persuasive essay that writing teachers give students A+'s for. Kudos to the writer and photog for their skill, but it's not "reporting" by any means...

Look behind the curtain. The writer is pulling your chain, and he succeeded.

[yellowcanine]

9. I have no idea and neither do you but if it were me and my kid she

wouldn't be posing with a gun for the camera. Parents need to exercise some common sense and this one didn't. Go ahead and blame it on the media and defend the NRA if you want but some things are just indefensible. As I said, give me a break. The media didn't force the NRA to advertise a gun show and encourage people to bring the whole family. The media didn't force a mother to let her 16 month old baby handle a gun for the camera. Yes the media is exploiting the situation but the situation was created by the NRA and an unthinking parent. How about we hold adults accountable for their actions instead of taking the easy way out and blaming the media?

Also, you claim an awful lot of knowledge for someone who presumably wasn't there. You can't know it wasn't a candid shot. Why is it "obvious" that the shot was posed? You are a writer - would you set up a situation like that? If not, why do you assume this writer/photographer has any less scruples than you do? Do you know him/her and the kind of work they normally do?

[benEzra]

10. Thoughts...

I suspect we are talking across a bit of a cultural gap here.

I have no idea and neither do you but if it were me and my kid she wouldn't be posing with a gun for the camera. Parents need to exercise some common sense and this one didn't. Go ahead and blame it on the media and defend the NRA if you want but some things are just indefensible. As I said, give me a break.

The misjudgement was in trusting the reporter, not in the shot itself. I'm not sure whether or not I have any photos of my kids touching firearms or not (probably not, since I'm the shutterbug in the family and am also generally the one supervising the child in such situations), but I DARN sure wouldn't have trusted a stranger not to exploit me and my family for political purposes like that.

What is it exactly about that photo that you consider indefensible? The fact that a child is safely touching a firearm, or that they did so in front of a professional photographer with a big camera?

The mother is holding the gun--an unloaded .22 caliber target/competition pistol rendered completely inert by a safety strap through the chamber--not the child. The fact that the child is touching it, under the mother's supervision, is not in my opinion something to be shocked about. Of course, I'm from an area where most households contain firearms, and where guns are not regarded as "power objects" as they appear to be where they are scarcer.

The media didn't force the NRA to advertise a gun show and encourage people to bring the whole family.

Sure they didn't. My question is, why is making a gun show a family outing considered at all remarkable? This was in Wisconsin, not Manhattan, Chicago, D.C., New Jersey, or other gun-free utopias. Wisconsin, a state where civilian gun ownership is normal.

The media didn't force a mother to let her 16 month old baby handle a gun for the camera. Yes the media is exploiting the situation but the situation was created by the NRA and an unthinking parent. How about we hold adults accountable for their actions instead of taking the easy way out and blaming the media?

Accountable for what? Trusting a photographer? What, exactly, is your objection to letting a child touch (not hold, touch a clean, unloaded, inert gun under the direct supervision of a responsible parent?

I let my children touch firearms, under my close supervision. I think that's important if you have guns in the home, as 40% of American households do. My children will grow up, as I did, knowing how to responsibly and legally use firearms, and when they reach the age of majority, they will have the right to choose for themselves whether or not to own them.

The fact that you do not understand the culture of responsible gun ownership, and its transmittal from generation to generation, does not a priori mean that the culture in question is somehow morally reprehensible. It's obviously just different from yours...

Also, you claim an awful lot of knowledge for someone who presumably wasn't there. You can't know it wasn't a candid shot. Why is it "obvious" that the shot was posed?

Have you ever done any photography yourself?

The photo angle and lighting, for one. Fairly large, quality camera. Probably an offset flash. Fairly wide angle/close focus, to make the small gun look bigger. Photographer is right in the child's face. (Notice how much bigger the child is than the guy standing right behind her, or the mom?) Girl is looking right at the camera. Mom is looking down at the child with the "proud mom" look. Photographer is kneeling. AND, they're holding a gun they haven't purchased, at least a step away from the dealer's table, meaning that they had to get permission from the gun dealer to take it off the table/out of the case and pose with it. Grok from that what you will, but it's Photo Composition 101. Tanquam ex unguem leonem...

You are a writer - would you set up a situation like that? If not, why do you assume this writer/photographer has any less scruples than you do? Do you know him/her and the kind of work they normally do?

I know the kind of work that author normally does; he regularly writes I-hate-gun-owners pieces for the Daily, and his work is prominently displayed on a number of gun-ban sites. BTW, did you happen to notice how he parallels nearly every innocent person and lawfully owned gun in his story to a brutal murder? Masterfully done...

Personally, I wouldn't set up somebody like that, because I don't think it's right to take advantage of people--especially children--in that way. But he feels he's on a crusade for the greater good, and apparently for him the ends justify those means. If his prejudices about legitimate gun owners were correct, maybe they would...but they're not.

[kiraboo]

11. I've read your exchange and I do think there is something of

a cultural divide on display here. Personally, I find the juxtaposition of a gun and a toddler in this photograph to be extremely offensive, but that is because I think guns are made for killing, and not for decoration. I find killing things for sport goes against everything I believe in. Now, hunting for food I feel differently about. But I still fail to understand the idea that a gun show is "fun for the whole family."

I think you either like guns, or you don't. I don't.

[benEzra]

14. You're quite right...

I've read your exchange and I do think there is something of a cultural divide on display here. Personally, I find the juxtaposition of a gun and a toddler in this photograph to be extremely offensive, but that is because I think guns are made for killing, and not for decoration.

You are quite correct. I think non-gun-owners (and non-handgun-owners) are conditioned to see guns/handguns as primarily being used to facilitate murder, rape, and robbery (how many positive news stories have you ever seen on gun ownership?), whereas most gun owners see them the way most people would view a finely crafted bow--something that can be used to kill, but that is overwhelmingly used lawfully and responsibly. Four in ten households in the U.S. own guns, after all.

I find killing things for sport goes against everything I believe in. Now, hunting for food I feel differently about.

I agree with you. Sport/trophy hunting would bother me immensely. I'm not philosophically opposed to hunting for food--in the abstract, I wholeheartedly support it, and I did go frog hunting once while a teenager--but I don't think I'd enjoy, say, deer hunting. Have never tried it, though, so it's hard to say.

But I still fail to understand the idea that a gun show is "fun for the whole family."

I think the archery example is a good one. I'd have no problem taking my children to an archery exhibition, letting them handle bows and arrows, even letting them shoot them (lethal weapons of war!) under my close personal supervision. I'd let them pose with the yew selfbow, the fiberglass compound, or the laminate recurve with nary a second thought. Probably, so would you.

The difference here is, most lawful handgun owners see handguns the way you'd probably see a fine bow. IMHO, that's the cultural difference that comes with growing up with guns, as opposed to growing up fearing them.

[kiraboo]

17. I think you put it very well. Let me ask you:

if guns were outlawed in this country, do you think murders would be committed with bow and arrow?

Kidding, of course.

[benEzra]

18. LOL...

I think you put it very well. Let me ask you: if guns were outlawed in this country, do you think murders would be committed with bow and arrow?

Kidding, of course.

LOL! Unfortunately, I suspect a similar proportion would still be committed with guns...assuming that the other underlying factors leading to criminal homicide (lack of mental health care, poverty and urban blight, lucrative illegal drug market, etc.) remained the same.

We have absolute prohibition on cannabinoids and diacetyl morphine. in this country, that has been enforced for something like 80 years now, often using paramilitary tactics, surveillance procedures and techniques that push the envelope of what's acceptable in a civilized society. The products in question disappear when used and have to be resupplied dozens of times per year. Yet it's probably easier to buy cannabis, heroin, or meth in any city in the U.S. than it is to buy prescription foot powder.

Unlike drugs, guns last for a thousand years and don't disappear when used...

If guns were completely banned in the U.S., criminals could just smuggle them into the country disguised as routine cocaine shipments...

[yellowcanine]

12. You sure make a lot of assumptions about people you have never met.

Me for example. What makes you think I don't understand the culture of responsible gun ownership? I grew up with guns. We had a single shot 12 gauge, two 22 rifles, a 222 rifle, a 30-30 rifle, a 243 rifle, and a 30- 06 rifle. My Dad taught us that the guns were for shooting animals - either varmits such as ground hogs, rats and pigeons - or game such as pheasants, rabbits, deer and wild turkeys. We were never to point a gun, loaded or unloaded, at a human. When holding a loaded gun we were always to be aware of where the bullet could go either directly or through ricochet. If we didn't know we did not aim or shoot. Guns were not to be loaded in the house, in a car, on farm machinery or while climbing over/crawling through a fence. We didn't have any handguns because my Dad didn't believe in shooting people and handguns are inferior to rifles and shotguns for hunting game or shooting varmits. I don't own a gun now because I don't hunt game and I have no need to shoot varmits. If I am ever in a situation where I want/need to do either I will get a gun then. But mostly I am content to handle nothing more lethal than a fishing rod.

My objection to the situation in the photo was that it was clear that the mother was delighting (judging by the smile lighting up her eyes) in the handgun as an object and teaching the child to do so as well. But a handgun is not a just a pretty object. It is an object designed to kill or threaten to kill humans. I just don't think it is appropriate to introduce to a young child. That is my opinion and it happens to differ from yours. It doesn't mean I don't understand the "culture of responsible gun ownership". It means I don't agree with your (or the NRA's) idea of what responsible gun ownership is. There is a difference.

The fact that the photographer obviously knows what he was doing does not mean he set up the shot. So he carries a high quality camera with him, used an offset flash, and tried to get a close shot at the level of the interest focus in the picture (the gun and the child - it is a story about children and gun shows, after all). Most professional photographers would do all of those things in that situation. A good photographer gets candid shots that appear to be set ups simply because they take a lot of shots/wait patiently/move quickly when the "perfect" shot presents itself. I had a friend who lay under his Volkswagon bus in a village in Tanzania for about 20 minutes to get "candid" shots of villagers carrying their produce to market. Were those shots "set up"? You tell me. They certainly would have gotton an A in Photo Comp 101. The gun is not on the table? Big deal, it still doesn't mean squat about who initiated the moment. That is a non sequitur. The woman is looking down at the child? Where is she supposed to look? She is showing her kid a gun and enjoying the moment. But again, you focus on the photographer. Did the photographer advertise a family gun show? Did the photographer force the mom to have her baby hold a gun? Taking such a picture is exploitative of the kid, I would agree, but it could not have happened without the enthusiastic participation of the mom, regardless of whether it was a "set up" or not. And the mom would have had to sign a consent form for the picture to be published, so she clearly fully participated in the exploitation of the child, at least as far as the picture itself is concerned, if not the article. But you say you don't see anything wrong with a 16 month old baby being encouraged to hold a handgun, so why would you be upset if someone took a picture of it, regardless of whether it is candid or set-up? I truly don't understand that attitude. Maybe you "cringed" a little also? Maybe you are not as comfortable with your notion of "the culture of responsible gun ownership" as you think? Or maybe it means nothing.

[benEzra]

13. More thoughts...

Me for example. What makes you think I don't understand the culture of responsible gun ownership? I grew up with guns. We had a single shot 12 gauge, two 22 rifles, a 222 rifle, a 30-30 rifle, a 243 rifle, and a 30- 06 rifle. My Dad taught us that the guns were for shooting animals - either varmits such as ground hogs, rats and pigeons - or game such as pheasants, rabbits, deer and wild turkeys. We were never to point a gun, loaded or unloaded, at a human. When holding a loaded gun we were always to be aware of where the bullet could go either directly or through ricochet. If we didn't know we did not aim or shoot. Guns were not to be loaded in the house, in a car, on farm machinery or while climbing over/crawling through a fence. We didn't have any handguns because my Dad didn't believe in shooting people and handguns are inferior to rifles and shotguns for hunting game or shooting varmits. I don't own a gun now because I don't hunt game and I have no need to shoot varmits. If I am ever in a situation where I want/need to do either I will get a gun then. But mostly I am content to handle nothing more lethal than a fishing rod.

Most of the above would also apply to my situation growing up, particularly the emphasis on safety, which apply just as much to handguns as to rifles. There were no hunters in our family, though, and we had more handguns than rifles. I learned to shoot using a .22LR caliber target pistol.

My objection to the situation in the photo was that it was clear that the mother was delighting (judging by the smile lighting up her eyes) in the handgun as an object and teaching the child to do so as well. But a handgun is not a just a pretty object. It is an object designed to kill or threaten to kill humans. I just don't think it is appropriate to introduce to a young child.

I would point out that the gun she is holding is a .22LR target pistol, which is certainly not designed to "kill or threaten to kill humans." However, I don't think either of us would view the situation particularly differently were it an S&W 9mm in her hand. That gun in that woman's hand is not a killing machine, because that woman is not a killer.

You grew up in a household with a .30-06, and don't see it as a human-killing machine, yet the .30-06 cartridge was originally designed to kill human beings at extreme ranges, and most bolt rifles are descendants of the Mauser 1898 designed as an antipersonnel weapon. They can still be used that way, and some are (Carlos Hathcock's military-issue Winchester Model 70 .30-06 was undoubtedly the most famous sniper rifle of the Vietnam War). Yet the VAST majority of .30-06's are not used to shoot humans, and your father's wasn't, even though they are entirely capable of being so used.

Likewise, I grew up in a household with handguns, was taught to shoot using a .22 target pistol, and the first gun I ever owned was a pistol (though unlike you, I was not allowed to use guns unsupervised as a child). Most of the recreational shooters whom I now know personally, started out shooting pistols rather than hunting rifles or shotguns. And the VAST majority of handguns are not used to shoot humans, and my father's wasn't, even though they are entirely capable of being so used.

Handguns and rifles are both guns; the handgun is less lethal but more portable. Neither are intrinsically evil, IMHO.

That is my opinion and it happens to differ from yours. It doesn't mean I don't understand the "culture of responsible gun ownership". It means I don't agree with your (or the NRA's) idea of what responsible gun ownership is. There is a difference.

Then I misunderstood where you are coming from, and I apologize for misreading you.

It is my opinion that responsible gun ownership does not consist of what the guns one owns looks like--small, large, walnut and blued, rifle or handgun, traditional styling or nontraditional--but how they are used.

The fact that the photographer obviously knows what he was doing does not mean he set up the shot. So he carries a high quality camera with him, used an offset flash, and tried to get a close shot at the level of the interest focus in the picture (the gun and the child - it is a story about children and gun shows, after all). Most professional photographers would do all of those things in that situation. A good photographer gets candid shots that appear to be set ups simply because they take a lot of shots/wait patiently/move quickly when the "perfect" shot presents itself. I had a friend who lay under his Volkswagon bus in a village in Tanzania for about 20 minutes to get "candid" shots of villagers carrying their produce to market. Were those shots "set up"? You tell me. They certainly would have gotton an A in Photo Comp 101. The gun is not on the table? Big deal, it still doesn't mean squat about who initiated the moment. That is a non sequitur. The woman is looking down at the child? Where is she supposed to look? She is showing her kid a gun and enjoying the moment. But again, you focus on the photographer. Did the photographer advertise a family gun show? Did the photographer force the mom to have her baby hold a gun? Taking such a picture is exploitative of the kid, I would agree, but it could not have happened without the enthusiastic participation of the mom, regardless of whether it was a "set up" or not. And the mom would have had to sign a consent form for the picture to be published, so she clearly fully participated in the exploitation of the child, at least as far as the picture itself is concerned, if not the article.

Agreeing to disagree on that.

But you say you don't see anything wrong with a 16 month old baby being encouraged to hold a handgun, so why would you be upset if someone took a picture of it, regardless of whether it is candid or set-up? I truly don't understand that attitude. Maybe you "cringed" a little also? Maybe you are not as comfortable with your notion of "the culture of responsible gun ownership" as you think? Or maybe it means nothing.

My problem with the "setup" angle wasn't so much that it was a staged shot, but that to me it seems likely that it was staged under misleading pretenses, and that I consider exploitative. I hadn't thought about the consent angle, and I wonder if the author told the pro-gun parents that their daughter's photo was going to be published as part of an exploitative hatchet job on the NRA.

Just out of curiosity, would you see anything wrong with a child being allowed to touch the stock of an unloaded, cleaned, safed Winchester being held by a parent? Perhaps you would, I don't know. I personally wouldn't. And as I mentioned before, I think dispelling the "forbidden fruit" mystique/"power object" myth is important if you have guns in a house with children, even if you keep them in a safe as we do.

[yellowcanine]

20. You need to look again at the picture. The babe is not merely "touching"

the grip - she has her hand around it below the mom's hand - mimicking the way her mother is holding the gun. There are times to introduce children to guns and other things that are potentially dangerous if misused. 16 months isn't it, in my opinion. I don't see any need to spend a lot of time introducing young children to guns. It is not a matter of "forbidden fruit" although I would say on that topic - when it comes to the possibility of a life bieng taken - there are some absolute lines that must be understood. Even a young child can take a life with a gun. So it is not a good idea to encourage a kind of benevolent neutral attitude toward guns in young children - a certain amount of respect/fear is healthy, just as a certain amount of respect/fear is healthy of a hot stove. When they are old enough to ask about them on their own - fine - questions should be answered truthfully (much like questions about sex) and if they express an interest in touching a gun - ok I can deal with that. But we are talking apples and oranges. Any child (actually, grandchild at this point) of mine is not going to be asking me at 16 months to touch a gun because there will be no gun to touch. I will not be taking them with me to any gun shows or displaying guns to them at my house at that age. And I am not going to be showing them condoms either at 16 months. 16 months is not a "teachable moment" when it comes to guns or how a condom is used, in my opinion. Both guns and sex have the potential to hurt you and a very young child is not capable of understanding the dangers and thus should be introduced to them carefully in an age appropriate way.

And by the way, I was not allowed to use guns unsupervised as a child, except for a BB gun after I was 12 years old, which would have been confiscated immediately if he saw/heard of me pointing it at a person or pet. Where the heck do you get that? I said my Dad taught us how to use them. I didn't say he let us use them unsupervised.

Yes handguns can be used for target shooting but we didn't do much of that either, except to sight in a scope or an occasional outing plinking tin cans with a 22. Of course a deer rifle can be used as a sniper rifle. My point was that my Dad didn't have any use for a handgun. He did have a use for rifles and shotguns.

[Paladin]

16. I Don't Think You Have Much Standing To Complain About This

Face it: you're probably the most active and verbose gun rights advocate in Democratic Underground. Talk about hiding behind a curtain: why not tell all the folks that you spend the overwhelming part of your time in the DU Gun Dungeon, with occasional visits out to other forums when a gun-related topic presents itself, like this one. You're engaged in a constant round of chain-pulling yourself, pushing your own agenda, trying to convince everybody that assault rifles and pistols are swell. That's OK, that's your right, but don't go all huffy and self-righteous about a journalist expressing a contrary opinion. He's not doing anything you're not doing.....

[benEzra]

19. Guess you don't go into healthcare and 4thA related threads much...

Do I have a strong interest in the gun issue? Definitely. Do I have a strong interest in other issues? Also definitely... Let's see, I subscribe to Automotive Enthusiasts, Health, Gamers, Outdoor Life, Bicyling, Guns, Science...geez, I need to get a life...

Did you catch the mega-thread mythsaje (sp?) started on public health policy last week?

Of course, we've had this conversation before, you and I...

[MrBenchley]

21. Lo the poor gun "enthusiast"

The press is anti-gun, the Democrats are anti-gun, liberals are anti-gun, the AMA is anti-gun, the ACLU is anti-gun, the VPC is anti-gun, the Episcopal Church is anti-gun, the big cities are anti-gun, the Kansas City Cheifs are anti-gun, Rosie O'Donnell is anti-gun, etc., etc. etc.,....

And all the gun enthusiasts have are a few honest souls like the American Nazi party and Ted Nugent on their side.

[MrBenchley]

22. Yeah, they just happened to have their toddler along

among the guns....and couldn't see what was wrong with letting the little skeezix play with one. How dare a photographer take advantage of such a tender moment? (snicker)

"it was intended to make you cringe"
Now, Ben, why would it do that? Aren't you always telling us that voters are just slavering to get their sweaty shaky hands on assautl weapons and tote concealed handguns in their pants?

"Evil NRA and its mindless drones"
Yeah, the truth hurts.

[bobbieinok]

15. international students and gun shows

I was teaching a college class at a conservative christian college in the spring of 1995. More than half the class were international students. One of their previous instructors had suggested they watch Dorothy and the Wizard of Oz to get some background for a lot of US sayings, eg 'I don't think we're in Kansas anymore.'

I suggested they attend an up-coming gun show for a view of US life that they definitely did NOT get in the protected environment of the college.

About 3 weeks later there was the OKC bombing!!

[MrBenchley]

23. They might well have encountered McVeigh himself....

He was a regular on the gun show circuit, where he didn't stand out in any way from the rest of the crazies.

[Endangered Specie]

24. Nice brush, didn't know they made em that wide...

I bet he has walked into a Food Lion (and quite likely undistinguisable in a crowd too)... want to ban Food Lions?

Have you ever been to a gun show? Of course there are shady/crazy people there, but you try and assemble a group of several hundred people and not get a few nuts.

[MrBenchley]

26. An accurate descriptrion of gun loonies....

You think there are people selling and discussing The Turner Diaries at Food Lion? That is hilarious.

"you try and assemble a group of several hundred people and not get a few nuts."
Funny, I've been to lots of gatherings where there weren't shitheads selling Nazi memorabilia and handing out hate literature.

[Endangered Specie]

27. my point was...

yes you get plenty of nuts (the nazi memoribilia table is a staple, but most of that stuff fake) but that does not make Everyone nuts. The gun shows Ive been to I havent seen any overtly racist lit, but then again I usually spend my time trying to discern where the milsurp tables are and don't venture much anyplace else.

If you are into military history some gun shows are like gold mines. but I digress.

[MrBenchley]

28. Hardly worth making....

And again, so few decent people hang out where there are racists and folks with a Nazi fetish--but that doesn't seem to bother the trigger happy even a tiny little bit...until its pointed out in public that those sorts of things are there.

Just as it's hilarious to see that the outrage from our "gun owning liberals" isn't that these imbeciles have let a baby fondle a gun--but that the media dared to take a picture of imbeciles letting a baby fondle a gun.

[Endangered Specie]

25. I think this guy would be better...

at writing cheesy drama novels, then 'serious' opinion pieces (Im assuming this is opinion, it sure as hell isn't objective journalism)